1 Friday, 28 January 2005

2 [Open session]

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

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

6 the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Case

8 number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecution versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir

9 Kubura.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Could

11 we have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your

13 Honours, counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

14 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted today by Andres

15 Vatter, our case manager.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the

17 appearances for the Defence, please.

18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President, good day,

19 Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic,

20 counsel, and Muriel Cauvin, legal assistant. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the

22 appearances for the other Defence team.

23 MR. DIXON: For Mr. Kubura this morning, Mr. Rodney Dixon and

24 Mr. Nermin Mulalic. Thank you, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Trial Chamber

1 would like to greet everyone present. This is our 172nd day. I'd like to

2 greet the members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, some of whom are

3 missing, the accused, and everyone else in and around the courtroom.

4 We will be continuing with the cross-examination of a witness

5 today. He must be waiting, and I will now ask the usher to bring him into

6 the courtroom.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Neuner.

8 MR. NEUNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning everybody

9 in and around the courtroom. I just want to make a short announcement

10 while the witness is coming to the courtroom. The Prosecution intends to

11 use two new documents this morning. My colleague Mr. Mundis has announced

12 yesterday that this might occur. I have exchanged yesterday also mobile

13 telephone numbers with the Defence counsel and I have made two calls in

14 order to do everything possible to give advance notice that documents are

15 coming, and this morning my understanding is they have been delivered as

16 late as when we assembled here in the courtroom. I just want to give

17 notice about this fact. Thank you.

18 [The witness entered court]

19 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honour. If I can confirm that we have

20 this morning received two new documents. I know my learned friends were

21 under some time pressure, but the first time I did manage to get these

22 documents was this morning, and I've been able to look at them now for the

23 first time, and on first glance we will wish to address Your Honours on

24 whether these documents can be shown to the witness or not at the

25 appropriate time. So we would ask at that stage if the witness could be

1 asked to leave the courtroom so that we can submit to Your Honours what

2 our position is on those documents. Thank you, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Good day, sir. I'd

4 like to ask you to leave the courtroom for a few minutes because there is

5 a procedural issue that we have to deal with first. The usher will escort

6 you out of the courtroom.

7 [The witness stands down]

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to

9 Mr. Dixon, the Prosecution has told us that yesterday during the hearing

10 the Prosecution said that they would be presenting new documents. The

11 Prosecution has said that yesterday evening, they tried to contact the

12 Defence by phoning their mobile number. Apparently they weren't able to

13 reach you, and you only received the documents in question this morning.

14 So that's the situation.

15 Mr. Dixon.

16 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, if I can advise that we did receive

17 mobile messages very late last night but those messages didn't refer to

18 which documents would be regarded as the new ones. In fact, Mr. Neuner

19 said at that stage he did not know which were the documents he was going

20 to use today. So the first time we found out about these documents was

21 this morning. That's when he knew exactly which documents would be used.

22 And I've only been able to briefly look through them now.

23 My proposal would be that Mr. Neuner should, when the appropriate

24 time comes in his cross-examination, if he does wish to still use the

25 documents, to submit to Your Honours at that point what the reason is for

1 wanting to show the document. If it's credibility, on what basis he

2 wishes to challenge the credibility of the witness and/or if it is memory

3 refreshing. Perhaps it's premature to consider the question now. I have

4 some questions to ask the witness on behalf of Mr. Kubura, and then

5 Mr. Neuner will proceed, and based on the answers the witness gives,

6 perhaps that would be the right time to break and discuss whether these

7 documents can be shown to the witness.

8 Thank you, Your Honours.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, all the -- we are

10 aware of the fact that the Prosecution wasn't able to abide by your

11 decision with regard to the new documents and provide them 24 hours in

12 advance. For the sake of the transcript, I would like to say that

13 although my mobile was on throughout the night, we did not receive any

14 messages in the course of the night. We saw the documents five or six

15 minutes [Realtime transcript read in error "months"] ago when they were

16 given to us and for this reason I fully agree with the suggestions made by

17 my learned friend, namely that we should first have a look at the

18 documents and then hear from the Prosecution about the reason for which

19 they want to use them and then we will state what our position is. Thank

20 you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Before I give the floor to

22 the Prosecution again, as far as the new documents are concerned, as you

23 know, we rendered an oral decision stating that new documents could only

24 be used to check a witness's credibility or to refresh a witness's memory.

25 These are the only two reasons for which we said that the documents that

1 the Prosecution had after the end of the Prosecution's case could be used.

2 They can be used either to test the credibility of a witness or to refresh

3 a witness's memory.

4 We also added that if the Prosecution wanted to use such material,

5 we wanted these documents to be disclosed at least 24 hours in advance.

6 Defence counsel examined the witness yesterday about certain issues not

7 contained in the written summary, and as a result, the Prosecution only

8 realised that these issues would be addressed yesterday afternoon. For

9 this reason, it was difficult to respect the 24-hour notice since the

10 problem arose yesterday afternoon.

11 Defence counsel, Mr. Dixon, told us that as far as testing the

12 witness's credibility is concerned, it would be best to wait to hear the

13 questions and answers before using the documents, if necessary. It's not

14 necessary to use them before since we will wait to see whether there are

15 any new elements that arise.

16 Yesterday the witness answered certain questions, and that is the

17 situation we are in now.

18 Is there anything that the Prosecution would like to say before

19 the Judges discuss the issue?

20 Yes, Defence counsel.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Just for the sake of the

22 transcript, I would like to say that on page 4, 11 -- 10 and 11, instead

23 of "five to six minutes," it says "five to six months." So I would be

24 grateful if that could be changed.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This will be done.

1 I will now give the floor back to the Prosecution. You have heard

2 what the Defence has said, and I will now give you the floor.

3 MR. NEUNER: I'll try to be brief. I just want to say that the

4 examination-in-chief was concluded -- of the witness Fehim Muratovic was

5 concluded at around 4.00 yesterday afternoon, which is already within the

6 24-hour time frame. I personally was then leaving the courtroom and was

7 approaching both Defence counsels and it is true I only exchanged with

8 Mr. Rodney Dixon a mobile telephone number, and I called him at some point

9 tonight when a selection of documents had not been done. I -- Mr. Dixon

10 ensured to me that I could call late, and I indeed did so. And I did call

11 Mr. Dixon this morning and gave him all the documents which have been

12 selected, and this is actually the final selection.

13 The two new documents which had been selected had been disclosed

14 to the Defence. I will state the date and everything later.

15 I can ensure, Your Honours, that these two documents relate to

16 issues which have not been covered by the Defence summary which the

17 Prosecution had received in advance of Mr. Muratovic's

18 examination-in-chief. They relate exclusively to the guerrilla unit, and

19 the fact that Mr. Muratovic would talk about the guerrilla unit was not

20 known to the Prosecution prior to yesterday's examination-in-chief. So

21 therefore, the Prosecution is aware about the 24-hour deadline and has

22 tried to do its best by putting the Defence counsels on advance notice as

23 much as possible.

24 I was also, when I was coming in this morning, consulting with our

25 case manager, Mr. Andres Vatter, and he told me though there was time

1 available, there is at this late stage no possibility to store the

2 documents into the usual facilities because at this late stage in the day,

3 it would have been highly unlikely that the Defence counsels would have

4 opened the disclosure box. So for this reason, the actual disclosure

5 occurred, as was stated by my learned friends, in the courtroom.

6 Thank you very much.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges, having deliberated,

10 we decided that when the credibility of a witness was at stake or

11 refreshing a witness's memory was at stake, in such cases we could grant

12 leave to present new documents. It would be best to start with the

13 cross-examination, and we will see what the situation is as the witness

14 provides his testimony. Although the document wasn't examined in detail

15 by the Defence, they weren't in a position to do so, but nevertheless, I'm

16 sure that given the fact that they are so professional, this will allow

17 them to assess the situation. They will be able to assess the situation

18 since they have the document. They've had it for a few minutes. I don't

19 know whether the document is long or not, but if it's quite brief, they

20 won't need a long time to assess the document and to be in a position to

21 put pertinent questions since after the Prosecution has put its questions

22 to the witness and after we've heard the witness's answers, you will have

23 sufficient time for additional questions that relate to the document.

24 Mr. Usher, could you call the witness into the courtroom, please.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 WITNESS: FEHIM MURATOVIC: [Resumed]

2 [Witness answered through interpreter]

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you had to wait for a few

4 minutes but there was an issue we had to deal with, a minor issue we had

5 to deal with. We will now continue with your testimony, which should be

6 completed today, rest assured. Without wasting any more time, I will give

7 the floor to the Prosecution for their cross-examination.

8 Mr. Neuner, you may take the floor.

9 Mr. Dixon.

10 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. We have a few questions for

11 the witness.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. We were focused

13 on the Prosecution, and I had forgotten about you, but I'm glad to give

14 you the floor. And in addition, you have additional time to ask

15 questions.

16 Cross-examined by Mr. Dixon:

17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic. I'm going to ask you a few questions

18 on behalf of Mr. Amir Kubura from the 7th Brigade.

19 Sir, you said yesterday that you had certain problems from March

20 and April 1993 onwards with - and these are your words - "small groups of

21 foreign nationals." You referred to one group called the Turkish

22 guerrilla and another group which you referred to as the El Mujahedin

23 group; is that right? If you could just give a yes for the purposes of

24 the transcript.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Could you please confirm, sir, that from your investigations the

2 members of these groups, the foreign nationals that you referred to, none

3 of them were ever part of any brigade of the 3rd Corps of the Bosnian

4 army, nor were they commanded by any brigade, including the 7th Muslim

5 Brigade. Is that right?

6 A. Yes, that's correct.

7 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you weren't here for the trial up until now, but

8 Their Honours have in the course of the trial heard mention made of a

9 guerrilla platoon that was part of the 7th Muslim Brigade. It is an

10 Anti-Sabotage Platoon consisting of local Bosnian soldiers, and some

11 documents have been referred to in that regard.

12 I want to ask you, given your evidence yesterday, and just so

13 there's no confusion for Their Honours, the Turkish guerrilla unit that

14 you referred to, that has nothing to do with the guerrilla platoon in the

15 7th Brigade or any other guerrilla unit within the Bosnian army; is that

16 right?

17 A. That's correct. The Turkish guerrilla group had absolutely no

18 relation to the guerrilla or, rather, the unit that was also called

19 guerrilla unit and was part of the 7th Muslim Brigade, as far as I know.

20 The guerrilla group from the 7th Muslim brigade was composed of local

21 people from Zenica and the surrounding villages and places. There was the

22 town guerrilla and the mountain guerrilla, that's what they called

23 themselves, and they had absolutely no connection with this guerrilla

24 group that we have mostly been discussing.

25 Q. Yes. Thank you, sir. I have no further questions.

1 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dixon. Since

3 Defence counsel has completed examination, I will now give the floor to

4 the Prosecution for their cross-examination.

5 Cross-examined by Mr. Neuner:

6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic. My name is Matthias Neuner. I am

7 appearing here along with my colleagues on behalf of the Prosecution. I

8 will put a couple of questions to you, and the aim is not to confuse you,

9 but if you don't understand a question, please ask me to repeat it or

10 rephrase it and I will try to do so. Do you understand this?

11 A. Yes, yes. I understand.

12 Q. In the military security organ of the 3rd Corps, you testified

13 yesterday you started as a clerk. When exactly did you start your duties

14 as a clerk, and at what point in time were you appointed to the post of

15 assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff and security affairs?

16 Please just state the dates.

17 A. Like I said yesterday, the military security service of the 3rd

18 Corps in the course of 1993, particularly in early 1993, was a service

19 that was evolving. Formally we had an establishment within the unit. We

20 had all the allocated posts, but most of us who worked there were not

21 professionals by our qualification, so everybody did everything. I

22 entered the service in mid-March 1993. Specifically, the

23 counter-intelligence assistant, the post that I began, began in mid-August

24 1993. My colleague Osman Vlajcic was the assistant chief for

25 counter-intelligence affairs.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. I have to ask you --

2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: I started doing this

3 job in July, not August.

4 MR. NEUNER:

5 Q. Just to confirm again, in July 1993, you were no longer a clerk

6 within the military security organ, but from July 1993 onwards, you were

7 assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff and security affairs in

8 the 3rd Corps organ for military security. Just say yes if it is so.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is there an interpretation

10 problem?

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It's not an interpretation

12 problem, but my colleague is relying on the testimony of the witness or

13 the statement of the witness, because the witness never said that in July

14 of 1993 he left the service. He said that in the first quarter of 1994,

15 he moved to the duty of deputy -- assistant commander for

16 counter-intelligence. So we believe that a question which is actually not

17 based on a previous answer by the witness is inadmissible.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Prosecution has the

19 right to put to the witness questions and to hear from him which duties he

20 performed and exactly what he did. If there is any doubt about exactly

21 what his duties were, then now is the proper time to clarify that. So I

22 believe that the Prosecution has a right to ask these questions.

23 I personally did not understand quite what exactly we're

24 discussing here, but please continue.

25 MR. NEUNER:

1 Q. Let me start from scratch, from anew. Mr. Muratovic, you were a

2 clerk from mid-March 1993 in the military security organ of the 3rd Corps?

3 A. That is correct.

4 Q. Until what time did you remain in that post?

5 A. I was a member of the military security service practically until

6 the end of the war in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 Q. What I'm trying to clarify is you said yesterday you were a clerk

8 first and at some point in time you became, within the MS, military

9 security organ of the 3rd Corps, at some point in time you were moving up

10 to the position of assistant commander of counter-intelligence staff in

11 security affairs. When were you no longer a clerk but when did you

12 perform the new function as assistant commander of counter-intelligence?

13 Just state a date, a point in time, please.

14 A. As I said yesterday, all of the duties that I mentioned are as --

15 are within one of the organs. These are just separate parts of one and

16 the same organ.

17 In the beginning, I was a clerk for security within the organ, but

18 in the beginning everybody did everything. All of us in the organ

19 performed all of the duties in accordance with the specific orders from

20 our superiors. However, later, in order to respect the establishment of

21 classifications, we were allocated to certain posts. I cannot recall the

22 exact dates, but what I'm saying is that in the first quarter of 1994, I

23 was appointed to this post assistant commander for counter-intelligence

24 affairs -- counter-intelligence.

25 Q. And on that new post, from the first quarter of 1994 you remained

1 throughout the war; is that correct?

2 A. No, that is not correct. And there was some other changes there,

3 too. A long time has passed since then. There were many events. So at

4 this point in time, especially under these circumstances, I'm not able to

5 give you a specific answer about all the duties that I performed.

6 Q. I understand that, but can you just tell the Judges, did you stay

7 in the military security organ of the 3rd Corps throughout the war,

8 without giving the exact duties which you performed there?

9 A. Yes. I stayed in the security organ of the 3rd Corps, except for

10 the last four or five months of the war when I moved to the post of chief

11 for housing affairs of the 3rd Corps.

12 Q. How many staff members were in the military security service of

13 the 3rd Corps in March 1993 when you came? Just state a number.

14 A. In the beginning, there weren't too many of us. I think there

15 were perhaps four or five people at the most.

16 Q. And you stated yesterday that with the arrival of Mr. Dugalic,

17 Ramiz Dugalic, which was at about the same time, the number of staff

18 increased. Until June 1993, approximately how many more members did join

19 the staff?

