100512ED

Page 9991

1 know, we have put in an application for leave to appeal the decision and

2 indeed still outstanding is the Defence's application for leave to appeal

3 on his intercept decision. I know there are still a large number of

4 decisions outstanding but, Your Honours, given that the trial is moving

5 forward relatively fast I wonder whether Your Honours could give any

6 indication of when we could expect the decision on our application for

7 leave to appeal because it makes a difference obviously.

8 JUDGE HALL: Of course, all can I say at this point is that we

9 are not -- we haven't forgotten that there are these outstanding motions

10 and they're in the process of being worked on.

11 MS. KORNER: Yes. Well, all I can say is perhaps can I ask if

12 Your Honours have an order of priority, obviously ones that affect

13 witnesses are upcoming such as timing are most urgent, but perhaps Your

14 Honours might consider moving that up the priority list.

15 JUDGE HALL: We've noted your concern, Ms. Korner.

16 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I promised a condensed submission

17 today for -- on the adjudicated facts.

18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Zecevic.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: May I?

20 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, the position of the Stanisic Defence

22 is that the jurisprudence of this Tribunal is very clear on the matter.

23 Basically in this particular case the pre-trial decision on adjudicated

24 facts was -- states that the adjudicated facts are rebuttal at the trial.

25 So that is the -- that is the situation. There's -- nothing has changed

Page 9992

1 in that respect, and the jurisprudence is on that -- on that particular

2 subject, very clear.

3 Now, in our Defence pre-trial brief and throughout these

4 proceedings, we said, we gave notice to the Prosecutor that unless it is

5 agreed, we challenge all OTP evidence. That is in our pre-trial brief,

6 and we repeated this over and over in the course of these proceedings.

7 The -- the problem, as I see, is that -- that -- that somehow the

8 adjudicated facts are -- are confused with the stipulation, and it's not

9 the stipulation. It is a well-founded presumption for the accuracy of

10 the fact which may be challenged and rebutted by the accused. That is

11 the adjudicated facts.

12 Now, this is exactly what the Lukic and Lukic decision says,

13 under paragraph 15 that Ms. Korner was citing -- or mentioning yesterday.

14 The -- the -- the Trial Chamber said exactly this in paragraph 15:

15 "A chamber establishes a well-founded presumption for the

16 accuracy of this fact. However, it is well established that an

17 adjudicated fact may be challenged at the trial. And furthermore, the

18 judicial notice of adjudicated fact does not shift the ultimate burden of

19 proof beyond a reasonable doubt which remains with the Prosecution."

20 I think it cannot be more clearer than this. My reading of -- of

21 the decision in Lukic and Lukic is that this is a very specific

22 situation. It doesn't change the jurisprudence of this Tribunal at all.

23 Namely, this -- this particular case was a direct perpetration case, and

24 that is what the Trial Chamber specifically emphasises in paragraph 19.

25 And what they are saying is that, in fact, the Prosecution in that case

Page 9993

1 was for months in advance put on the notice that this -- this evidence

2 concerning the -- the fire will be challenged by the Defence. And, in

3 fact, that the -- that the -- in the opinion of the Trial Chamber the

4 Prosecution already brought sufficient evidence to back up their position

5 on that particular fire. And that is the reason why they -- why they

6 denied the Prosecution request for rebuttal evidence.

7 So, in that respect, as I say, we have -- we have challenged

8 this. The jurisprudence is that the -- the -- the Defence is not

9 required to specify their -- their challenges to the adjudicated facts.

10 It is sufficient that the Defence state, as we did, we challenge all

11 adjudicated facts, and we will rebut them in the course of this trial

12 with the evidence.

13 Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE HALL: May I ask this, Mr. Zecevic.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.

16 JUDGE HALL: I -- as I understand the jurisprudence, aware of the

17 necessity to continually remind one's self and is especially so for the

18 side relying on adjudicated facts and secondarily the Trial Chamber to

19 remind one's self of not falling into the trap of conflating adjudicated

20 facts with facts which may be stipulated or agreed but on a practical

21 level the -- as the trial progresses inasmuch as a trial is, as I have

22 said on a number of occasions, a dynamic process, that something may have

23 become agreed although initially entering the court, as it were, dressed

24 in the guise of adjudicated facts, is there a process by which the side

25 opposite can then confirm to -- to the side opposite and to the Chamber

Page 9994

1 that in fact these -- these matters have moved into the category of

2 agreed facts or stipulated facts.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, as far as I am aware of the

4 jurisprudence, that is between the parties. Of course, at any time the

5 Prosecution can approach the Defence and ask for particular adjudicated

6 fact, and based on the developments in the trial, they can -- they can

7 offer us, that we stipulate that fact. That is, of course.

8 And then if we do stipulate, then it becomes stipulated fact.

9 That goes without saying, in my opinion. Yes.

10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

11 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... on the law.

12 I'm not sure Mr. Zecevic is reading from which decision because

13 the decision I have in the Lukic case is the 25th of March, 2009 which

14 was a decision on the application by the Prosecution to call rebuttal

15 evidence.

16 Your Honours, the first case on this on which the other decisions

17 are followed is, in fact, a case from Rwanda, Karemera and others, 16th

18 of June, 2006, and at paragraph 42, the -- this was said:

19 "The Appeals Chamber reiterates that judicial notice does not

20 shift the ultimate burden of persuasion, which remains with the

21 Prosecution."

22 Which, of course, is obvious.

23 "In the case of judicial notice ..." -- and, really, adjudicated

24 facts are effectively that, the ultimate burden of persuasion which --

25 "judicial notice does not shift the ultimate burden of persuasion, which

Page 9995

1 remains with the Prosecution. In the case of judicial notice ... the

2 effect is only to relieve the Prosecution of its initial burden to

3 produce evidence on the point ..."

4 And it's the following sentence which is important:

5 "The Defence may then put the point into question by introducing

6 reliable" -- and I emphasise the word -- "reliable and credible evidence

7 to the contrary."

8 And that is what was followed in the Lukic case. As I say, the

9 one I've got is the decision on rebuttal evidence, 25th of March, 2009.

10 So it's not sufficient simply to say, as Mr. Pantelic said

11 yesterday, We dispute everything; or as Mr. Zecevic said, In our final --

12 In our pre-trial brief, we said we disputed everything. It's not only

13 not a proper way of dealing with matters, it is actually not true because

14 it's -- it's become apparent that there are many matters which are not in

15 dispute.

16 And the third thing is, I absolutely agree that adjudicated facts

17 are not the same as agreed facts between the parties.

18 Your Honours or certainly Judge Harhoff may recall that way back

19 before the trial started we gave to the Defence a set of facts of

20 stipulations as the Americans call it, agreed facts as I would call it,

21 and asked them to agree. I mean, we were told that they were unable to

22 agree any, and I think that was conveyed to Judge Hall, so we have been

23 unable to reach agreement save in respect maybe of the legal library if

24 it ever comes into evidence. But the concern that I have is this. That

25 if there are adjudicated facts, we would invite Your Honours to say that

Page 9996

1 the Defence have to call reliable and credible evidence rather than

2 simply saying we dispute it or leave reliable and credible evidence

3 through our witnesses. They don't necessarily have to call it themselves

4 to show that those adjudicated facts cannot be relied on.

5 So that is the situation. Of course, as I say, the ultimate

6 burden of proofing the case still rests with us.

7 But at the moment we are in a -- in a -- in a difficult position

8 in that as I said to Your Honours yesterday, and that's what caused this

9 application by me, is that we're only learning what particular fact is in

10 dispute as and when witnesses come from a particular area or to deal with

11 a particular aspect of the case which at present is covered by

12 adjudicated facts, and that you may think is neither efficient nor indeed

13 a very fair method of proceeding because it means the whole time we're

14 having to re-adjust and start looking for evidence which we didn't

15 appreciate that we would have to call, and as I say, a blanket we

16 challenge everything that the Prosecution wants to is, as I say, not only

17 unhelpful and not a proper way of proceeding but positively in this case

18 actually not right.

19 So that's the situation. And, Your Honours, I did make some

20 inquiries overnight over the question Judge Hall asked me whether there

21 had been another case in this Tribunal where an order that the Defence

22 should say specifically which adjudicated facts they actually challenge.

23 There hasn't been basically because there haven't been that many cases

24 since adjudicated facts were used. And so, as far as I know, there's

25 been no such order.

Page 9997

1 But that's -- that's the situation.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may of assistance giving the reference to the

3 decision which I was citing from.

4 Your Honours, I was citing from the final decision in Lukic and

5 Lukic on the subject, and that is the decision on motion for

6 reconsideration or certification to appeal the decision on rebuttal

7 witness, dated 9 of April 2009. Case Prosecutor Milan Lukic versus [sic]

8 Sredoje Lukic. That is the decision I was citing for as I felt that the

9 final decision on the matter would be the most appropriate one.

10 Now just two short comments on what Ms. Korner was commenting

11 just.

12 It is -- it is my recollection that the Rwanda decision was about

13 the Defence case, so it's a bit -- it's a bit different aspect that

14 was -- that the Trial Chamber had in view in -- in that respect, the one

15 which -- which Ms. Korner was citing.