20 A. When I came to the military security service, there were two

21 people dealing with security matters in that service and also a person who

22 performed the duties of secretary in the organ. When I came, this number

23 increased by three people. I can't really be precise. In June, there

24 were three more people, so there were five of us at the most.

25 Q. The military security organs from the brigades within the 3rd

1 Corps area of responsibility, did they usually report to your 3rd Corps

2 security -- military security organ or did they also bypass and send

3 reports upwards to the military security administration of the Supreme

4 Command?

5 A. The military hierarchy, the command and control system in the

6 military is of a gradual nature. The organs from the lower units, from

7 brigades and independent battalions, could not communicate directly with a

8 command that was higher than the corps command. So they were directly in

9 communication with us.

10 Q. So if a military security organ of a brigade would assemble

11 intelligence information, the exclusive channel to send this information

12 upwards was the channel to your organ, the military security organ of the

13 3rd Corps?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Let me turn now to Bugojno. On what day in mid-August 1993 did

16 you go to Bugojno?

17 A. I think that it was on the 16th of August, 1993.

18 Q. You testified yesterday, on page 28 and 29, that before you went

19 there, and I quote you now: "The chief of security had previously been

20 present there in Bugojno." Do you recall approximately how many days

21 before you yourself went to Bugojno did Mr. Dugalic visit the town?

22 A. As far as I can recall, this was perhaps two weeks before we went

23 there. From ten days to two weeks, to 14 days. That was the time period.

24 Q. Before Mr. Dugalic left for Bugojno, I understand at the beginning

25 of -- approximately at the beginning of August 1993, did he tell you why

1 he went there?

2 A. Mr. Dugalic was my superior officer, so he did not have to tell me

3 why he was going to Bugojno. He did not have that obligation.

4 Q. I understand that. How long did he stay in Bugojno?

5 A. I don't remember.

6 Q. You said you were in Bugojno on the 15th of August -- excuse me,

7 16th of August, 1993. Who was the first person you met in -- once you

8 arrived in Bugojno?

9 A. When I came to Bugojno, it was logical that I would meet with my

10 colleague in the local unit at the command of the 307th Brigade. So I met

11 the assistant commander for security of that brigade.

12 Q. Can you, for the benefit of the record, state his name, please.

13 A. Mr. Enes Handzic.

14 Q. And you testified yesterday you spoke to somebody from the 307th

15 Brigade. This is Mr. Enes Handzic? Just to clarify.

16 A. Yes, it's the same person.

17 Q. Did you speak to somebody else while you were in Bugojno?

18 A. When I was in Bugojno, I also had a meeting with a person from the

19 Operations Group, Mr. Kemal Dzafic, the assistant commander for security.

20 And we also tried to have a meeting with the commander of the municipal

21 defence committee of Bugojno, Mr. Vlaho Jelic.

22 Q. In the -- you testified at length about the conversation with the

23 military -- with the -- with your colleague from the 307th Brigade. What

24 did you discuss with Mr. Kemal Dzafic, if I may ask?

25 A. The same topics that I discussed with Mr. Handzic I also covered

1 with Mr. Kemal Dzafic; the current situation in Bugojno, the treatment of

2 the prisoners, the possibility of transferring those persons to Zenica, to

3 the POW centre. These were the questions that we talked about.

4 Q. And what were you told by your colleague from the OG?

5 A. His answers were the same as those by Mr. Handzic. He told me

6 about the same problems regarding the transport of those individuals to

7 Zenica. He briefly talked about the situation in the town of Bugojno, the

8 situation with the prisoners of war in the places where they happened to

9 be accommodated at that time, and so on.

10 Q. What did he say about the situations of the prisoners of war in

11 the temporary detention facilities in Bugojno?

12 A. Yes, he did.

13 Q. What did he say? What did he tell you? Like everything was going

14 fine or there were certain problems? You mentioned yesterday already

15 something.

16 A. From Mr. Enes Handzic and from Mr. Dzafic I got the same answers;

17 that the prisoners of war were mostly doing fine except for this one

18 incident where some members of the 307th Brigade whose families were

19 killed by members of the HVO in the village of Vrbanja who broke into one

20 of those centres which happened to be at the furniture salon. They

21 attacked five or six members of the HVO. One of them was killed, died,

22 and the others were given medical treatment.

23 Q. Do you recall from your conversations at about what point in time

24 in August 1993 did this incident occur with the furniture salon? Was this

25 briefly before you talked to them or did your colleagues tell you it was a

1 week or two weeks before you talked to them?

2 A. I don't remember that. It would be very difficult for me to tell

3 you exactly when this happened, but it was before we arrived at Bugojno.

4 I don't know how many days before our arrival it was, though.

5 Q. Did they mention the name of any victims who had been beaten or of

6 the person who died to you?

7 A. Yes. They told me the name of the person who died.

8 Q. Do you still recall that name, please?

9 A. No. No, I don't. But I mentioned that name in the report that I

10 drafted once I returned from Bugojno. I did note down his name, but I

11 really do not remember now what his name was.

12 Q. You said yesterday that upon your return to Zenica you sent this

13 report to your superior. Is this Mr. Dugalic, just for clarification?

14 A. When I went to Bugojno with my colleague, Mr. Dugalic happened to

15 be sick, and he was at home recuperating. I addressed my report to the

16 commander of the 3rd Corps.

17 Q. And did you ever receive a response from the commander of the 3rd

18 Corps in relation to that incident?

19 A. I never received a written response, but in a conversation that I

20 had with him, the commander said that what we did up there was well done,

21 that we did a good job.

22 Q. I don't understand. You were reporting to Mr. Hadzihasanovic that

23 a person had died and that people were beaten in the furniture salon. I

24 don't understand why this can be considered a good job. Can you explain?

25 A. No. We didn't understand each other. The thing that happened in

1 the furniture salon was not a good thing, but it was a good thing that

2 steps, legal steps, were taken against the persons who committed what they

3 did against the members of the HVO, because those people who entered the

4 furniture salon and beat up those HVO members were punished. The

5 commander of the local unit and the assistant security commander took the

6 appropriate legal steps vis-a-vis those persons in accordance with

7 regulations of the 3rd Corps and in accordance with the competencies that

8 they had out in the field. And that was to punish all forms of military

9 disciplinary violations or any other criminal acts.

10 Q. I understand you were told by your colleagues in Bugojno that

11 such legal steps had been taken. Did you yourself verify that information

12 by visiting the furniture salon, for example, or visiting the detained

13 perpetrators or suspected perpetrators of the incident while you were in

14 Bugojno?

15 A. During my stay in Bugojno, I didn't go to any of the places where

16 the POWs were held, but I also had no reason to doubt anything that my

17 colleagues had told me. These were professionals, people who performed

18 their jobs in a responsible way. So there was no need for me to check

19 that. They had no reason to conceal anything or to lie in their

20 reporting.

21 Q. Are you aware that a trial against these two perpetrators was ever

22 conducted?

23 A. Yes. They were brought before the military disciplinary organ in

24 Bugojno and were punished. That's what the report said that we received.

25 Q. When did you receive that report? About, approximately.

1 A. We received an oral report when we were in Bugojno. At that time,

2 we were told that the legal proceedings were under way and that these

3 persons were in detention, in military detention in Bugojno, these two

4 persons who beat up the members of the HVO.

5 Q. Do you know the name of the potential perpetrators? Were you told

6 these names but you have simply forgotten since it's so much time ago?

7 Were you told while you were in Bugojno the names of the perpetrators?

8 A. I assume that they told us what the names of those people were,

9 but it didn't mean anything to me, so I really don't know what their names

10 were.

11 Q. I understand from your testimony in the last minutes that there

12 was quite a frequent exchange about the military security situation in the

13 temporary detention facilities in Bugojno or about the situation there

14 between the military security service of the 307th Brigade and the 3rd

15 Corps military security organ in August 1993. Is this correct?

16 A. When we were there, of course we talked. When we went to Bugojno

17 as well as during the visit of our chief to Bugojno, we talked to those

18 people, and that's quite logical.

19 Q. But after you went back to Zenica, you also received information

20 about the situation in the temporary detention facilities in Bugojno, or

21 did any information stop? I'm just asking you, did you receive reports,

22 information?

23 A. We would receive sporadic reports. They were not regular reports,

24 but occasionally we did receive reports.

25 Q. I want to ask you my last question about Bugojno, about the

1 transfer of detainees from temporary detention facilities in Bugojno. You

2 said yesterday there was a convoy. Can you please state whether the

3 convoy was finally at a later point in time reaching Zenica or whether

4 only a few members from the detention facilities, the few members,

5 detainees from this detention facilities did go to the KP Dom Zenica or

6 can you state that no detainees from the detention facilities in Bugojno

7 ever came to the KP Dom Zenica? Just to clarify.

8 A. The convoy did not leave Bugojno. And I mentioned several reasons

9 for that. The vehicles were inoperative, then also the initiative by the

10 local Croat intellectuals.

11 Q. I understood that, but my question was directed to since the

12 convoy obviously did not reach Zenica, did at some later point in time

13 detainees from the detention facility were transferred to Zenica, fewer

14 detainees? That's my only question.

15 A. As far as I know, the transfer never took place.

16 Q. I want to talk now about the dual line of command in the -- or by

17 the 3rd Corps organ for military security.

18 You testified yesterday that when security threats occurred in the

19 3rd Corps area of responsibility, such a dual line of reporting by the 3rd

20 Corps military security organ was in use; is that correct?

21 A. The dual chain of command was not used only in such cases. The

22 line of command in the military security service is dual regardless of the

23 situation out in the field. We have expert command, and we have the

24 command line, command -- chain of command, and that is how it is in

25 peacetime and in wartime. That is how it is in our service and in all the

1 military security services in all the countries of the world.

2 Q. So you informed the 3rd Corps Commander, and you informed the

3 security administration of the Supreme Command, which was based in

4 Sarajevo; right?

5 A. That is correct. The military security administration was the

6 expert organ which issued orders to us in the 3rd Corps. So without the

7 permission of the security administration in the staff, we were not able

8 to take any steps.

9 Q. If you wanted to relay information to the Supreme Command in the

10 besieged town of Sarajevo in 1993, what technical means did you use to

11 send reports, to send information there?

12 A. In the building of the 3rd Corps Command, there was a

13 communications centre. I am not a technical person, so I don't know how

14 this was done, but I assume that this was done through radio

15 communications and it would be an encrypted line.

16 Q. As you just explained, such information would, one way or another,

17 in encrypted form reach the Supreme Command in Sarajevo. Would you agree

18 with me that certain information could go to Sarajevo but the transfer of

19 troops from the besieged capital, for example to the 3rd Corps area of

20 responsibility, was far more difficult at the time, if not impossible?

21 A. At the beginning, in the course of 1993, transferring troops of

22 any kind from Sarajevo was impossible and it wasn't done.

23 Q. So would you, therefore, agree with me that in order to address

24 security threats in the 3rd Corps area of responsibility, the 3rd Corps

25 had to essentially rely on its own manpower?

1 A. Apart from the 3rd Corps, there were forces in the free territory

2 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Apart from the forces of the ABiH and the 3rd

3 Corps and apart from the forces of the 1st Corps that were surrounded in

4 Sarajevo, there were other forces in the territory, and there was the five

5 -- the 5th Corps, the 6th Corps, the 1st Corps. So such communications

6 weren't completely impossible. It was possible to transfer some forces

7 from one area to another area.

8 Q. But effectively, security threats occurring in your area of

9 responsibility were primarily dealt with the available troops in the 3rd

10 Corps area of responsibility. Isn't at that true?

11 A. In Zenica and its surroundings from the very beginning of the

12 aggression on our country until the last day when some sort of agreement

13 was signed, there were permanent threats. Initially we only relied on our

14 own forces in our area.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, just for the sake

16 of the transcript, on page 21, line 11, after the word "staff" the words

17 "the Supreme Command" are missing. That's what the witness said. It

18 says "staff", but it doesn't mention the Supreme Command. The witness

19 said "the Supreme Command Staff."

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that correction.

21 MR. NEUNER:

22 Q. So you said, "Initially we only relied on our own forces in our

23 area." From the perspective of the military security service, does this

24 mean if you have intelligence information you as the military security

25 service have an interest to apprise your commander with that information

1 since he is in charge of forces to solve that security threat?

2 A. It should have been like that, but the security organ and the

3 intelligence organ makes assumptions about the situation, which doesn't

4 mean that these assumptions are fully correct, fully accurate. So they

5 don't have to inform their commanders on all cases, because informing

6 superiors about all such assumptions might just create confusion. I don't

7 know if you have understood what I'm trying to say.

8 Q. What I wanted to say is you had certainly an interest to solve

9 security threats in your area of responsibility, and you collected

10 information on how big, how small the threat was. And you also said that

11 basically the available troops were those from the 3rd Corps area of

12 responsibility. So my only question was did you inform the 3rd Corps

13 commander, according to your own assessment, adequately in 1993 about

14 security threats occurring in your area of responsibility?

15 A. As I have said, when I arrived in the organ at the beginning of

16 1993, I worked as an official. I was an official and informing the corps

17 commander wasn't something that was done at my level. There were others

18 who would be involved in such matters or who perhaps didn't act in this

19 way, so I couldn't really answer that question.

20 Q. I want to switch to the guerrilla. You testified to my learned

21 colleague that the Turkish guerrilla unit was different from the guerrilla

22 unit the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade. What do you know about the

23 guerrilla units or groups within the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade?

24 A. Well, I wouldn't like there to be any confusion [Realtime

25 transcript read in error "conclusion"]. The term "guerrilla" doesn't mean

1 it was a guerrilla unit, not at all. At the beginning of the war, since

2 the men had watched a lot of TV or films, they probably gave such names to

3 their units, perhaps to have an effect on the other side. I don't know

4 what the reason was, but that unit was not at all different from other

5 units in the 3rd Corps. The guerrilla that was in the 7th Brigade was

6 nowhere different from other units in the 3rd Corps. But in the case --

7 that was not the case for the Turkish guerrilla group which was composed

8 of foreigners.

9 Q. I understand that.

10 MR. DIXON: Sorry, Your Honour. Could I just clarify something in

11 the transcript before it goes off the page, and that is on page 24, line

12 4, the witness said, "Well, I wouldn't like there to be any confusion,"

13 not "conclusion." So if that could just be corrected. Sorry to

14 interrupt. Thank you, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

16 MR. NEUNER:

17 Q. Do you know who commanded the guerrilla -- I call it group now,

18 the guerrilla group within the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade in 1993?

19 A. I don't know who commanded the so-called guerrilla group. That's

20 not what I would call it. In any event, it was a man from that area,

21 Zenica or the surroundings. I don't know exactly where he was from. But

22 the men in that unit were local men from that area.

23 Q. Can we switch now to the so-called Turkish guerrilla. Was this

24 Turkish guerrilla stationed in Zenica or where was it stationed?

25 A. The Turkish guerrilla group was stationed in the nursery building.

1 They broke into that building. It was in Travnicka Street, in Travnicka

2 Street in Zenica.

3 Q. According to the information you collected, this group had a

4 leadership, you said. Was the leader of this group a person called Kemal

5 Turcin or Kemal the Turk?

6 A. That's how he called himself.

7 Q. What do you know about this Kemal Turcin?

8 A. Given what I've heard about him, this was a criminal. He had

9 committed certain crimes in the territory of Turkey, and at the beginning

10 of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he found refuge in Bosnia. He fled

11 from the law in Turkey.

12 Q. And about his activities on the ground in Zenica, do you know

13 anything? What did he do in Zenica?

14 A. Well, he and the entire group mostly committed illegal acts, not

15 to say crimes. This involved trafficking goods, fuel, cigarettes,

16 ammunition, weapons. Criminal acts. And in spreading panic among the

17 population. So they were involved in black marketeering. They, in a

18 certain sense, terrorised the civilian population in Zenica.

19 Q. Do you have any information whether this group was also stationed

20 in Arnauti, or was in Arnauti another group stationed? This is a village

21 about 12 kilometres east of Zenica.

22 A. I know exactly where the village is located but I don't know if

23 the group were stationed in Arnauti. As far as I know, they were

24 stationed in Travnicka Street in the nursery building and in a supermarket

25 that was next to the nursery school.

1 Q. So you said you know that village and you don't think that this

2 unit was stationed there. Which unit was stationed there in Arnauti? I'm

3 referring to a unit of foreigners.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. There is perhaps

5 a translation error. I heard that this group was in a nursery school and

6 in English I can see that it says a supermarket. So were they in a

7 supermarket or in a nursery school?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, in the nursery school and

9 the building of the supermarket next to the nursery school. So they were

10 in these two buildings. These were the two buildings they used and they

11 were next to each other.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And where were they? Were they

13 in the nursery school or in the supermarket?

14 A. In the nursery school and the supermarket.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In both these buildings. Very

16 well.

17 MR. NEUNER:

18 Q. Before I ask you the question about Arnauti, can you just state,

19 please, how many people were in the Turkish guerrilla, according to your

20 information?

21 A. We were never able to establish the number exactly since these

22 were mobile groups. Some of them were in that area, but they would

23 circulate in the area, so I couldn't say how many men there were in that

24 group.

25 Q. You said also that at some point in time you arrested the entire

1 leadership of this guerrilla group. Can you give the approximate date

2 when you arrested or the military security service arrested the entire

3 leadership? You said that on page 25 of yesterday's transcript.

4 A. As I said yesterday, towards the end of 1993 and at the beginning

5 of 1994. Please don't insist on the exact date because I can't really

6 remember the date. A lot of time has passed since then. But having

7 monitored this group for a number of months, we asked the Supreme Command

8 Staff or other security service to tell us what we should do with these

9 people. We were told that they should either be placed under the control

10 of the ABiH or that they should be arrested. Since they refused to be

11 placed under the control of the ABiH, the 3rd Corps military police

12 battalion took action and the leaders of that group were arrested. They

13 were processed by the civilian organs. That was at the end of 1993 and at

14 the beginning of 1994, more or less. And that is when that group ceased

15 to exist in the territory of Zenica. The remaining men from that group

16 were Bosniaks, and they had been in the group for certain benefits that

17 they had received. People were starving in the area of Zenica at the time

18 and they would receive flour, sugar, oil, et cetera. But these local men

19 then joined the regular units of the ABiH.

20 Q. You just said that "these local men joined the regular units of

21 the ABiH." Do you have any recollection about how many local men,

22 approximately how many local men you're talking about, and which ABiH

23 units did they join?

24 A. I wouldn't know. I really don't know how many such men there

25 were. But this included the 7th Muslim, the 314th, 303rd. Those were the

1 units that were in the area of Zenica at the time, and they joined these

2 units.

3 Q. So the local men who were for a certain period of time in the

4 Turkish guerrilla did stay in Zenica and joined the 303rd and probably, if

5 you're talking about the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade, you're talking, I

6 assume, about the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade, and

7 the 314th, the battalion of the 314th, who was stationed in Zenica; is

8 that correct? Just say yes --

9 A. Yes, that's correct.

10 Q. Thank you very much. Did the military security service of the 3rd

11 Corps ever receive any documents, any requests from this guerrilla unit in

12 1993? Did somebody from this unit approach the military security service

13 of the 3rd Corps and ask for something, request something?

14 A. I'm not aware that there were any requests made.

15 Q. Were you personally, in 1993, dealing with the threat posed by

16 this Turkish guerrilla or was a colleague of yours dealing -- within this

17 military security organ dealing with the Turkish guerrilla? Who was the

18 responsible person for the Turkish guerrilla within your service?

19 A. As far as I recall, from the month of June 1993, the

20 counter-intelligence jobs in the security service or the work with those

21 foreigners was performed by my colleague, Osman Vlajcic. I don't know if

22 they contacted him. I really don't know.

23 Q. I want to talk a little bit about the Mujahedin unit, or first of

24 all about the foreigners, the so-called Mujahedin. At the time you were

25 arriving in mid-March 1993, what was the knowledge within your service,

1 the military security organ of the 3rd Corps? What was the knowledge of

2 this unit about this -- these people? Where were they based?

3 A. At the time, we practically had no information about these people.

4 We knew that they were there in that area, moving around, that new people

5 were appearing amongst them every day, but we didn't really know exactly

6 what the situation was and nobody was entrusted with dealing with them or

7 finding out what this was all about.

8 Q. Who was the responsible person in your unit at the 3rd Corps

9 military security service who from then on dealt with the problem of the

10 -- problem -- with the Mujahedin? Did you deal with them or ...

11 A. As I said in the beginning, from March 1993 to approximately June

12 1993, we all did everything. So we acted in accordance with tasks issued

13 by superior commanders.

14 From June 1993, we all received specific tasks and our own area of

15 activity. So Mr. Vlajcic was in charge of the counter-intelligence within

16 the organ.

17 Q. You said yesterday - this is page 23, line 20 - "In April 1993, we

18 sent an inquiry to the security administration of the Supreme Command in

19 order to find out how to deal with the problem of the Mujahedin." What

20 response did you receive -- or first of all, do you recall at what point

21 in time did you send that request out? Was it the beginning of April or

22 was it the end of April 1993, when the Supreme Command was contacted?

23 A. Let me clarify this first. When I say we sent out an inquiry, I'm

24 talking on behalf of the organ. I did not personally do that. This was

25 done by my superior commander. The inquiry was sent out in early April

1 1993.

2 Q. And are you familiar with a response by the Supreme Command?

3 A. The Supreme Command centre replied to the effect that we should

4 try to find out who these persons were to try to identify them, to see

5 where they were coming from and which channels they were using to get to

6 Zenica, how many people there were, what were their intentions, in view of

7 the fact that this was something that was completely unknown to us. They

8 spoke a foreign language, we didn't know the people, we were not familiar

9 with their customs; we simply didn't know anything about them.

10 Q. And that reply, to the best of your recollection, came within a

11 short period of time after your service had sent out the initial request

12 or it took some time to get this response?

13 A. I really am not able to respond to that question. I don't

14 remember how much time passed.

15 Q. You said yesterday at the beginning you couldn't get -- you tried

16 to infiltrate these people - I'll just leave it there - but you basically

17 didn't succeed at the beginning or you had problems with doing this. Are

18 you aware that there were locals staying with this unit or locals staying

19 with these people, local Bosnian people?

20 A. In the beginning, this wasn't so. Later, when the unit stationed

21 itself where it did, then the local population joined the unit. In my

22 personal opinion, the reason why these people joined that unit was of a

23 social or economic nature. As I said, these people who entered the

24 Turkish guerrilla did that because of certain benefits. They received

25 food from the unit. The same thing applied to this other unit, the El

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Mujahedin, that group of people. People joined them because of that

2 reason.

3 Q. You said earlier and later when they were stationed. Can you just

4 inform the Trial Chamber what -- to approximately what time period are you

5 referring by "earlier," and what do you mean by "later" when they were

6 stationed? What time period are you talking about?

7 A. In the beginning, when I say, I mean specifically when I joined

8 the military security service in March 1992, you could already see them

9 there in the streets, and you can see them moving around the town. When I

10 say that they were stationed, then I'm talking about the autumn of 1993.

11 Q. So the comments, the last comments you made about the presence of

12 these foreigners, you were talking about the presence of these foreigners

13 in Zenica; is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It was March 1993 and

16 not March 1992.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Page 31, line 9, it

18 said 1992, but it should state 1993, March 1993. Thank you.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20 MR. NEUNER:

21 Q. You were talking yesterday on page 26 about the headquarter of the

22 Mujahedin in Zenica. Was this building located on the premises of the

23 company Vatrostalna in Podbrijezje or are you referring to another

24 location?

25 A. I mean that place. I mean the administrative building of the

1 Vatrostalna company in Podbrijezje. This is a suburb of Zenica.

2 Q. If I may ask you, before these people, the Mujahedin, moved in,

3 was this building used by or as a headquarter of the Frankopan Brigade,

4 headed by Zivko Totic in early 1993, or was this another building?

5 A. The command of the Jure Francetic HVO Brigade was in that

6 building, but when these people came, these foreigners, the building was

7 empty. It was abandoned. So they entered a building that was empty.

8 Q. To the best of your recollection, when did the Jure Francetic

9 Brigade abandon that building in 1993? Was it around the 8th June time

10 period or earlier?

11 A. I don't remember exactly, but I believe that it was in mid-1993.

12 Probably in the month of June, but I don't remember exactly.

13 Q. According to your information, how many Mujahedin were moving into

14 that building?

15 A. That was practically impossible to establish. The numbers

16 fluctuated continuously. They were not stationed in one place. In the

17 beginning, they were in Mehurici, in the Bila valley, so that every day

18 they would be going back and forth from there. It was very difficult to

19 determine how many there were. We invested a lot of effort to try to

20 establish exactly how many of them there were, but we were never

21 successful in that.

22 Q. Can you inform the Trial Chamber how far that building or

23 headquarter in Podbrijezje was away from the 3rd Corps headquarter? How

24 many kilometres, approximately?

25 A. Approximately ten to 12 kilometres.

1 Q. Were there any ABiH units stationed in Podbrijezje or was the --

2 were the Mujahedin the only force stationed in that part, in that suburb

3 of Zenica?

4 A. As far as I know, there were no B and H army units there where the

5 El Mujahedin group was, the one that had taken up that facility.

6 Q. I didn't ask for the same premises but for Podbrijezje as such,

7 for the suburb or -- how far, to your recollection, was the next ABiH unit

8 away?

9 A. I'm thinking. It was the command of the 314th Brigade that was

10 about eight to nine kilometres from that location.

11 Q. And you said yesterday that you tried to intercept telephone

12 conversations. Were you referring to the intercepting of telephone

13 conversations in Mehurici or were you referring to the intercepting of

14 telephone conversations in Podbrijezje headquarter or both?

15 A. I was thinking of the telephone calls from the command of the

16 group, from -- in Podbrijezje.

17 Q. What was the outcome -- or when did the interception of telephone

18 conversations start, approximately?

19 A. I am not able to say. I wasn't performing those duties at the

20 time. This was already from June until the end of 1993, and that was

21 already the area of responsibility of Mr. Vlajcic.

22 Excuse me. Can I add something else?

23 Q. Please.

24 A. This is the application of methods and means of the military

25 security service. So this is something that is secret. And the

1 application of these methods is something that only the person actually

2 working on that task would be familiar with, because if more people knew

3 about it, there would be the danger that the attempt to acquire

4 information in this way would fail.

5 Q. I appreciate that explanation. Did you perform any -- were you

6 involved in any surveillance, in any counter-intelligence relating to this

7 group? Was this also part of your tasks?

8 A. No, I was not involved in any tasks like that.

9 Q. My last question is you said you stayed throughout the war in the

10 3rd Corps area of responsibility. Are you aware that at the end of the

11 war an order was given by the Supreme Command to -- with regard to the

12 documentation or the dissembling of documentation about this group and

13 that this documentation should be handed over to a committee of the 3rd

14 Corps? Are you familiar with any such order? I'm referring to the time

15 period December 1995 now.

16 A. No, I'm not familiar with that order.

17 MR. NEUNER: At this point in time, the Prosecution has no further

18 questions.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's half past

20 10.00. We will have our technical break and we will resume at about five

21 to eleven.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now resume, and I will

25 give the floor to the Defence for re-examination.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We have

2 a few questions for this witness.

3 Re-Examined by Ms. Residovic:

4 Q. Good morning, Mr. Muratovic.

5 A. Good morning.

6 Q. My learned friend asked you whether, after you had filed a report

7 on the visit to Bugojno, you had any contact with the commander and you

8 said that your chief was ill at the time and that you sent that to the

9 commander. Could you tell me, within your security service in the 3rd

10 Corps, who usually contacted the commander?

11 A. In the 3rd corps security service, my chief, my superior officer

12 alone had contact with the commander.

13 Q. Given the fact that he was ill, was the fact that you contacted

14 him an exception? Was this a rule? Is this how the members of the

15 service would communicate with the commander?

16 A. Well, when I contacted the commander, this was an exceptional

17 circumstance, but since we had assessed -- since the report on Bugojno on

18 the situation of the POWs was such, this is how we decided to proceed at

19 the time.

20 Q. When your chief returned from sick leave, who continued to have

21 contact with the commander as of that date?

22 A. Only my chief did.

23 Q. You were in the security organ of the 3rd Corps. You said that

24 there were security organs up to the level of battalions. Whose duty was

25 it primarily, whose responsibility was it if they found out that ABiH

1 members had committed a crime of any kind to investigate the matter and to

2 institute proceedings against the perpetrators if the perpetrators were

3 identified?

4 A. It was the organ's duty to report on such events if it happened in

5 the zone of responsibility. It was the duty from the organ of that

6 battalion. And this information is then forwarded to the corps security

7 organ and then we propose further measures to be taken.

8 Q. When you obtain information, when you -- when you obtain

9 information through investigating the situation on the site and to

10 determine that the relevant organ from a subordinate unit took all

11 measures that it should have taken in accordance with the law and the

12 orders issued, when you determine that that is the case, is it necessary

13 for you to check what was subsequently done or is this something that is

14 the responsibility of the organ in accordance with the law?

15 A. It's the organ in the unit concerned that is involved in the

16 matter, and I really don't see why we should have to check anything in the

17 service, because the organs in those subordinate units would have no role

18 in that case. There would only be an organ in the corps or the Supreme

19 Command that would be involved in those matters. If we had any doubts as

20 to the work of the organs in subordinate units, this is what the situation

21 would be like.

22 Q. You said that in June there were about five of you in the 3rd

23 Corps security organ. I assume that this organ developed and that there

24 were more members towards the end of the year, but even if there were --

25 or if there had been three times as many of you, would you have been in a

1 position to check on all the criminal proceedings instituted against ABiH

2 members throughout the territory of the 3rd Corps? Would this have had a

3 purpose and would it have at all been possible?

4 A. Well, if we had a look at the number of criminal reports filed or

5 the number of proceedings instituted and compared that to the number of

6 people working in the 3rd Corps security organ, this would have been

7 impossible to do, especially when the roads were blocked, territory was

8 cut off and enemy lines were in the vicinity.