16 And the -- and the second thing is, Your Honour, you will

17 remember that there is an number of facts that we agreed upon. It is not

18 true that we are challenging everything. We agreed upon the facts which

19 we feel are agreeable. We are not going to agree to the facts which we

20 think are not -- are rebuttable or that we are going to challenge and

21 which are important for our case. And I don't -- I mean, apart from

22 that, I don't have anything to add.

23 Thank you very much.

24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, again, for the record, as I said

25 yesterday, and I really do not see a -- grounds for submission this

Page 9998

1 morning submission of Ms. Korner. Zupljanin Defence denies all

2 adjudicated facts. We have a right to do that. And in addition to that

3 during the Prosecution case, we showed in our cross-examination that a

4 number of facts are actually challenged.

5 For example, Ms. Korner recently informed us off the record that

6 she is not going to lead evidence regarding the split of BH MUP.

7 MS. KORNER: Just a moment.

8 Your Honours, I object to and I will not have, as Mr. Pantelic

9 says, off-the-record conversations if they're going to be repeated in

10 court.

11 If Mr. Pantelic wants to stop having communication out of court

12 then he can continue. But I do not consider that chat -- what I call

13 robing room chat, is something that should be repeated in court.

14 MR. PANTELIC: You can have your time later for reply.

15 So the proper way for Prosecution would be as my learned friend

16 Mr. Zecevic said. They are free to give us a list of -- formulation of

17 adjudicated facts. In relation to this case, in relation to -- to --

18 to -- to their case, in relation to -- to -- to proofs and evidence so

19 far and then we shall discuss and see whether we could agree on certain

20 issues. Simply as that.

21 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Pantelic, could you -- obviously this is

22 something that the Chamber is going to have to give some further careful

23 thought to. But do I understand your position, and when I say "your," I

24 mean you and Mr. Zecevic, that notwithstanding the ruling that the Trial

25 Chamber may have made on the Prosecution's application -- well, on the

Page 9999

1 application, that certain facts are treated as adjudicated facts, there

2 is, nevertheless, an affirmative burden on the Prosecution, having been

3 given notice of the general objection by the Defence that, in the course

4 of the Prosecution's case, it must, as it were, prove these matters

5 because of that challenge.

6 Is that a fair summary of what I understand your position to be?

7 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. There is exactly the --

8 our position, that we -- that we articulated.

9 Thank you.

10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, I understand.

11 MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated] ... seek a ruling on this

12 because, Your Honours, that is not what the decision, the only appeals

13 decision on this, with Judge Shahabuddeen says. It is for the Defence to

14 raise credible and reliable evidence if -- if the above --

15 JUDGE HALL: I appreciate your position, Ms. Korner. It's just

16 that I wanted to be sure that I was hearing what I thought I was hearing

17 from the Defence. Thank you.

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I make it clear. I mean, we

19 did -- we served, and Mr. Pantelic knows this, we spent a considerable

20 amount of time because we were invited to do that by Judge Harhoff and

21 the Defence drafting what we thought were a set of unobjectionable facts

22 to which we hoped the Defence could agree, and we were told in terms that

23 they would not agree them, and they were the most basic ones, and,

24 therefore, we do not propose -- and Mr. Pantelic makes it sound as though

25 the Defence are being reasonable -- we had a refusal, we don't propose to

Page 10000

1 waste any more time, drafting -- spending -- writing out matters which

2 the Defence won't agree. It's as simple as that.

3 JUDGE HARHOFF: If I may just add a comment on this matter.

4 The thing that hurts is the consequence of this dispute; namely,

5 that we shall have to prolong the trial for a considerable time, in order

6 to deal with matters that really are not subject to any substantial

7 disagreement.

8 And it is for the accused also, both of you, to consider your

9 positions on this issue.

10 Now, if I look at the adjudicated facts, just as an example, the

11 ones that relate to the current witness, and I see adjudicated fact

12 number 1264, it reads as follows:

13 "According to the 1991 census in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the ethnic

14 composition in Doboj municipality was 40 per cent Muslims, 39 per cent

15 Serbs, and 13 per cent Croats with the indication of the number of

16 persons, and so-and-so many persons of other -- or unknown ethnicity."

17 Now, the position of the Defence forces the Prosecution to adduce

18 evidence to sustain and support this fact, and it also forces the Chamber

19 to consider the reliability of this fact.

20 So time could be saved if the Defence were able to say, We have

21 no objection against this fact. So that's one-off the number of facts

22 that the Prosecution must then deal with. In other words, there has to

23 be a way in which the parties can get together and sort out and identify

24 the issues that are really subject to disagreement. And once these facts

25 have been identified, then I think, according to the Appeals Chamber's

Page 10001

1 ruling, it would be for the Defence to produce relevant and credible

2 evidence to rebut these facts.