9 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you mentioned the chain of command, and you

10 [Realtime transcript read in error "I"] mentioned the expert line which

11 meant that you had to provide information on all measures taken, and you

12 also mentioned the line of command responsibility. My learned friend

13 asked you about the possibility of troops or units leaving Sarajevo that

14 had been encircled and going to other areas. In your opinion, was there

15 the possibility of the units leaving Sarajevo, and did this affect the

16 line of command in the 3rd Corps and any other units?

17 A. No. This has no effect. I'm not sure I've really understood what

18 you are asking me.

19 Q. Even though ABiH units which were deployed in Sarajevo that had

20 been encircled, even though those units couldn't leave, did this in any

21 way affect your responsibility to provide the security administration of

22 the Supreme Command with information that you obtained?

23 A. No. We had this responsibility and this duty wasn't diminished,

24 and we acted in accordance with our responsibilities. As far as all the

25 events in our zone of responsibility are concerned, we provide the Supreme

1 Command Staff security administration of all such information, and we

2 requested that they provide us with instructions for further action.

3 Q. Did the blockade of Sarajevo in any way change the responsibility

4 you had to follow the instructions that the security administration gave

5 you with regard to how you should act after you had obtained information

6 of interest to security or, rather, after you had obtained information

7 about crimes committed?

8 A. The blockade of Sarajevo in no way affected the duty we had to

9 inform on everything that happened in our territory.

10 Q. There's a mistake in the transcript. 37, page 37, line 9. The

11 word "I" appears instead of "you." I apologise for interrupting you.

12 Given that dual line of command and whether there was a blockade

13 or not, were you able to provide the corps commander with information

14 gathered in the security organ, information that you had to forward to the

15 security administration?

16 A. We didn't provide all the information we obtained. The methods of

17 the security service was not something that we communicated fully to the

18 3rd Corps, because if we had provided them with all the information we

19 had, this could have been counter-productive and certain measures might

20 have been taken that would not have been appropriate.

21 Q. So that I'm quite clear about this, when you carried out your

22 work, would you, for example, also be involved with members of the

23 commands of subordinate units or the commander of the corps? Could they

24 also be processed by your organ if you believed that this was necessary?

25 A. Yes. That was part of the field of the work of the security

1 service. They also had to control the command officers, and certain

2 proceedings had also been instituted against high level officers in the

3 ABiH, against brigade commanders, et cetera.

4 Q. To be quite clear about this, you said that this might create

5 confusion and that certain measures might be taken. If you provided all

6 such information to the commander, would the work that you did have any

7 purpose?

8 A. No, none at all.

9 Q. Thank you. I only have one more question for you which has to do

10 with your response. You said that you had arrested the leaders of Turkish

11 guerrilla group and you said that the Bosnians that were with them were

12 assigned to other units. Tell me, if there were any doubts, if there was

13 suspicion that these Bosnians had also committed crimes, were measures

14 taken against them or were they granted an amnesty if you suspected that

15 they had committed crimes?

16 A. All the orders we received from the 3rd Corps Commander stated

17 that the law was the same for everyone, for our local people and for

18 foreigners who committed crimes. I could provide you with hundreds of

19 examples when our people -- when people were starving in Zenica and in the

20 free territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, wherever the ABiH was present, I

21 can provide you with examples where people were held to account for having

22 stolen ten kilogrammes of flour. Disciplinary measures taken against

23 them.

24 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Muratovic.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further

1 questions.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

3 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. We have no questions arising

4 from the cross-examination by the Prosecution. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as I'm

6 concerned. I have a few questions for you.

7 Questioned by the Court:

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all with regard to the

9 two guerrilla groups, in the sense brigade, in response to a question put

10 to you by Defence counsel, you said that these groups were composed of

11 people from the town or of men from the mountain. As far as you know,

12 because apparently you are a counter-intelligence specialist, as far as

13 you know, these men who were in the guerrilla groups, did they have

14 uniforms or not?

15 A. Yes, of course they had uniforms to the extent that this was

16 possible for us. It was at the beginning of the war, 1992 and 1993. I

17 don't know how you see the ABiH in that period, but to the extent that it

18 was possible, the men wore uniforms that they had been given by the units

19 or that they had obtained in some other way.

20 A. These weren't guerrillas. It was a unit just like any other unit.

21 It could have been called some sort of a company or a battalion, or they

22 could have given them a name such as El Mujahedin, but these men were

23 local men. There were no foreigners. The commander was a local man, and

24 all the men were from the territory of Zenica or from the surrounding

25 places.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. Thank you. Very well. They had uniforms. In relation to the

2 battalion or platoon, what was their specific mission when compared to

3 other units? Did they have a specific mission which would have justified

4 the use of the term "guerrilla"?

5 A. Well, on the whole the tasks they had were the same, but since

6 these men were quite courageous, so to say, they were volunteers that the

7 commander could always rely on when it was necessary to go into action or

8 to oppose enemy action. Well, these men were, after all, courageous men.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that they were

10 courageous men, and they must have had particular missions to accomplish.

11 Does that mean that these were high-risk missions, and were these missions

12 that were to be carried out in the enemy's depth?

13 A. Well, at the time, all the tasks were risky tasks. As to tasks in

14 the depth of enemy territory, I couldn't really say anything about that.

15 I didn't have such information at my level that these were high-risk

16 tasks. If the enemy penetrated the line, these were the men who would

17 first mount a defence of the free territory.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I'm following what you are

19 saying, when there was an operation, an attack, let's say, they were at

20 the front line.

21 THE INTERPRETER: The witness's answer was not audible.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you certain of that?

23 A. Yes, I'm sure of that.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll move on to another subject

25 now.

1 You spoke about two groups, the Turkish guerrilla group and the

2 Mujahedin group. At the very beginning, perhaps there was some

3 translation errors, but I noted this down: "We infiltrated our men in the

4 Turkish guerrilla group," and then when the Prosecution put questions to

5 you, you said that you tried to infiltrate men into the group. Could you

6 be clear and solve this ambiguity. Had your service infiltrated the

7 Turkish guerrilla group or did you try to infiltrate your men in the

8 guerrilla group? Can you see the difference?

9 A. Yes, I see the difference. I said that, and I was not talking

10 about men from the service but people who worked for the service. I said

11 that we managed to infiltrate our associates into the Turkish guerrilla

12 group and we tried to infiltrate them in the other El Mujahid group and we

13 were not successful in doing so. We tried to infiltrate them in the other

14 group. Towards the end of autumn, because we had infiltrated our men into

15 this first group, the leaders were arrested as a result of this action and

16 this group then eased to exist.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I'm following you correctly,

18 does this mean that the infiltration into the guerrilla group resulted in

19 success?

20 A. Yes.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And does that mean, if I have

22 understood you correctly, that at one point in time there were within the

23 guerrilla group Bosniaks who had close contact with you and they could

24 participate in various actions with the Turkish guerrilla group, and given

25 the methods that you were applying, you were aware of what was happening.

1 A. The Turkish guerrilla group couldn't have been used for the needs

2 of the ABiH since they didn't want to place themselves under the control

3 of the army. But through these men we found out what their intentions

4 were. We obtained the information we needed in order to deal with the

5 group. We found out about their strength, the weapons they had, about the

6 areas they were deployed, about the accommodation used by the leaders,

7 about the location of their flats, et cetera.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're saying

9 that thanks to the fact that men had infiltrated them, you knew about

10 their strength, the weapons they had, about the accommodation they used,

11 et cetera.

12 In response to a question from the Prosecution who asked you how

13 many of them there were, you weren't able to provide with us a number and

14 now I see that you're saying that you knew how many of them there were.

15 So how many of them were there?

16 A. I don't know how many there were. I'm still standing by what I

17 said that we don't know how many there were. The approximate number of

18 the Turkish guerrilla members was known but not for this other group, El

19 Mujahedin. We never managed to establish exactly how many of them there

20 were in spite of all our efforts and insistence to find out.

21 Q. Very well. As far as the Turkish guerrilla group is concerned -

22 I'm not talking about the Mujahedin right now, I'm talking about the

23 Turkish guerrilla group - how many of them were there?

24 A. I don't know.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't know. In response to

1 a question, you said the end of 1993, beginning of 1994, you were given

2 two possibilities; either to place them under control or to arrest them.

3 That's page 27, line 11. Can you confirm that at your level or at the

4 level of ABiH, at the level of the 3rd Corps, the issue of these members

5 of the Turkish guerrilla or the Mujahedin resulted in the idea that they

6 should either be placed under control or arrested. Could you clarify this

7 matter.

8 A. From the level of the security service of the 3rd Corps, an

9 inquiry was sent to the B and H army Supreme Command security services

10 administration about what to do about these people since they were

11 creating problems in the town both for civilians as well as for the

12 reputation of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. People, when they saw

13 somebody in uniform, they would think that they were members of the army

14 of B and H but they were in fact not members of the B and H army. After a

15 certain period of time, I don't know exactly after how long, we received a

16 response that they needed to decide whether they would place themselves

17 under the control of the 3rd Corps or the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina

18 or whether they needed to be dealt with, whether they had to be arrested.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And my final question: You said

20 that they were tarnishing the reputation of the army given their conduct

21 and that they really presented you with a problem, and you have already

22 said that these members of the Turkish guerrilla group committed crimes.

23 I'm quoting you. You mentioned trafficking, black-marketeering,

24 trafficking in weapons, spreading panic among the population, et cetera,

25 terrorising the population, et cetera. You described what these men did.

1 How can you reconcile the fact that there were men who committed crimes

2 and later you placed them in the army or you wanted to put them under the

3 control of the army? Could you clarify this issue. If you can't, just

4 say that the question is too complicated and that you can't answer it.

5 I'll repeat the question. You said that these men committed

6 crimes and then it was necessary to solve the problem by making them join

7 the army. One could come to the conclusion that the army was going to

8 have delinquents among its troops. How would you explain this?

9 A. I understood the question. I understand what you're saying.

10 Placing them under the control, this group, the Turkish guerrilla group, I

11 don't know how many people there were, perhaps there were 50 or 100, I

12 said that the majority of the group comprised of Bosniaks, people who were

13 there for purely economic reasons, for social reasons, in order -- they

14 were there because they were receiving food. All of these people are

15 innocent. All the Bosniaks did not violate the law. However, their

16 complete leadership, the leadership of the unit, it turned out that these

17 were some ten people, I'm not sure exactly how many there were, it's clear

18 that by placing them under the control, they would be then subject to the

19 laws and then they would have had to be processed for their deeds.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As we don't have

21 much time, I have one last question for you. You have just said that in

22 this group there were innocent Bosnians who had to be put on the right

23 path, in a certain sense, and you said that they had not done anything.

24 You said that it was only the leaders. Shouldn't these Bosnians, as far

25 as you know, given the fact that a state of war had been declared,

1 shouldn't these Bosnians had been in army units? How is it that they were

2 not in the army since there was a decree law according to which anyone fit

3 for military service would be automatically mobilised into the army?

4 Could you clarify this for us.

5 A. The 3rd Corps had over 30.000 members, people who were mobilised,

6 and it's clear that in the territory of about some 2 to 300.000 people -

7 this was a joint territory - it's clear that you would have some 50 or 100

8 people who would try to evade their mobilisation duty and join other

9 groups. In the beginning, this was easier because they simply concealed

10 themselves inside these groups.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you know - and this is

12 my last question - when the leaders of the Turkish group were arrested,

13 the Bosnians who were with them, were they assigned to units?

14 A. Yes. The majority passed into the composition of the 303rd,

15 314th, and the 7th Muslim Brigade.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Very well. Does the

17 Prosecution have any questions that arise from the Judge's questions?

18 Further cross-examination by Mr. Neuner:

19 Q. You stated again that you didn't know the numbers of foreigners in

20 the Mujahedin unit, the exact numbers. Are you aware that already in 1993

21 there were some lists of members of the so-called El Mujahedin detachment

22 and that such lists contained up to nearly 190 names? I'm referring to

23 foreigners as well as local names. Are you aware whether any such lists

24 were existing in 1993?

25 A. I don't know. I don't know.

1 Q. So you will therefore probably also not know that such lists

2 contained a kind of letterhead, 3rd Corps, and stating basically --

3 mentioning the 3rd Corps on top of such lists? You don't have such

4 information?

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness said he

6 doesn't know, so it's not correct.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Residovic, you would like to

8 make an objection, but the document has been admitted as an exhibit. I

9 did not specifically question the witness about Mujahedin. I put to him

10 one question about their numbers, and he said that he didn't know. The

11 Prosecutor would like to go a little further and is asking him whether

12 he's aware of a list existing. Is that your objection or is this a

13 tactical objection? I would like to know what this is about.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, this is not a tactical

15 objection. I just would like to say that the witness said that he didn't

16 know that there was any such list, and after such a response, you cannot

17 put additional questions about a list.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. He said that he

19 doesn't know about the list and he doesn't know their number.

20 MR. NEUNER:

21 Q. Turning to the guerrillas, you said you didn't know the numbers of

22 the Turkish guerrilla group. On the other hand side you said you

23 infiltrated this group. You found out -- let's say the military security

24 service of the 3rd Corps infiltrated this group. The military security

25 service found out about where the commander was accommodated, how many

1 weapons, that the majority of the members were local Bosnian members. If

2 you have all these details available in the military security service,

3 wouldn't that imply that the military security service was also aware

4 about the absolute numbers of these people? If you know details about the

5 apartments or about the accommodation of the leadership, then before you

6 get such details, and if you have members in this unit infiltrating the

7 unit, you will know how many members are in this unit or not.

8 A. I am not ruling out the possibility that somebody knew how many

9 there were. I personally did not know how many of them there were. I

10 didn't know how many members there were in the Turkish guerrilla.

11 Q. I understand that. You talk about the supermarket or nursery

12 being a kind of accommodation for the command or -- was this actually the

13 accommodation of the command or was this the accommodation of the whole

14 unit? Were these a kind of barracks or -- can you please explain?

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I didn't ask any questions about

16 the supermarket or about the nursery school. I asked him to provide a

17 more precise answer awhile ago, but in my direct questions that I put to

18 the witness just a minute ago, this is not an issue that I raised.

19 MR. NEUNER:

20 Q. The Presiding Judge was asking you questions relating to

21 operations, combat operations, of this Turkish guerrilla group. To the

22 best of your recollection --

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, I didn't ask any questions

24 about the combat operations led by the Turkish group. I asked a question

25 about the guerrilla group that was part of the 7th Brigade. I don't want

1 this to be confused, otherwise Defence will be on their feet to object.

2 My question was about the guerrilla and the 7th Brigade, not about

3 the Turks. I wanted to state that in order to avoid having the Defence

4 object, which would have resulted in a waste of time. Please go ahead.

5 MR. NEUNER: Thank you for this clarification. So I withdraw that

6 question.

7 Q. The Turkish -- you said that you talked about the local members of

8 the -- within the Turkish guerrilla, and you said that they were innocent,

9 so to speak. How did you personally know that these local members within

10 the Turkish guerrilla did not violate the law? On what basis do you say

11 they are innocent?

12 A. Members of the Turkish guerrilla could be seen around town, and it

13 was more or less known who committed these illegal acts, who was doing the

14 smuggling, reselling fuel, who was intimidating the civilian population.