3 But, again, I'm appealing to the parties to -- to continue their

4 efforts to try and weed out all the facts which we don't have to deal

5 with during this trial.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Judge Delvoie reminded me, and I'm perfectly in

8 agreement, that if the Appeals Chamber's decision is to be read

9 consistently, then it would be insufficient for the Defence just to

10 challenge the adjudicated facts of which the Chamber has taken judicial

11 notice on a very general scale. You have to be the one that puts up

12 relevant and credible evidence to rebut the facts.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, the way we read

14 the decision, the appeals decision, is that what is expected of Defence

15 is to challenge the adjudicated facts during the Prosecution case. And

16 in the Defence case, we bring the credible evidence to counter that.

17 That is -- that is the -- in -- in our position, that is the proper

18 reading of -- of -- of the decision.

19 MS. KORNER: I agree with that.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Because we would not be -- we would not be able to

21 produce the -- the evidence during the Prosecution case. That's, first

22 of all. The second, the burden of proof is with the Prosecution. And I

23 see Ms. Korner agrees with my assessment and my reading of the decision.

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I do. I mean, that -- that must be

25 right. The problem arises, and it is because of the Lukic decision, we

Page 10002

1 say it is not enough to say we challenge it. There has to be reliable

2 and credible evidence, and there must be some indication that there is

3 reliable and credible evidence. But our position is difficult because if

4 we say -- we're put on notice because there's a specific challenge

5 through a witness to -- or to adjudicate in fact by cross-examination it

6 has to be indicated. It's not enough to say we challenge it. It has to

7 be put to a witness, for example, that -- that -- that the ethnic

8 composition -- let's take a silly example, but the ethnic composition is

9 wrong, and -- of Doboj.

10 And then we're put on notice and that's been put in

11 cross-examination, but the trouble is because of the Lukic decision, if

12 we had been put on notice properly by cross-examinations rather than a

13 blanket, We challenge everything, do we have to, as part of our case,

14 seek to call evidence to deal with it; or can we wait until the Defence

15 case and then call rebuttal evidence? And the Lukic evidence says, no,

16 we can't.

17 So effectively that is why I'm saying it is important that we

18 know what is challenged in advance and for Your Honours to know so that

19 we can look for the witness that covers that particular adjudicated fact

20 if it is important. I mean, obviously if it is important and material

21 to -- to a real issue in the case and then apply to Your Honours

22 regrettably because of this challenge and because there's been a

23 suggestion in cross-examination but without any indication of what --

24 what the evidence is, to say, we need to call a witness or put in another

25 document. And the only way a trial can proceed efficiently, which is one

Page 10003

1 of the -- of the many aspects of general human rights law, that we should

2 know in advance. So that's --

3 JUDGE HALL: Hence the practicality of the suggestion that Judge

4 Harhoff has made. As the one way of dealing with this, and clearly this

5 was a -- this is not a decided view -- view of the Chamber, is for the

6 parties to get together -- because we're dealing with a large number of

7 facts here, and the difference between the sides on this issue are not

8 as -- as -- as wide as they first appeared. It's merely arriving at a

9 practical means of -- of -- of the -- well, in this case the Prosecution,

10 knowing which of the facts are facts that -- that are -- in such dispute

11 as this evidence has to be called, and, as I said, that is something that

12 we're going to have give further thought to.

13 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, can I say, I mean, I don't know how

14 often I have to repeat this, because there's fairness and there's

15 fairness. Judge Harhoff invited us to do just that pre-trial, and we

16 sent -- we have copies of it, we can provide Your Honours, and we may

17 have done so, in fact, I believe, to Judge Harhoff of what we -- we asked

18 the Defence to agree, and we were met with a blanket refusal.

19 Now, having said that, I think Your Honours should make it clear

20 it is for the Defence now to take the initiative and say what they will

21 agree as opposed to what they won't agree, whichever way round it is. We

22 are receptive. We are anxious that we should not have to rehash matters

23 which have been through countless cases and be the subject of countless

24 appeal decisions. I mean, particularly when we get to Prijedor, which is

25 an enormous municipality, as far as the events are concerned, and has

Page 10004

1 been investigated as somebody once put it, there isn't a snail that

2 hasn't been investigated in Prijedor. It has been through seven

3 different cases. We seriously ought to be able, at this stage of the

4 Tribunal's life, to reach agreement on what has been proved beyond a

5 peradventure and concentrate on the real issues; namely, what part did

6 Zupljanin play in those events, what part did Stanisic, what was their

7 knowledge. That is what the issues should be.

8 And so --

9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. We're halfway into this morning's

10 session, the first session for the morning, and obviously this is not a

11 matter that is going to be resolved now, and it's something to which we

12 are going to have to return. Thank you.