15 This was something that the local people did not participate in.

16 Q. You said the law was the same for everyone. So it was applied for

17 local people and for foreigners. Did you personally, with the work of the

18 military security service of the 3rd Corps, come to the stage that the law

19 was also applied against the Turkish, the leadership of the Turkish

20 guerrilla? Were any legal proceedings instituted?

21 A. They were handed over to civilian organs, and I don't know what

22 happened to them after that.

23 Q. Do you know what charges or what criminal reports were filed by

24 the military security service of the 3rd Corps organ in relation to the

25 Turkish guerrilla?

1 A. They were not members of the army, and military security did not

2 issue charges against them. They were handed over to the civilian organs

3 who then dealt with them.

4 Q. I wasn't asking for charges. I was asking for criminal reports to

5 be filed by the military security service of the 3rd Corps. Since you had

6 infiltrated the group, you had knowledge -- you had gained knowledge about

7 the group, were some criminal reports filed, to your knowledge? Or maybe

8 there weren't any filed.

9 A. Like I said, they were handed over to the civilian bodies, to the

10 civilian judiciary bodies, and they then dealt with them further.

11 Q. Along this line I just want to ask if foreigners are stationed in

12 the 3rd Corps area of responsibility and you in the military security

13 service received reports about potential crimes committed by foreigners,

14 so brigade or military security services of brigades are sending reports

15 upwards to the military security service ...

16 MR. NEUNER: My learned friend has asked questions regarding this.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I've heard a few

18 questions now and I was paying careful attention to your questions and

19 what the Prosecution has now asked about brigades, about prosecuting

20 individuals, et cetera, has nothing to do with the questions that you put

21 to the witness.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Neuner. I didn't ask

23 any questions about this. He answered a previous question and said that

24 when these people were arrested, they were transferred -- or they were

25 handed over to the civilian police who dealt with them, and I believe that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 he has answered the question.

2 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has no further questions. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel.

4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you very much.

5 Further examination by Ms. Residovic:

6 Q. Mr. Muratovic, you said that for several months you surveilled

7 this Turkish guerrilla group before you submitted an inquiry to the

8 military security administration about taking further measures; is that

9 correct?

10 A. We first sent an inquiry to the administration asking them what to

11 do. They instructed us to take certain steps which we did vis-a-vis these

12 individuals.

13 Q. After you monitored this group, infiltrated it, and when you found

14 out certain things, after that did you ask the military security

15 administration about what you were supposed to do? When you provided them

16 information about their numbers, the command cadre, actions and so on.

17 A. In the expert sense, the military security administration organ is

18 superior to us, so everything that we did in relation to anyone else

19 within the area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps was something that we

20 had to have permission for from the administration of the military

21 security service of the Main Staff.

22 Q. You've already told us what kind of information you received and

23 how you found out what was necessary. Were you able to ask for permission

24 for an operation before you found out everything that you received back

25 from your associates or information you got through other methods? Before

1 you compiled all of this information were you able to embark upon an

2 operation which you eventually carried out?

3 A. Theoretically we could have asked for that, but it wouldn't have

4 made any sense. Only after we had compiled all of the information through

5 different means could we then embark on the operation itself.

6 Q. I assume we had some -- you had some kind of plan. I'm not sure

7 how you do that in the security services. So who had to approve your plan

8 of activity in relation to the guerrilla or anyone else that you were

9 planning to take steps against?

10 A. The chief of the security service administration of the Main

11 Staff.

12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.

14 MR. DIXON: Only one small follow-up clarification.

15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Dixon:

16 Q. I think you have made this clear already, but just so we can all

17 be sure. Could you confirm that it was common throughout the Bosnian army

18 for various brigades to have specialised units within those brigades that

19 would perform specialised tasks on the front lines, such as doing

20 reconnaissance work or anti-sabotage work, and that those units had

21 different names depending on the brigade. Is that right?

22 A. Yes. That was the practice. Those units were usually called

23 manoeuvering units, and they were of that type. And these were units

24 which were always prepared to combat certain enemy activities. Such a

25 unit in the 7th Muslim Brigade was called like that. It was called

1 guerrilla. At that point in time it seemed like a good idea to the people

2 who were in that specialised unit to call themselves that, and that is

3 what they did.

4 Q. And it would be correct, then, that there were other similar units

5 in other brigades with different names performing the same kind of tasks;

6 is that right?

7 A. Yes, that is right.

8 Q. Thank you, sir.

9 MR. DIXON: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Sir, this concludes

11 your testimony. Thank you for having come to The Hague, and thank you for

12 having answered the questions put to you by the Defence, by the

13 Prosecution, and by myself. On behalf of the Chamber, I wish you a good

14 trip home and all the best in your career in the ministry where you work.

15 I will now ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 [The witness withdrew]

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll be calling the second

19 witness into the courtroom. The Defence said that they needed 30 minutes

20 yesterday. We'd best make sure that the witness doesn't have to stay over

21 the weekend. Perhaps we will be able to complete this witness's testimony

22 by 1.45 p.m.

23 Mr. Registrar, we're in courtroom II, and I've noticed that

24 courtroom III is available. Why are we in courtroom II since courtroom

25 III is available? I'm taking this opportunity to put this question to

1 you.

2 Very well. Technical measures are being taken in courtroom III.

3 This is why we could not use it. But we'll be in courtroom III next week.

4 Mr. Registrar, I hope that the usher is aware of the fact that he

5 should bring the second witness into the courtroom. Do you have any news?

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 [The witness entered court]

8 WITNESS: RAGIB HADZIC

9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first

11 like to make sure that you are receiving the interpretation of what I'm

12 saying into your own language. Please say that you hear me and understand

13 me.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I hear you and understand you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have been called here as a

16 witness for the Defence to testify about certain events that you may have

17 been familiar with in 1992 and 1993. Before you take the solemn

18 declaration, I would be grateful if you could tell me your first and last

19 names, your date of birth and place of birth.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Ragib Hadzic. I was born

21 on the 6th of July, 1950, in Vlasenica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed, and

23 if so, what is your job?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a private business. I am a

25 private --

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. In 1992 and 1993,

2 did you hold a position of any kind; and if so, what was your position and

3 for which legal body did you work?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked for the municipal

5 prosecutor's office in Zenica and in the higher court or, rather, later in

6 the cantonal court in Zenica.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Have you already

8 testified before an international or national court about the events in

9 your country in 1992 and 1993 or is this the first time?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the

12 solemn declaration that the usher will show you.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may sit down.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution?

18 MR. WAESPI: I hate to interrupt at this point, but the witness

19 said, and it's recorded like that, that his name was Mr. Ragib Hadzic and

20 not Hodzic, but I may be wrong, because in the 65 ter summary it says

21 Hodzic, and that plays a big role in our searches. I'm just wondering

22 whether the Defence could clarify because then we could make some

23 correction.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll ask the witness to spell

25 his name.

1 Could you please spell your name for us and that will clarify the

2 issue immediately.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a mistake that is often

4 made. My name is Hadzic, the second letter in my surname is A.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So in your passport

6 or on your identity card your name is spelt with an H and A and not with

7 an O; is that correct?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Defence wrote

10 your name with an O.

11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] A mistake was obviously made. We

12 didn't check it. It's correct to say that Mr. Hadzic worked in the

13 prosecutor's office and he will only be talking about one subject that

14 relates to Dusina.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This could have

16 caused problems for the Prosecution when searching electronically for

17 information because HO wouldn't have yielded the same result as HA.

18 So you have been called here as a witness for the Defence and I

19 would like to provide you with some information about the procedure that

20 will be followed here. You will first have to answer the questions put to

21 you by the Defence, and they will be conducting what we call the

22 examination-in-chief. Once this stage has been completed, which should

23 not take more than 30 minutes, the Prosecution, who are to your right,

24 will conduct what we call their cross-examination. The questions put to

25 you in the course of the cross-examination must relate to the questions

1 put to you in the course of the examination-in-chief. The difference

2 between these two systems is that in the course of the

3 examination-in-chief you must not be asked leading questions. On the

4 other hand, the Prosecution is allowed to put leading questions to you.

5 As you can see, matters become complicated here.

6 After this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may ask you

7 additional questions that relate to the questions put to you by the

8 Prosecution. The three Judges who are sitting before you may also ask you

9 questions at any point in time if they believe that it is necessary, but

10 as a rule the Judges prefer to work for the -- wait for the parties to

11 have completed their examination before intervening. As a rule, when the

12 Judges ask questions, the purpose of our questions is either to clarify

13 witness's answers or because we believe it is in the interest of justice

14 to fill some of the gaps we have noted in the questions or in the answers.

15 When the Judges ask questions -- after the Judges have asked questions,

16 the parties have the right to ask the witness additional questions.

17 Defence counsel will be the last to take the floor and they may put any

18 questions they believe necessary to a witness after the Judges have put

19 their questions to the witness.

20 I would also like to point out that as you have taken the solemn

21 declaration, this excludes the possibility of giving false testimony. And

22 secondly, there is a provision that is applicable in this system and

23 perhaps in certain other countries, when a witness answers a question, if

24 the witness believes that his answer could be used at a subsequent date

25 against him, in such a case the witness may refuse to answer the question.

1 If this happens, but this is very exceptional and we have never had such a

2 case to date, if this happens, the Chamber can compel the witness to

3 answer the question but the witness is granted a form of immunity. This

4 is a very specific measure.

5 Without wasting any more time, I will now give the floor to the

6 Defence.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

8 Mr. President.

9 Examined by Ms. Residovic:

10 Q. Good day, Mr. Hadzic.

11 A. Good day.

12 Q. When you hear my question, I would like you to pause slightly so

13 that my question could be interpreted. I will also do the same thing when

14 I hear your response, and in that way Their Honours and our learned

15 friends in the courtroom can follow what you are saying. Did you

16 understand me?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Could you please tell me what your qualifications are.

19 A. I completed the Faculty of Law in Sarajevo in 1975.

20 Q. You told the Presiding Judge that you worked during the war --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was this in 1975 or 1985? We're

22 not sure. We heard 1985 but the transcript says 1975.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The transcript has it right. I

24 graduated on the 26th of November in 1975 in Sarajevo.

25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. You said that you worked in the basic court and then you worked in

2 the superior and then in the cantonal prosecutor's office of Zenica.

3 Could you please tell us whether at some point during the war you stopped

4 working in the prosecutor's office and worked in other duties. And if

5 this happened, could you please tell us, how long were you away from the

6 prosecutor's office during the war?

7 A. Yes, I did have a short break when I was mobilised and sent for

8 work duty. I performed the task of director of the centre for the

9 Institute for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity and

10 International Law, and this lasted from the summer of 1993 until April

11 1995.

12 Q. Since you spent a large amount of time in the prosecutor's office,

13 could you please tell me what was the area covered by the higher

14 prosecutor's office in Zenica?

15 A. According to the pre-war organisation of the judicial services in

16 Bosnia and Herzegovina, the superior prosecutor's office and the superior

17 court covered the municipalities of Zenica, Kakanj, Zavidovici, Zepca,

18 Travnik, Vitez, Busovaca, Gornji Vakuf, Donji Vakuf, Bugojno, and Kupres.

19 Q. Could you please tell me, the superior prosecutor's office, was

20 that responsible for the prosecution of persons for all criminal acts or

21 were its jurisdictions connected to the gravity of those crimes?

22 A. According to the general regulations, the superior prosecutor's

23 office prosecuted persons who committed crimes for -- which were to be

24 punished up to ten years in prison. And then the higher such bodies

25 prosecuted persons who had committed crimes punishable by sentences of

1 over ten years.

2 Q. Mr. Hadzic, who was the prosecutor in the high -- in the superior

3 prosecutor's office?

4 A. When I took upon -- that duty took upon myself, up to June 1997,

5 the superior public prosecutor was Sulejman Kapetanovic.

6 Q. When you were working in the prosecutor's office, what were the

7 regulations that you applied in your work?

8 A. Up until 1978, we applied the Law on Criminal Procedure of the

9 former SFRY, which was taken over as the republican law of

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 by a decree of the Presidency. The criminal

11 law of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the general parts of the criminal law of

12 the former SFRY, which were also applied to -- as republican law. And

13 also we applied other regulations from the law of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

14 Q. Mr. Hadzic, we would just like to clarify one thing which is in

15 the transcript here. Perhaps it's just a misstatement. Can you please

16 tell us up until when this Law on Criminal Procedure was applied.

17 A. Up until the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia

18 and Herzegovina was adopted.

19 Q. And when was this?

20 A. This was in 1998. I apologise. I made a mistake.

21 Q. My colleagues are warning me. I would like to repeat some

22 questions because the competency of the basic and the higher prosecutor's

23 office remained a little bit unclear. So could you please tell me now,

24 what was the basic prosecutor's office responsible for and for which acts

25 was the higher prosecutor's office responsible?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 A. The criteria was the sentence. The basic prosecutor's office

2 prosecuted persons which could be sentenced up to ten years of

3 imprisonment. The higher prosecutor's office prosecuted persons for more

4 serious crimes, punishable by ten years or more.

5 Q. Mr. Hadzic, during the war could you please tell me the basic and

6 the higher prosecutor's office, who was under their jurisdiction?

7 A. They had jurisdiction over civilians and over military persons

8 only if they committed criminal acts in some kind of collusion or jointly

9 with civilians.

10 Q. Mr. Hadzic, do you know whether, besides these prosecutors'

11 offices, the basic and the superior offices in the area of Zenica and a

12 broader area, was there any other prosecutor's office that was active; and

13 if so, what were their jurisdictions?

14 A. During the war there was also the district military prosecutor's

15 office which was responsible to the military court in Zenica, and its

16 jurisdiction included only military personnel and only civilians for very

17 specific crimes. As far as I recall, we are talking about criminal acts

18 committed against the arms -- armed forces in such cases.

19 Q. In order to use the fact that you worked in the prosecutor's

20 office and on that basis so that we could find out a little more about the

21 role of the prosecutor, could you please tell me when and based on what

22 did the prosecutor, in accordance with our regulations, issue or initiate

23 proceedings? Based on what information would he be able to start acting

24 in accordance with the law?

25 A. The prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings based on formal

1 criminal charges, an act, a document that somebody, most often it would be

2 the police, informed them that something had been committed that could be

3 a criminal act. They could also initiate formal proceedings based on

4 information received from some other sources. This was defined by law in

5 such a way by saying that the prosecutor had been informed that a crime

6 had been committed. This means that there were two possibilities based on

7 which the prosecutor would assess the grounds for initiating criminal

8 proceedings.

9 Q. Let's start from this second option. Could you please tell us

10 what was the role or the responsibility of the prosecutor when he had been

11 informed or when he learned information about indications existing of a

12 criminal act being committed. What was then the prosecutor duty bound to

13 do?

14 A. He was obliged to check the grounds for the information that he

15 received, which means that he was obliged to determine, according to law,

16 the authenticity and reliability of the facts and information that he had

17 learned. This was usually done through the organs for internal affairs.

18 The received information was checked and specific orders were given to the

19 interior -- the service for internal affairs. They were told who they

20 were supposed to interview, possibly which cases or items they needed to

21 deal with, and then after that this list would be completed.

22 Q. If the prosecutor received a formal criminal charge, what were his

23 duties and what was the procedure that he followed in such a case?

24 A. If the material that came along with the criminal charges provided

25 sufficient grounds for the prosecutor to conclude that there was reason to

1 believe that a criminal act had been committed, then the prosecutor

2 launched an investigation. He would formalise the charges, which under

3 that law was called a request to conduct an inquiry. He would pass that

4 on to the investigative judge and specify, first of all, the act

5 constituting a criminal act, would provide his opinion of the legal

6 qualification, and then he would instruct the investigative judge what

7 actions he needed to take, and then at the end of the investigation he

8 would decide to prosecute or not. If the material was not of sufficient

9 quality to provide enough grounds for reasonable grounds to believe that a

10 crime had been committed, then the prosecutor was obliged to complete

11 that, to complete the missing facts or materials which would then be

12 sufficient for reasonable grounds to believe, or he would conclude that

13 there were no grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed.

14 Q. What would the prosecutor do once he received formal criminal

15 charges, which as you say would not indicate that there were reasonable

16 grounds, or when the assembled material did not indicate that there was

17 sufficient grounds to believe that a criminal act would be -- had been

18 committed, what would the prosecutor then do with all of these documents,

19 this material?

20 A. If after the material was checked the material did not indicate

21 that a criminal act had been declared, then in case of charges, a formal

22 decision, a formal act would be adopted rejecting the criminal charges.

23 There was specific reasons based on which you could reject criminal

24 charges. If we're talking about the second option that we discussed, that

25 the prosecutor had learned or found out through informal channels about a

1 criminal act possibly be committed, then this would simply be filed. The

2 material would be filed and the case would be considered closed.

3 Q. If the prosecutor assessed that the material at his disposal,

4 given to him by the police, from a court or from the plaintiff did not

5 point to a criminal act being committed and the prosecutor noted that by

6 filing the material or rejecting the charges, in that case would this be a

7 legally binding decision about a certain incident or event, or would the

8 prosecutor have the option to review the case once additional evidence had

9 been submitted?

10 A. Yes, of course. A formal ruling to reject the criminal charges

11 would be the act of one side in the proceedings. And it doesn't have the

12 res judicata or power. It doesn't have the power of a matter having been

13 ruled upon. Each new fact or piece of evidence indicating the contrary

14 from the conviction of the prosecutor would then be sufficient to continue

15 proceedings in that case under legal procedures in force. After a case

16 was filed, which we kept a record of through a general kind of ledger, it

17 would in that case also be enough to hear of a new fact or for some new

18 evidence to come so that this case could then again be reopened.

19 Q. Mr. Hadzic, could you please tell me who, according to our law,

20 handled the overall pre-trial procedure?

21 A. The pre-trial procedure was exclusively handled by the prosecutor,

22 and it was his responsibility entirely.

23 Q. When the prosecutor requested that an investigation be carried out

24 and an investigative judge accepted this by a decision, who would then be

25 in charge of handling the formal proceedings?

1 A. The law on criminal proceedings of Bosnia and Herzegovina from

2 1978 was based on a judicial inquiry. So after the ruling to carry out an

3 investigation was carried and then all the responsibility for that case

4 would be borne by the investigative judge or by the court.

5 Q. When you told us all the different places where you worked, you

6 said that you had moved to the superior prosecutor's office and then to

7 the cantonal prosecutor's office. What would be the competence of the

8 Zenica cantonal prosecutor's office, and when was this office established?

9 A. The Zenica cantonal prosecutor's office was established in 1997

10 when cantons were formed as special administrative units within the

11 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina based on the constitution of the

12 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. These prosecutor's offices inherited

13 the jurisdiction of the former higher prosecutor's office. Then there was

14 some newly formed municipalities, Jug, Tesanj, Maglaj, Zavidovici, Zepca,

15 Zenica, Kakanj, Breza, Visoko, Olovo, and I think that that is all. This

16 was all part of the canton.

17 Q. When this canton prosecutor's office was formed, were there any

18 military prosecutor's offices in existence at the time? What happened to

19 them?

20 A. The organs of the military judiciary, the military prosecutor's

21 office and the military courts were abolished when the war ended, when the

22 immediate threat of war had ceased, and all the organs of the district

23 military prosecutor's office and the military courts became part of the

24 higher cantonal -- Zenica canton prosecutor's office and the higher court.

25 Q. Mr. Hadzic, when you said that if a prosecutor found out some new

1 facts or received some new material he would be able to review a certain

2 case on which he had already ruled upon earlier or which was ruled upon by

3 some other prosecutor who was evaluating that material. Could you please

4 tell us whether you personally were ever in a situation where you had to

5 reassess a decision of a colleague of yours in a case where there was not

6 enough grounds to believe that a criminal act had been committed?

7 A. Not only did I review the decisions, my own decisions, but also

8 the decisions of colleagues whose cases I had inherited. This was nothing

9 unusual or new. It is quite normal that if some new fact or circumstance

10 surfaces, to continue the criminal proceedings, because the basic

11 procedure of work of the prosecutor's office in Bosnia and Herzegovina is

12 consistency, because the prosecutor is obliged to carry out criminal

13 proceedings in any situation where he had a sufficient quantity of

14 evidence pointing to a criminal act being committed. So for us, these

15 were guidelines in the prosecutor's office which were not debatable.

16 Q. Mr. Hadzic, tell me whether among those cases there was a case

17 from January 1993 which concerned the events in Dusina.

18 A. Yes, there was such a case.

19 Q. Tell me how and for what reason were you in a position to reassess

20 decisions taken by your colleague from 1993?

21 A. When the trial of General Blaskic commenced before this Tribunal,

22 there was speculation among the public that a crime had been committed

23 against the civilians in Dusina and that prisoners had been killed, that

24 human shields had been used, et cetera. And at a -- at a meeting -- at an

25 advisory meeting, we decided to examine all the archives of the district

1 military prosecutor's office in Zenica, and we decided that if there were

2 any cases that contained interesting information in that respect, we

3 decided that we should re-examine this, re-examine events and the

4 circumstances that prevailed when these cases were dealt with. We decided

5 to re-examine information that wasn't familiar at the time.

6 Q. I also received a case from 1993. There were a few attachments

7 included which had to do with initial information on the events in Dusina

8 at the time of the conflict between ABiH units and HVO units.

9 Q. The documents that your colleague had from that period, given what

10 you realised when you examined the case, were the documents such that he

11 believed that there was no reason to institute proceedings or had

12 proceedings already been instituted?

13 A. As far as I can remember, the documents consisted of the

14 following: There was information from the security service in Zenica; an

15 examination of 12 or 13 bodies that had been taken to the Zenica hospital

16 morgue; there was the record of the investigating judge - I think that was

17 the judge of the district military court, Vlado Adamovic - there was photo

18 documentation that had been made by the forensics expert; there were the

19 findings, the results of the paraffin glove test; and I think there was an

20 external description of the bodies. That was all the material in the

21 case, and my colleague who worked on the case in 1993 did not believe that

22 this material indicated that a crime had been committed.

23 Q. Did you take any additional steps to reassess the decision of your

24 colleague from 1993?

25 A. Yes, because there was information according to which something

1 had happened in Dusina. I contacted the military archives and asked for

2 documents that related to that period, the end of January 1993. I then

3 requested that the organ of the -- of interior affairs find out where some

4 inhabitants from Dusina were located, and I requested that they be

5 interviewed with regard to the circumstances we were interested, with

6 regard to whether civilians had been killed there, women, children, and

7 the elderly, to find out whether prisoners had been killed, whether human

8 shields had been used, to check the information that we were receiving at

9 that time.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Prosecution.

11 MR. WAESPI: I don't want to interrupt the flow of the witness,

12 but because cross-examination will be limited, we hope that he can go over

13 the weekend. If it could be made clear that everything the witness is

14 talking about he did not in 1992 or 1993, he did after the Blaskic trial

15 judgement triggered this new assessment. So it was after 1999. So

16 everybody is clear about that.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Could you ask the witness

18 when he started re-examining the -- the file. This should be contained in

19 the transcript, because we're not quite sure of the date.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Hadzic, please tell me when you started to -- when did you

22 exactly start to reassess the case?

23 A. I said that when the trial of General Blaskic started, in the

24 course of his trial. That was perhaps in 1999 or in the year 2000. I

25 can't remember exactly.

1 Q. And in the course of that year, in accordance with the

2 authorisation that the prosecutor had, you re-examined everything that

3 took place in 1993, and you re-examined the decision taken by your

4 colleague from 1993.

5 A. Yes, that's quite correct.

6 Q. Did you receive from the ABiH or the MUP the material that you had

7 requested?

8 A. Yes. I received from the archives of the ABiH all the material

9 that related to that period, and I received from the MUP a report on an

10 interview with I think three or four Croats. And having examined all the

11 material that I had, I came to the conclusion that a war crime had not

12 been committed in the village of Dusina.

13 Q. Did you come to that conclusion having re-examined all the

14 material that your colleague had in 1993, the court records that he had

15 been provided with and all the material, all the information that you

16 subsequently obtained about the event?

17 A. Yes. I compiled an official report in which I explained all the

18 facts that I had obtained, and I provided a brief analysis of those facts

19 and drew my conclusion. It is true that at one point in time -- well,

20 there was the body of an old man among those bodies. I think he was 77 or

21 78 years old. So he wasn't a soldier. He wasn't someone fit for military

22 service according to the law. But when I analysed the part of the

23 material, the documents that I had received from the military archives, my

24 conclusion was that this was collateral damage. Unfortunately, it was

25 collateral damage. He was a civilian who happened to be in the area of

1 combat. As far as I can remember in the report that I compiled, my

2 conclusion was that the authorities, the HVO, were far more responsible

3 for his death than anyone else, because if they had expected a conflict to

4 break out and everything points to the fact that a conflict was expected

5 because there was a series of provocations in the wider Dusina area, and

6 therefore it was their duty, it was their responsibility to move the

7 civilians to a safe place.

8 Q. My last question, Mr. Hadzic, is as follows: The decision you

9 took, was it taken on the basis -- or the decision you took on the basis

10 of the additional information, was it identical to the decision taken by

11 your colleague in 1993? And your colleague also assessed all the material

12 that was accessible to him at the time.

13 A. Yes, my decision was identical to his decision, but I had more

14 voluminous material. I had heard the direct testimony of inhabitants from

15 the village of Dusina, so we came to the same conclusion.

16 Q. Thank you very much.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further

18 questions for the witness.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before we have our

20 break, does the other Defence team have any questions for this witness?

21 MR. DIXON: No, Your Honours. We don't have any questions for

22 this witness. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It will be best to

24 have our break now, and we will start with the Prosecution's

25 cross-examination after the break.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 It is now 12.25, and we will resume at about five to one.

2 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.

3 --- On resuming at 12.55 p.m.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will now resume, and I give

5 the floor to the Prosecution.

6 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:

8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hadzic. I just want to clarify a few points

9 with you, and perhaps while I'll ask my first question to you, a few

10 exhibits could be distributed. I won't need all of them but just a few of

11 them. And in fact, the first one I want to talk about would be P332.

12 Everyone in the courtroom is quite familiar with this one because we have

13 discussed it a number of times. It's somewhere in the middle of it.

14 Unfortunately, we didn't have time for tabs. P332.

15 But first let me ask you, Mr. Hadzic, while that's being done, the

16 report --

17 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. I'm sorry we couldn't

18 accommodate you further. It's a bundle of different exhibits, and the

19 first one I'm going to talk about is in the middle, the cover sheet to the

20 military district court.

21 Q. Mr. Hadzic, let me ask you something before. You said you looked

22 at these, the file, the documents, whatever, and you made a report. Can

23 you tell us first, when did you start to look these files? Can you tell

24 us the day or the month or certainly the year after, you know, the Blaskic

25 trial triggered this new review? Tell us, when did you start looking into

1 this whole thing, if you can.

2 A. I couldn't provide you with an exact date or the exact month. As

3 far as I can remember, it was around 1999 or 2000, but it's important to

4 point out that my final conclusion bore the date when the work was

5 completed on that case. What I know for sure, and that enables me to tell

6 you when the approximate time was, this was when the trial of General

7 Blaskic started.

8 Q. And who asked you, you specifically, to deal with this issue, if

9 you recall?

10 A. I've already said. Given the media coverage in general and given

11 what was said in the press about General Blaskic's trial, there was an

12 advisory meeting of the cantonal prosecutor's office, and a decision was

13 reached according to which previous cases that were in the archives should

14 be re-examined. There was no official request. We assessed that these

15 were rumours that had reached the prosecutor's office and it was

16 sufficient to make the prosecutor's office want to focus once more on a

17 case that had already been dealt with and completed.

18 Q. Now, your report, if you recall, when did you file the report and

19 to whom did you file or address your report?

20 A. It wasn't a report of any kind. It was an official record. This

21 was a document compiled by the prosecutor who commented, who provided his

22 final comments on a case. There was no special report, because this is

23 the usual procedure followed in the prosecutor's office. A case is either

24 filed in the archives and it's completed, or judicial investigations are

25 launched, judicial processes instituted, and perhaps a formal indictment

1 is brought.

2 Q. Just to clarify, I'm talking about your work product. Sometime

3 after 1999, six years after the event, this work product, you call it just

4 final comments. You drafted that; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And how big was it, how many pages?

7 A. A full two pages, I think. A full two pages.

8 Q. And to whom was it addressed?

9 A. It wasn't addressed to anyone. As I have said, the work on the

10 case had been completed. And in order to know the reason for which the

11 work had been completed, it was necessary to have some sort of comment

12 made by the prosecutor who was involved in the case. I was the prosecutor

13 involved in the case. I analysed the material that I had at my disposal.

14 I came to the conclusion that there were no grounds upon which one could

15 institute proceedings. I compiled an official record stating the reasons

16 for which I had drawn that conclusion, and that was the end of my work on

17 the case.

18 Q. And where is the report now, or the two-page analysis?

19 A. It's in the archives of the cantonal prosecutor's office in

20 Zenica.

21 Q. So we could retrieve it at any time?

22 A. That wouldn't a problem at all.

23 Q. And you would assist us in finding that paper?

24 A. If it's necessary for me to assist you, yes, but if I went to the

25 prosecutor's office, I would be going there as a private individual. I no

1 longer work in the prosecutor's office.

2 Q. Now, you talked about that, unlike your colleague in 1993, you

3 had, I believe you said, "direct testimony of inhabitants of the village

4 of Dusina." Now, did you -- I understand from your testimony you did not

5 attach any witness statements to your final analysis; is that correct?

6 A. Witness statements were taken and recorded in the police, and

7 these statements are part of the case. There are certain attachments

8 included in the case. There is the initial police report on the arrival

9 of these bodies in the Zenica hospital morgue towards the end of January

10 or the beginning of February, and there were attachments included with the

11 report. And there was the material that I had collected and my final

12 comment. This was part of the material I had gathered, and there was --

13 there were the documents from the military forces archives. There were

14 the statements of three or four inhabitants of Croat nationality from

15 Dusina. They had spoken about the events in Dusina at the end of January

16 in 1993.