13 If there are no further matters, could the usher please escort

14 the witness back to the stand.

15 [The witness takes the stand]

16 JUDGE HALL: Good morning, to you, Mr. Petrovic. Before

17 Mr. Cvijetic continues, I would remind you that you're still on your

18 oath.

19 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

21 WITNESS: OBREN PETROVIC [Resumed]

22 [Witness answered through interpreter]

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Petrovic. We broke off

25 yesterday before we called a document.

Page 10005

1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] So can we please see 65 ter 2387.

2 I apologise if it has been admitted in the meantime. I don't

3 think so, but ... anyway.

4 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: It is P1345, from our records.

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Petrovic, this is a report of activities of the Doboj police

7 detachment. This was shown to you by the Prosecution during their

8 examination-in-chief.

9 Do you remember that this was discussed?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. We will reach the last page yet. But I can remind you that this

12 was signed by the detachment commander, Mr. Djukic, I believe was his

13 name, right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. Here's what I would like to discuss with you.

16 During the examination yesterday, I showed you documents and

17 orders of the minister of the interior. And during the

18 examination-in-chief, you were able to see minutes -- or, rather, reports

19 about the inspections of the MUP when the inspectors came to Doboj.

20 What you were able to see from the order, I believe, you will

21 agree with me, is that in his orders, the minister deals with the

22 reduction of the number of members of the reserve police force and giving

23 that excess number to the army to dispose with, and he also deals with

24 the disbanding of all so-called special and other units that were

25 established during the war without his orders. They, too, are placed at

Page 10006

1 the disposal of the army.

2 The minister, in his order, informs the recipients that the

3 establishment of a special police detachment at Pale is in progress and

4 that it was being manned. I suppose that you know that only the minister

5 has the power to establish such units under the law.

6 Do you know that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In the examination-in-chief, you said yourself that this

9 detachment was established by Major Stankovic, if I'm not mistake, right?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that it was really he who enlarged the number of reserve

12 police officer so that a great many of them -- so that such a detachment,

13 such a very strong detachment could be established, right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You also confirmed that the funding normally came from the

16 municipal -- municipal funds or the municipal budget and that the Crisis

17 Staff decided that this should be done that way.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn to the

20 following page in this document. One -- one more, page 3, actually.

21 Q. Mr. Petrovic, let me turn your attention to the first two

22 sentences. This says that the detachment was established on 8 May 1992,

23 right? But later on, there's a sentence that the Defence thinks is

24 wrong - I'm saying this for the record - it says that, pursuant to a

25 decision, an order of the ministry the number of members was reduced from

Page 10007

1 1300 to 720, and so on.

2 Bearing in mind what we said in this introductory part and

3 yesterday, obviously the minister had nothing to do with the detachment,

4 with that unit because he didn't even know of its existence when it was

5 being established. Rather, the minister dealt with what he was

6 authorised to do under the law. Namely, the reserve police force, its

7 strength, and the ratio between the regular police force and the reserve

8 police force.

9 You remember that this -- this was what one of his documents

10 said, correct?

11 A. Well, I don't know whether he knew it or didn't know it.

12 Q. Well, I'm putting the position of the Defence to you that he was

13 dealing with the reserve police rather than the detachment. Did you find

14 information anywhere to show that he dealt with this detachment? I don't

15 think so. Neither have I.

16 The crux of the matter, Mr. Petrovic, is that the minister's

17 order to disband this kind of a unit and similar units was not

18 implemented on time and the reserve police force was not reduced in

19 strength in a timely fashion.

20 You will agree with me that this was one of the -- this is one --

21 one of the things that were put to you yesterday and you put forward the

22 reasons why it wasn't done in time?

23 A. I believe that everybody knew of the existence of this

24 detachment.

25 Q. Thank you. Then --

Page 10008

1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I would suggest that we go to page

2 5 of the document. I'm referring to the page in the B/C/S version.

3 I apologise, I can't give the page reference in English, but I

4 believe it's the same. The last paragraph in the B/C/S says that the

5 detachment wasn't being helped by the ministry in any way - that's the

6 very last paragraph - or, rather, the last-but-one paragraph and the

7 second sentence in that paragraph. Not receiving any help at all from

8 the Republika Srpska MUP for the covering of the stations' expenses and

9 also the maintenance of the Dom.

10 Q. Could we now please go to the last page of the document before I

11 put my next question to you. That's the section where the proposed

12 conclusions are listed.

13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We may have to turn back one page

14 because that's where it starts; although the very last ones are more

15 interesting to me.

16 This is the page. In English, it is probably also one page back.

17 We'll just find the conclusions in English, probably on the previous

18 page.