17 Q. I'll come to those witnesses in a moment. Let me just try to

18 understand something looking at this exhibit which is in front of you,

19 Prosecution Exhibit 332, dated 1 February 1993. Was that this report or

20 the -- the file you had seen when you reassessed the incident in --

21 sometime after 1999? Do you remember having seen this document? And it's

22 only the cover page. You know, you'll see the annexes, and I take it you

23 have seen the annexes as well, if you have. So my question is: Was that

24 provided to you when you assessed the work of your colleague from 1993?

25 A. Since it says the district military court here, I don't believe

1 that this is the document I had. I don't believe that I had this specific

2 document, but I did have a report from the MUP, from the security services

3 in Zenica, which was addressed to the prosecutor's office. But I'm not

4 sure about this document, because the address here is different.

5 Q. Well, then perhaps it's time I asked you the name of the colleague

6 that was concerned with the case in 1993. Who was the person whose work

7 you reviewed six years later?

8 A. In the military prosecutor's office, I think there were seven

9 deputies. I really can't remember who worked on that case in 1993.

10 Q. But that -- his name would be contained in the file which is in

11 your office, or in your former office?

12 A. Yes. It had to be, and it would have to be entered in the

13 register where the case was entered, and it also had to be stated on the

14 cover page.

15 Q. Let me ask you, you said that you reviewed his work product and

16 that you did more than he did. So just going back to what your colleague

17 did, having assessed his job, do you remember whether he went to the crime

18 scene in Dusina at that time to conduct an on-site investigation?

19 A. No. If you look at this material, this is a report about

20 identification of bodies which were brought to the dissecting room of the

21 Zenica hospital after the conflict in the village of Dusina, after the

22 clearing of the terrain after the combat operations. My colleague did not

23 go to Dusina. I myself didn't go either for one simple reason: As a

24 prosecutor, I was just asking for facts to be re-checked to determine in a

25 different way whether a crime had been committed in Dusina.

1 Q. And you're confident to say that also your colleague in 1993, or

2 anybody else connected to him which would have been reflected in his work

3 product, did not go to Dusina?

4 A. In the material that I had, there was no information about that.

5 And to respond to the second part of your previous question, I did go into

6 a slightly broader investigation than my colleague did in 1993. That's a

7 fact, because the reports or the information that we were receiving,

8 information that there were casualties for no reason in the village of

9 Dusina, for us this was sufficient reason to re-examine that case and to

10 re-check whether this information, these reports that we were receiving

11 were correct or not.

12 Q. Thanks for your answer, and I want to come to your role in a

13 moment, but let me go back to your colleague of 1993. You said you didn't

14 see any record of a visit to the possible crime scene, and you also told

15 us at the end of your testimony this morning and after the break as well

16 that you interviewed some people from Dusina. Now, your colleague in

17 1993, he did not interview people, inhabitants from Dusina; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Let us first clarify one thing. I did not directly speak with the

20 inhabitants of Dusina. I instructed the police to find several survivors

21 from Dusina who were accessible and to interview them. And based on the

22 statements that they give to the police, I as prosecutor would evaluate

23 whether there were grounds to continue with the proceedings.

24 I don't know if my colleague did the same thing in 1993. I know

25 what I found in the case file.

1 Q. And in the case file, you did not see any record of any

2 interviewing of witnesses by your colleague or by the MUP or by the

3 military; is that correct?

4 A. No. There were no subjective pieces of evidence in the case file.

5 There were no witness statements or not -- no information about possible

6 witnesses either.

7 Q. And in your knowledge as a prosecutor, expert in this field, if he

8 had interviewed any witnesses or anybody else at that time, would that

9 have been reflected in the file, in the record, the dossier?

10 A. Everything that is done has to be in the case file.

11 Q. Now, let me ask you about an intriguing comment you made this

12 morning at the end and the information you had about what happened in

13 Dusina. Now, in your recollection, and you were quite specific about

14 provocation and other military activities, in your recollection, were HVO

15 soldiers taken captive on that day, on the 26th of February, 1993, by the

16 ABiH army? January. I'm sorry.

17 A. Which HVO soldiers are you thinking of? This question is not

18 clear to me.

19 Q. Well, I'm merely asking you, because you displayed some knowledge

20 about the military activities, whether the ABiH army who was present in

21 Dusina has captured HVO soldiers. In reviewing these documents - and you

22 said you had access to the military archives - did you see any HVO

23 soldiers, perhaps also civilians, Croat civilians, I don't know, being

24 captured in or around Dusina on that day in January 1993?

25 A. I don't know about civilians. As far as captured HVO members,

1 yes, there were such cases. I mentioned that part of the material which I

2 compiled later was also a videotape in which when we played it you could

3 see the medical or the ambulances are bringing over together wounded HVO

4 soldiers and wounded ABiH army soldiers. What specifically interested me

5 here was the cause of death of these persons who had been brought to the

6 dissecting department of the Zenica hospital. That was the part that I

7 was interested in.

8 Q. Now, let me come to other possible avenues which one could have

9 looked at when determining whether a crime was occurring. I believe you

10 said you interviewed -- or on your behalf witnesses were interviewed.

11 Now, you also told us that in Blaskic, or you followed perhaps the

12 Blaskic judgement. In deciding whom to interview or whom to ask to be

13 interviewed, did you look at the Blaskic record who testified in the

14 Blaskic case and who could have any information perhaps on what happened

15 to these HVO soldiers who were arrested? Did you check Blaskic witnesses?

16 A. First of all, work on this case didn't begin after the judgement

17 was passed in the Blaskic case but after the beginning of the trial.

18 Second, you must understand that we didn't have access, the security

19 services centre in Zenica did not have access to all witnesses, all the

20 inhabitants of Dusina, but there were several inhabitants who had come to

21 Zenica or its environs, and I asked that as many as possible of these

22 inhabitants from Dusina be found so that we could interview them. They

23 were found and interviewed, and based on the information that they gave, I

24 concluded what I concluded. So as far as the Blaskic case file, at that

25 point in time it wasn't of any particular interest to us.

1 Q. Now, did you interview survivors of these events if they were,

2 according to your information, in Dusina?

3 A. Yes. I asked that the inhabitants of Dusina village who happened

4 to be in the village who were the eyewitnesses to these events be

5 interviewed. That was my instruction to the police.

6 Q. Did you interview Ivica Kegelj, for instance? Was born 1957,

7 could have told you everything about what happened to these HVO soldiers.

8 Do you remember having given an assignment to interview him?

9 A. I don't think that you understood me at all. After the conflict,

10 the Croats from the village of Dusina dispersed. A large number of them

11 went to neighbouring Busovaca and generally to the areas which were held

12 by the HVO, so they were not accessible for us. I don't know where Ivica

13 Kegelj went. Since I knew this fact that all Dusina inhabitants are not

14 accessible to us, I asked that information be collected from those

15 individuals whom we did have access to.

16 Q. So you knew about the name of Ivica Kegelj and that he was a

17 survivor when you assessed your information?

18 A. No, no, no. I mentioned the name of Ivica Kegelj after your

19 question.

20 Q. So you have never heard of him?

21 A. I do not remember him, no.

22 Q. Not to this day? How about --

23 A. I'm trying, but I really cannot remember, no.

24 Q. How about Zvonko Rajic [sic]? She was the wife of Mr. Rajic who

25 was present when her husband was killed in Dusina that day. Have you

1 tried to locate her? In fact, have you heard of the name of the wife of

2 Zvonko Rajic when you reviewed the work of your colleague?

3 A. No. Her name was not in the case file.

4 Q. And you also didn't hear that in the Blaskic trial, in open

5 testimony, she testified that her husband was taken away by an ABiH

6 battalion commander and then killed? You have not reviewed that

7 transcript?

8 A. As far as you can believe newspaper articles now, I personally

9 officially did not have any such information, but this was all checked.

10 And if her testimony had pointed to the possibility that a criminal act

11 had been committed, I'm sure that the prosecutor would have continued the

12 proceedings along those lines.

13 Q. Who were the ABiH army units present on the 26th of January, 1993,

14 in Dusina?

15 A. You're asking for too many details. All this information I did

16 have through the documents from the archives, but I cannot recall all of

17 the units of the B and H army which were in the broader area of the

18 village of Dusina and in Dusina itself.

19 In any case, according to the material that I had, you could

20 easily reconstruct which units were there, but I myself don't remember

21 which ones.

22 Q. Have you interviewed any of the commanders who might have given

23 you information about what happened to these HVO soldiers who were

24 captured? Have you interviewed any commander?

25 A. Generally what I know about captured HVO members, not only from

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 that particular conflict but from other conflicts, too, most of them were

2 exchanged. In this specific case, what I was interested in was the

3 following: During the conflict in the village of Dusina, were there any

4 civilian casualties unjustified of -- by war? Were there any thefts or

5 looting or anything that would violate international law? Were any

6 prisoners killed? Were human shields used? These were the things that I

7 was looking at and the information that we were receiving. The cause was

8 to examine the cause of death of these people who had been brought to the

9 dissecting room of the Zenica hospital.

10 Therefore, I didn't need to speak with members of the army, of the

11 B and H army, because I had the correspondence amongst the units and the

12 commands from the archive. At that point, I was interested whether the

13 attack was planned, whether assault operations were planned, what was the

14 objective, and what needed to be done. I did not find an order which

15 would indicate that an attack was supposed to be carried out. But

16 chronologically, when you sorted the documents of the B and H army that I

17 had, you could see that this was a pretty sensitive area and that this was

18 part of some kind of general rule, a result of a series of tensions and

19 different incidents, open conflict between the HVO and the B and H army.

20 From the point of view of possible criminal responsibility, it was

21 necessary to see whether the attack was planned, and if it was planned,

22 was it carried out, and then during this assault operations, was there any

23 unjustified -- were there any unjustified casualties among the civilians.

24 So this was the topic of my interest in this particular case.

25 Q. Let me just sum up. In the situation where obviously something

1 has happened, and you referred to the report of the physical description

2 of the bodies, and we have no time to go into that; where you say you have

3 heard or read in documents that HVO soldiers were captured; third, that an

4 old man was collateral damage because he was unfortunate enough to be in

5 the area, you did not feel it necessary to talk to the commander on the

6 field to give you some information about what happened to these captured

7 HVO soldiers? You thought that wasn't necessary, six years after the

8 event.

9 A. Six years after the event, I have to go back again to what I said

10 before. As far as the army was concerned, I had official documents, and

11 the subjective explanation of a commander, some commanders, or all

12 commanders at that point was not relevant to me because I was interested

13 in the consequences. This was a military conflict in which two armed

14 formations clashed.

15 Please allow me to finish. This was a military conflict in which

16 two armed formations clashed, in which, unfortunately, soldiers do have

17 the right to kill each other and wound each other, unfortunately, but the

18 death of this gentleman who was about 70-odd years old and whose body was

19 brought to the dissecting room of the Zenica hospital, to me personally,

20 when I was analysing the case file, was interesting because he was not a

21 military conscript and because in his case, when the paraffin glove test

22 was conducted on him, there were no traces of gun powder found on his

23 hands. In all the other cases, these traces were found. To me this was

24 proof that they took part in the military conflict and that they carried

25 weapons and that they fired them. And earlier I said that unfortunately

1 soldiers from opposing sides have the right to kill and wound each other.

2 On the other hand, the cause of death of this elderly gentleman, my

3 assessment in that case was that unfortunately he happened to be in a

4 combat zone. The civilian authorities were the ones who were supposed to

5 take care of the security of civilians. And if combat operations are

6 imminent, then the military organs in that area are responsible. So in

7 this case, the elderly gentleman died in the area of responsibility of the

8 HVO.

9 Q. Anyway, let me ask you, if you recall, who told you about the

10 circumstances under which this old man died? Can you give us a name?

11 A. No one spoke about the circumstances to me in which this elderly

12 gentleman - I think his surname was Kegelj died. No one told me anything

13 about the circumstances.

14 Q. That's your job to find out.

15 A. Well, look, when I asked the police to determine the cause of

16 death for these individuals and to establish the other facts that I was

17 interested in - I won't repeat everything - the murder of civilians,

18 children, women and -- et cetera, when I requested such information, I

19 asked them to determine the cause of death of this elderly gentleman, Mr.

20 Kegelj. But you must understand the circumstances, the conditions under

21 which we were living at the time. It was still very difficult to reach

22 the territory under HVO control, which used to be Herceg-Bosna. It was

23 difficult to talk to people there, locate them, bring them to testify, et

24 cetera.

25 Q. Let me just clear this one point up. Dusina wasn't at that time

1 under HVO control, and we have even people from Zenica, from the municipal

2 protection, who went there the day after. Have you heard about that?

3 That they went to Dusina late January 1993 to collect the bodies.

4 A. Well, that's the duty of the civilian protection, to clear up the

5 terrain. And if anyone went there, they went there in an official

6 capacity, that's for sure.

7 Q. Let me ask you: How many times did you have collateral damage, in

8 your words, in those days, those months you were concerned with? Was that

9 something normal or was that something unusual?

10 A. Any civilian casualty is an unusual casualty, and I wouldn't

11 comment on the context of your question, but there was a lot of collateral

12 damage in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And as far as the cases that I worked

13 on myself, I never came across something that would lead me to such a

14 conclusion.

15 Q. So that would be something unusual. Wouldn't you then try to do

16 whatever you can to resolve this issue? Question number one; and second

17 question: Who is the first person you want to ask about any military

18 action who would have led to collateral damage? Who is the person you

19 want to know about? Question number two.

20 A. Your first question is -- could you please repeat it.

21 Q. The first question is: Wasn't that something unusual, then, if

22 it's the first time you heard about that? So I take --

23 A. Let me answer the first question immediately. When I examined the

24 file, when I examined the attachments to the file, I noticed that among

25 those who had been killed - these were young people - I noticed that there

1 was an elderly gentleman among them, and I tried to determine the causes

2 of his death. I tried to look into the matter. I did everything that I

3 could do in accordance with the law, and I did everything that I was

4 supposed to do within my service. But everything I did pointed to the

5 fact that this elderly gentleman, Mr. Kegelj, had died in the course of an

6 intense conflict.

7 I've already commented on my official record. I have said that

8 the others had gunpowder traces on their hands. That means that they were

9 involved in the fight, as I have already said. Unfortunately, soldiers

10 have the right to kill each other, and unfortunately those are the

11 consequences of each and every war.

12 Q. Exactly. And the responsibility for causing collateral damage,

13 that's the military. Would you agree with me?

14 A. Absolutely. I do agree with you. And in my comment with regard

15 to the death of Mr. Kegelj, I said that I held the HVO authorities

16 accountable for his death. Since they had been expecting a conflict to

17 break out, they did not try to move civilians out of the area in which

18 fighting was going to take place. That was my conclusion. And when fire

19 is opened indiscriminately, it's impossible to control the directions that

20 bullets will be fired in.

21 Q. And the basis for all these conclusions, quite elaborate, are the

22 documents. You did not talk to the military commander. For instance,

23 Mr. Serif Paskovic, who was the 2nd Battalion commander, has documents

24 which you may have seen revealed. You did not talk to Mr. Serif Paskovic;

25 is that correct? I believe you said it before. You had not contacts with

1 the military command, just to confirm it.

2 A. That's correct, but you're forgetting the role of a prosecutor.

3 Up until the law on criminal proceedings, which is now in force in

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Prosecutor did not conduct an investigation. He

5 didn't have the right to interview anyone. The Prosecutor would receive

6 information via organs whose responsibility it was to provide him with

7 information. As for an official investigation, all the subject, if

8 evidence was presented, collated by the investigating judge.

9 I as the prosecutor didn't have the authority to summon anyone to

10 an interview. As far as assessing whether it would be necessary to speak

11 to some of the unit commanders, if I had believed that there were elements

12 indicating a crime had committed, then I'm sure such a person would have

13 been interviewed, either as a suspect or as a witness.

14 Q. You said this morning, and I quote you, "A prosecutor's duty is,

15 quote, He's obliged to check the grounds for the information in relation

16 to authenticity and reliability of facts so he can assess whether there

17 are sufficient grounds." Of course you have a duty, a duty and the

18 authority to ask, request more information if the investigating judge

19 doesn't do his job. Isn't that correct?

20 A. No, you're not on the right path. The investigating judge only

21 starts working after the prosecutor has determined that there are elements

22 indicating that crime has been committed. He formulates a request for an

23 investigation, which is then forwarded to the investigating judge. The

24 investigating judge then has to interview the suspect, and then he has to

25 take a decision on implementing an investigation, carry out the

1 investigative measures that the prosecutor has requested and he believes

2 that should be carried out, and then he forwards this to the prosecutor.

3 What was done was done in the pre-trial phase. It means that the

4 information that we received was checked in order to determine whether

5 there were grounds for suspicion and whether there were grounds for making

6 a request to carry out an investigation. The investigating judge was at

7 the site. He was in the Zenica hospital, and he identified these bodies.

8 That's the only thing that he did.

9 Q. Let me just quote what you just told us. You said that, "The

10 investigative judge, in implementing an investigation, he has to carry out

11 the investigative measures that the prosecutor has requested." So if you

12 receive a file from the investigative authorities about the collateral

13 damage case and you don't see any attempt to talk to the military

14 commander on the ground, especially since he has been mentioned now in the

15 Blaskic trial as being the killer, perpetrator, by an eyewitness, surely

16 you would refuse to even give an assessment before the investigative judge

17 does his job. Am I not correct?

18 A. You haven't understood me. According to the procedure, according

19 to the criminal procedure -- well, this procedure is quite different.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Defence counsel.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Since I examined the witness for

22 32 minutes and the -- my colleague has been examining the witness for 43

23 minutes, I would like to know whether my learned friend will be asking for

24 more time so that we can know whether this witness will be completing his

25 testimony today or not.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Because in theory, we

2 should adjourn in four minutes' time. How much more time do you need?

3 MR. WAESPI: I believe I'm about to finish. Perhaps five minutes,

4 with your leave, Mr. President.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue? The investigative

6 judge only gets involved in the criminal procedure after the prosecutor

7 has made a request for an investigation, and this is the third time that I

8 will repeat this. This is the third time I will try to clarify this.

9 Although this raises a number of legal issues, the prosecutor makes a

10 request for an investigation when he believes that the material he has at

11 his disposal provides grounds upon which one can draw the conclusion that

12 a certain individual committed a crime.

13 When investigating this case, my task was to determine whether a

14 war crime had been committed in Dusina and to determine who the

15 perpetrator was. The conclusion I reached was that a war crime had not

16 been committed in Dusina and this is why an official investigation was

17 never launched. So please don't try to involve the investigating judge in

18 this matter. In this case, the investigating judge didn't play any role

19 whatsoever.

20 Q. Let me just finish on this point and overall. If this was indeed

21 a war crime, who would be the possible suspect? Although you said it was

22 the HVO, but let's assume for a moment that these HVO prisoners were kept,

23 captured by the ABiH soldiers, as military documents which I'm sure you

24 have looked at indicate, and these people were killed, executed, not

25 collateral damage but executed, who would be the primary suspect of this

1 case?

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If these individuals --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The question is leading. The

6 question is not leading, but my colleague is not correctly referring to

7 the army documents. None of the army documents states that these

8 individuals who were killed had been captured. In the army documents,

9 what is stated is quite different, and you are aware of the fact because

10 all three documents have been admitted into evidence. So it's not

11 possible to suggest things to the witness if they have no grounds in the

12 evidence.

13 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, first of all, I did not say that it

14 happened like that. I said let's assume that it happened, number one.

15 And second, we have evidence that the HVO soldiers were captured on that

16 day. I think it's five to six. There are at least three documents that

17 suggest that, contemporaneous documents. So I'm asking him because he

18 claimed that these HVO soldiers were, you know -- or the HVO was

19 responsible for these elderly men. I'm asking him just in his capacity

20 who the usual suspect would be in a case like that.

21 A. Well, if we're discussing this as a hypothesis, if we assume that

22 these seven individuals were captured alive and after they had been

23 disarmed they were killed, then first the immediate or direct perpetrator

24 would be responsible and then his superior. So that's an assumption. But

25 based on the documents that I had, these individuals died in combat. They

1 were killed in combat. When examining these bodies, there are no traces

2 of violence, either while they were alive or either after they had been

3 killed. The cause of death was an entry and exit wound in the case of all

4 of them, apart from one individual who had been wounded in the head, and

5 that was probably the result of the explosion of a shell, a hand grenade,

6 or something like that.

7 So according to the documents that I had, these individuals were

8 killed in combat. When they were killed, they were armed. They had been

9 opening fire at army members, and there were no civilians, no women or

10 children who -- who were killed subsequently. That's what I managed to

11 establish on the basis of the material that I had. Those are the

12 conclusions that I reached.

13 Q. And the witnesses you talked to to come to this conclusion would

14 be mentioned in your two-page assessment?

15 A. The witness statements that the police had recorded are contained

16 in the file, and I interpreted these statements in my report, but these

17 original statements are in the file, because I didn't reach this decision

18 off the top of my head.

19 Q. Just to conclude, because you mentioned this report about the

20 physical description of these bodies and the belief, you said, that they

21 had an exit wound -- an entry wound and an exit wound. How many entry

22 wounds and exit wounds do you remember that these bodies had, if you

23 recall?

24 A. First of all, I didn't say that. I didn't mention entry and exit

25 wounds. I talked about gunshot wounds. My conclusion is based on what I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 found based on the findings of the doctors. The forensic processing of

2 the bodies or -- indicated that there were no gunpowder rings at the entry

3 wounds - now I am mentioning them - which would indicate that they had

4 been shot at from close range.

5 Q. Yes, I wasn't asking about that, although we can come to that in a

6 second. I was asking about for these bodies, because you talked about

7 these entry wounds - at least that's what the transcript says - do you

8 recall, because you were interested about the cause of death, you said, do

9 you recall how many bullets penetrated or at least reached these bodies?

10 Just whatever you recall. Was it just one or was it more?

11 A. I described in detail what I recall. I recall this grave injury

12 to the head. I know that according to the medical findings I established

13 that the cause of death was a small calibre firearm. I don't know how

14 many wounds there were on each individual body. I cannot remember that.

15 But the photographs taken of these persons exist, and they were

16 photographed according to all forensic rules and regulations, proper

17 records and exhibits were made. But I really cannot recall how many

18 wounds each individual body had sustained.

19 Q. But it's possible that there were bodies among these bodies which

20 had multiple, I mean five and more, exit and entry wounds on both sides of

21 the body, meaning on the same side both exit and entry wound. Do you

22 remember that, having seen that?

23 A. For that part, I can only say that I looked at the medical

24 findings which were part of the case file. The doctor who examined the

25 bodies established the number of wounds, the location of the wounds, and

1 ultimately this is really not my job. This is not a legal but a medical

2 question.

3 Q. So just to be sure, you don't remember a body which has been

4 riddled by bullets? You don't remember that?

5 A. No, I really cannot remember. I told you just a few of the most

6 striking details that stuck with me. I have been a prosecutor for over 20

7 years, and I've had more than 4.000 cases during that time, so -- many

8 more serious crimes that I had looked at, so ...

9 Q. Well, I would be looking forward to seeing these more serious

10 cases.

11 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President. I have no further

12 questions.

13 Re-examined by Ms. Residovic:

14 Q. Mr. Hadzic, in order to clarify the situation, the colleague asked

15 you several times whether you were aware that there were captured HVO

16 soldiers, and you replied that from the army documents you saw that there

17 were some captured HVO soldiers. Please, the documents that you found in

18 the case file and the documents that you compiled indicated and in what

19 manner did it indicate that these dead persons were amongst the captured

20 persons? Did you find any information or data which would indicate that

21 the persons who were killed were captured?

22 A. You mean that they had been captured first and then -- no, no.

23 There was no such data. Everything that I had in the case file indicated

24 that they were killed during the combat operations.

25 Q. You also said that you had a record by the investigative judge,

1 Vlado Adamovic, in the case file. Could you please tell me, when in the

2 earlier procedure, when does the investigative judge go out into the field

3 and who handles or who is in charge of this on-site investigation, and who

4 instructs all the relevant organs which actions are supposed to be carry

5 out in case of the procedure?

6 A. When we're conducting an on-site inquiry or any other procedure

7 which is in the presence of the investigative judge, then he's the one who

8 is in charge of the whole operations, and his instructions are binding on

9 all the parties who take part in that particular inquiry.

10 Q. If the prosecutor is also present or the civilian police or the

11 military police in that same inquiry, are they in a position to conduct

12 independent activities or must they behave in accordance with instructions

13 of the investigative judge?

14 A. They must behave in accordance with the investigative judge, and

15 they can also propose just that some activities are carried out, but it's

16 up to the investigative judge to accept that or not.

17 Q. How many times have you tried to clarify to my learned friend the

18 role of the investigative judge and the prosecutor in criminal

19 proceedings? This part which you reviewed, as well as that part which was

20 conducted by your colleague in 1993 when he received the material, was

21 this a formal procedure, an investigative procedure, or was this a

22 pre-trial procedure which was not in the formal investigation stage at

23 that point in time?

24 A. I was very precise in one of the last questions that the

25 Prosecutor put to me. What I did and what my colleague did from 1993 was

1 at the so-called pre-trial stage, which is not formalised in a court

2 investigation.

3 Q. At that stage, during the pre-trial proceedings when the

4 prosecutor has all the material and is assessing and evaluating it, who is

5 the dominus litis? Who manages the procedure, and who instructs the other

6 organs to carry out other steps?

7 A. This would be the prosecutor. He's the one who's in charge of the

8 proceedings, and all the -- all the instructions that he issues to all the

9 other organs in the investigation are binding.

10 Q. Your colleague in 1993, when he had this material in his position

11 -- possession, if he had any doubts about the cause of death, would he be

12 the only authorised organ to request additional steps from other bodies;

13 state bodies, police bodies, or any other ones?

14 A. Only him and no one else, yes.

15 Q. When you assess, and at this point in time you did not assess that

16 you had enough -- sufficient grounds for formal proceedings, but when you

17 assess that there are sufficient grounds to embark on a formal procedure

18 and then this is handed over to the investigative judge, then who handles

19 the proceedings? Who calls witnesses? Who issues instructions about

20 further steps? Who is the person then who can ask other subjects to

21 contribute to a clarification of that matter?

22 A. Up until the -- from the point in time that an investigation is

23 initiated, the investigative judge is the one who is in charge. He's the

24 one who handles the case. The investigative judge calls witnesses,

25 questions them, questions the accused, orders inquiries, on-site

1 investigations. He issues other instructions. So he undertakes all the

2 investigative activities or instructs that they be carried out, up until

3 the point in time that the investigation is completed

4 Q. Thank you. I would just like you to wait until my question is

5 completely interpreted before you begin answering.

6 My colleague asked you several questions about the wounds and

7 injuries and I would like to ask you the following: When you looked at

8 the photographs and read the description of the wounds given by the

9 doctor, who is the only qualified person to do that, those injuries and

10 their description, were they any different or more unusual than other

11 injuries sustained in wartime that you had been able to see for yourself

12 or that you encountered in other cases?

13 A. There was nothing unusual about them. I would just like -- just

14 one second, I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish. There was

15 nothing unusual about those wounds, including their location. See, the

16 bodies were photographed naked. All the clothing was removed and then the

17 bodies were placed on the autopsy tables and photographed. So the

18 photographs were made according to the proper procedure, from several

19 angles, several positions. The doctor conducted an external

20 investigation, established the death and the causes of death; and for me

21 that was enough to believe that the wounds were gunshot wounds except for

22 this one very serious head wound. But even that, even though it was

23 extremely grave, was something that was usual in times of war.

24 Q. In several questions it was suggested that you could have done

25 more based on the information you had and the testimony from the Blaskic

1 case. The canton prosecutor's office in Zenica at the time when you were

2 reviewing this case, did it have access to the transcript from that case?

3 Was it possible to have something like that in Bosnia and Herzegovina at

4 the time or were you acting at the time based on information which was

5 sporadically published in the newspapers?

6 A. We decided to look at the archives of the earlier district

7 military prosecutor's office based on TV reports and newspaper articles.

8 We didn't have a transcript from the trial. We didn't have the

9 indictments. We didn't have any of the exhibits used in the Blaskic case.

10 At the time, we were not in a position to have something like that.

11 Q. And finally, my learned friend asked you whether you listened to

12 the testimony of Zvonko Rajic's wife who claimed that Serif Paskovic

13 killed her husband. I -- of course you responded to that question. What

14 I'm asking you now is the following: As a citizen of Zenica, are you

15 following the proceedings against Hakanovic, and do you know that Zvonko

16 Rajic's wife gave a completely different statement before that court than

17 the one she gave in the Blaskic case?

18 A. Yes, I am aware of that from information published in the press

19 about the Hakanovic trial.

20 Q. Thank you very much.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further

22 questions.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution is on its feet.

24 MR. WAESPI: I think that was improper. I don't think

25 re-examination is time to ask leading questions, and she was testifying

1 and saying, you know, Were you aware... She could have asked, you know,

2 have you heard that she gave somewhere else testimony and then he could

3 have answered. I don't think that's proper.

4 MR. DIXON: Thank you. Your Honours, we have no questions for

5 this witness. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as I'm

7 concerned, I would like to put some questions to you, but since we don't

8 have much time, I'll just put one minor question to you.

9 Questioned by the Court:

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One member of the Zenica police

11 force established a report on the state of the bodies. We could show you

12 this report. It was signed by Redzo Hadzic. Is this a relative of yours

13 or is this just a homonym? We could show you the document. The document

14 is number 333.

15 A. It's not necessary. I know the document in question. Mr. Redzo

16 Hadzic, unfortunately he has died in the meantime, was not a relative of

17 mine, but I can say that he was an exceptionally good forensics expert in

18 the Zenica security service, but we happened to have the same family name.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. There are no other

20 questions. Thank you for having come to The Hague to testify. We have

21 worked for a little longer than usual, but it was necessary to put all the

22 questions to you. I wish you a good trip home, and I will now ask the

23 usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly could the Defence

1 inform us of the schedule for next week.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go into private session?

3 I forgot to mention this earlier on.

4 [Private session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,

20 Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in open session. Today's

22 hearing is over. It is now 14.05. I apologise to the interpreters that

23 we worked longer than the time we were allotted, but there was no other

24 way.

25 I am recalling everybody back on Monday for the continuation of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 our hearing at 14.15 hours.

2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.05 p.m.,

3 to be reconvened on Monday, the 31st day of

4 January, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25