19 Q. It starts in the lower part of the page. The author of this text

20 lists conclusions as a summary of what precedes, and in the last part, we

21 can see the proposed measures for the improvement of the security

22 situation.

23 Mr. Petrovic, please read what the author of this document

24 proposes.

25 A. You mean under 1?

Page 10009

1 Q. No, just read everything.

2 A. I've read it.

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Now could we please go to the end

4 of the document.

5 Yes, 7, 8, 9, and so on.

6 Q. Can you at least agree with me when I say that all these proposed

7 measures are targeted at local bodies, municipal bodies, from whom

8 certain actions are requested, help, et cetera.

9 Am I right?

10 A. Well, that's what it says.

11 Q. That's what it says.

12 You will agree with me, won't you, when I say that the document

13 doesn't show to who it was sent. But I suppose you will agree with me

14 that a logical conclusion would that be it was drafted for the local

15 authorities from whom help is requested.

16 THE INTERPRETER: We didn't hear the answer of the witness.

17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Well, my question actually is whether or not the only logical

19 conclusion is that what I have just said.

20 A. Well, probably.

21 Q. Probably, okay.

22 [Defence counsel confer]

23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Since this is already in evidence,

Page 10010

1 there's no need to tender it. I can pass onto the following document.

2 Could we please see 65 ter 2775.

3 Could we please turn to the next page immediately. This is just

4 a file sleeve.

5 Q. Mr. Petrovic, this is a letter from the chief of the centre,

6 Andrija Bjelosevic, who sent this letter to all stations, including

7 yours, forwarding the minister's order that we have already commented on.

8 I mean the one about the implementation of detention measures, by which I

9 mean the three days, which is the duration of remand prison that you were

10 authorised to impose.

11 Do you remember?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. This is the 12th of August.

14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please turn to the next

15 page. Attached there's the minister's order. This is the original that

16 we read yesterday.

17 Q. Do you remember? Can you remember whether you received

18 Mr. Bjelosevic's -- this order of Mr. Bjelosevic?

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. You can't remember, very well.

21 Well, if you can't remember, I cannot tender this document, and

22 the minister's order is already in evidence.

23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] All right. Let's move on to the

24 next document, 65 ter 190. I think it was also admitted as P590.

25 Q. This is a document that the Prosecution has also showed you.

Page 10011

1 It's about the problems with regard to the activities of paramilitary

2 units in the territory of the Doboj CSB.

3 You read it with the OTP. I believe that are you familiar with

4 the contents. So let us comment on the third paragraph now. It starts

5 with: "These groups benefit from ..." et cetera.

6 Have you read it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Do you remember with -- what the chief of the centre is saying

9 about the problems he's pointing out and because of which it is difficult

10 to put these paramilitaries under control?

11 Do you agree with this?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And he goes on to propose measures to be taken. You can see

14 that.

15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let's turn to the next page,

16 please. Let's just wait for it to appear.

17 Q. Please focus your attention on the lower part of the page. It's

18 about the problem the police is facing in -- in combat. Do read it and

19 then we'll comment on it.

20 Have you read it?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Do you agree what Mr. Bjelosevic says here?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Are you familiar with the problem he's pointing out here, about

25 the use of these men and the problems connected with it?

Page 10012

1 A. Yes. He is saying that they are using the police when necessary;

2 and when not, the police, again, stays under military command.

3 Q. All right.

4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us turn to the last page.

5 Q. We have this paragraph which has been marked. If can you read

6 it, it says: "A commission was formed recently at the Crisis Staff

7 level ..."

8 Please read it.

9 You can confirm the accuracy of this information, because you

10 spoke about the commission for triage and for the release of persons from

11 detention.

12 My question is: Did the CSB get actively involved in the work of

13 this commission?

14 A. Yes, there was a representative.

15 Q. There was?

16 A. Yes, there was.

17 Q. Very well. Thank you.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Since this has been admitted, too,

19 I will not need it any longer. Thank you. We can move on.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D00-2306.

22 Q. See this? This is from the Security Services Centre. It was

23 sent to your station, and they request certain information to be

24 compiled.

25 Would you please look at this and then give us your comments.

Page 10013

1 Have you looked at it?

2 A. Yes.

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We can turn to the last page to

4 see the signature.

5 Q. Andrija Bjelosevic, chief of the centre, signed it, right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you receive this letter, and was something done pursuant to

8 the letter of the chief of the centre?

9 A. I can't remember. But, most likely we did receive it, and we

10 were supposed to produce a report.

11 Q. I suppose that you can't help me in answering pursuant to his --

12 to whose request this information was compiled. What is relevant for you

13 is simply that you had to act upon this letter of the centre, right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So can you confirm that you, nevertheless, received this document

16 and that you acted in accordance with it?

17 A. I believe we did.

18 Q. Very well.

19 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this

20 document into evidence as Defence exhibit.

21 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.

22 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D269, Your Honours.

23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will now turn to a different

24 topic.

25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, before you turn to another subject,

Page 10014

1 I think it would be interesting to see the results of the inquiry that

2 Mr. Bjelosevic made. The witness said that he thinks that they actually

3 did receive it and that they replied. But what was the answers given to

4 the inquiry?

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Mr. Petrovic, do you know what were the results of the inquiry;

7 can you remember?

8 A. I can't remember.

9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence will

10 have to make its own inquiry. We will have to contact and get

11 information from the author of this document.

12 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Previous translation continues] ... obviously.

13 Because one thing is that the CSB is asking for this information. But if

14 we don't know the answer, then I'm not sure what use the Chamber is to

15 make of this piece of information.

16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I expected the witness to know and

17 to remember, but now that he says that he doesn't know and he doesn't

18 remember, it is clear that we will have to make further inquiries.

19 Q. Mr. Petrovic, in the course of examination-in-chief, questions

20 were put to you about - if I may say so - the investigation of crimes

21 which took place in the territory under the jurisdiction of your centre.

22 You will agree with me that the atmosphere which persisted in Doboj was

23 suitable for commission of various crime, including the gravest ones?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. There was an enormous jump in the number of crimes committed,

Page 10015

1 especially the most serious ones?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And the aggravating factor in identifying and locating the

4 perpetrators was the fact that in the territory of Doboj municipality,

5 there emerged some unidentified persons concerning whom you had no

6 intelligence. These people stayed there briefly and then left the

7 territory of the municipality, right?

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE HALL: Are you giving evidence, Mr. Cvijetic, the way that

10 question was phrased?

11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. In investigating the crimes was this fact that we just mentioned

13 a hindrance in that process?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Was it a hindrance, also, that they frequently disguised

16 themselves in different uniforms and that it wasn't really clear to whom

17 they belonged, to what group, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. As far as I remember, you said that in relation to all documented

20 crimes, on-site investigations were carried out, evidence was secured,

21 and investigations were conducted.

22 Did I interpret your answers correctly?

23 A. Well, in the beginning, that wasn't the case. But later on when

24 the services were established, they started working on investigating the

25 crimes.

Page 10016

1 Q. In the information we read a bit earlier on, in relation to this

2 initial period, it was said that you had technical problems, personnel

3 problems, and various other problems in doing your work, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. According to the rules, crimes which were committed at that time

6 by unidentified perpetrators had to be documented as well. And then,

7 later on, they were supposed to investigate, in order to identify the

8 perpetrators, right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. In cases where perpetrators were identified, the records were

11 completed and sent to the prosecutor's office, right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is this how they proceeded, once you got organised, as you put

14 it?

15 A. Yes. Once we got organised.

16 Q. And this work in your police station was performed by your crime

17 protection services for minor crimes; and in the centre, they had their

18 own service, which dealt with the most serious crimes. Is that what you

19 said?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I showed you a set of criminal reports, some against known and

22 some against unknown perpetrators, all signed by Mr. Bjelosevic. But you

23 told us that since this was done by crime investigation services, that

24 this was their line of work, you couldn't really be of assistance to me

25 in relation to specific cases.

Page 10017

1 Was that how it was?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. For the sake of showing an example, I will put to you two

4 documents, and perhaps you could assist us, if you remember anything

5 about these two documents.

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have three minutes

7 left and two documents. I can't possibly complete them in three minutes.

8 Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a break now.

9 JUDGE HALL: Very well.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 [The witness stands down]

12 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.

13 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.

14 JUDGE HALL: As a matter of courtesy to counsel and the accused,

15 I would explain that our delay in resuming the Bench was due to certain

16 housekeeping matters that we're trying to sort out. The fruits of our

17 discussions counsel would learn in the course of today.

18 [The witness takes the stand]

19 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please continue, Mr. Cvijetic.

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

21 Could we now call on the screen 1D01-0349, please.

22 Q. Mr. Petrovic, before the break, and also earlier, we spoke about

23 identifying and pressing charges for crimes committed in the territory of

24 Doboj municipality. Here, I have a document that, so to speak, lists the

25 crimes committed by unidentified perpetrators. As I was able to see,

Page 10018

1 there is also a record of crimes where the victims were non-Serbs.

2 Do you see this too?

3 A. Yes.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, what is this document? Is it a SJB

5 report or ...

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I suppose this is a

7 report of a CSB, not a SJB. And this is what I wanted to clarify with

8 the witness, whether he can identify this document and confirm its

9 authenticity. And I won't tender it until we ensure all this

10 information. So my goal was exactly what you just asked about.

11 May I continue?

12 Q. Mr. Petrovic, what you can see in this document is that there is

13 an record, a compilation, of all crimes committed by -- by unidentified

14 persons against non-Serbs.

15 Do you see this as well?

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, if I may return to the query raised by

18 Judge Harhoff, should you prove the document first before you put the

19 contents to the witness?

20 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I want to elicit the

21 information on the document from the witness. I will ask him directly.

22 Q. Mr. Petrovic, could this be a report of a CSB given the gravity

23 of the crimes it mentions? Because your SJB did not deal with this type

24 of crime. Can you assist me there?

25 A. Well, it could be.

Page 10019

1 Q. So this document could be coming from a CSB, not from your SJB,

2 right?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Are you familiar with the cases mentioned here --

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 [Prosecution counsel confer]

7 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honour, first of all -- we don't have any

8 date on this document. We don't have -- we don't who the maker is. And

9 the date is very relevant when this was made so I don't know if we can

10 have any information. Where was this obtained, how, and --

11 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] ... signature.

12 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: There is apparently no signature on this

13 document.

14 So before asking any further questions, can we maybe establish

15 the foundations.

16 JUDGE DELVOIE: The only thing the witness says, Mr. Cvijetic, is

17 that this is not a SJB document.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But he allowed -- or, rather, he

19 conceded that this might be a document of the CSB if I'm not mistake.

20 Your Honours.

21 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... it might be

22 anything, if I may say so with respect. The issue, as I said, Judge

23 Harhoff first alerted you to and Mr. Demirdjian has now raised that,

24 before we -- I expect at the end of the exercise you would seek to be

25 eliciting evidence from the witness which the Chamber should take on

Page 10020

1 board in terms of evaluating the contents of this document, but before we

2 get to that, there is a fundamental question of what the document is, and

3 it isn't helpful to ask questions [indiscernible] what it could be,

4 because it could be anything.

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours. I will not

6 deal with the document, but instead I will ask the witnesses about the

7 cases mentioned in it. I wasn't going to tender the document anyway

8 because I still cannot provide what you ask of me. I will no longer deal

9 with the document.

10 MS. KORNER: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, Your

11 Honour, this is we're going back to the same thing. Unless Mr. Cvijetic

12 can tell the Court where this document comes from, what it is supposed to

13 be, he cannot ask questions based upon it.

14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] But I've already said I wouldn't

15 be discussing the document.

16 Q. Mr. Petrovic --

17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I agree that the document be

18 removed from the screen and I will ask questions without referring to the

19 document.

20 Q. Mr. Petrovic, so this document is not related to the document.

21 Were an on-site investigations made and was evidence collected about

22 crimes, the victims of which were non-Serbs?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did your crime investigation service distinguish with regard to

25 the ethnicity of the victim when it comes to what they should do?

Page 10021

1 A. In the earlier days, it wasn't done, but, later on, we did do it,

2 regardless of the ethnicity of the victim.

3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Then I would like to call up the

4 following document which we will be able to identify.

5 It's 1D03 -- 1D03-1240.

6 [Defence counsel confer]

7 Q. Mr. Petrovic, you said twice that you did not do it; but later

8 on, when the conditions were favourable and possibly when you were able

9 to do it, or trained to do it, then you would engage in that activity.

10 Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So this is a criminal report for a specific crime, the victim of

13 which was Ivan Cigoj. Judging by the name, we can conclude that he is a

14 Croat.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And Ferid Cabric probably Muslim?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And the perpetrator is a Serb?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And the criminal report went to the public prosecutor's office of

21 the Doboj municipality.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you know about this case?

24 A. I don't remember.

25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we just look at the last page

Page 10022

1 of this document, Your Honours.

2 Q. Here you can see a list of attachments to the criminal report.

3 To the extent you know - and you said that your crime

4 investigation service dealt with this - is this the usual way of

5 completing a criminal report, once the -- the required activities have

6 been done?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. As you said you don't know about this specific case, I will not

9 tender this document. Instead, I will move on to the following.

10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see Exhibit 65 ter

11 964.

12 Q. Mr. Petrovic, we're now passing onto another topic.

13 You have been asked about --

14 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I apologise. Which tab is this on your list?

15 I'm just trying to find the document.

16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 40 in my binder.

17 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you.

18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. You were asked about communications and communicating with the

20 headquarters; that is, the MUP. I asked you about that. And I found a

21 statement of yours that it was your impression that the MUP was actually

22 in existence and functioned as of August 1992.

23 Do you remember that this was your estimate?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You said that that was the month when you started receiving

Page 10023

1 orders from the MUP, and in August an inspection from the MUP arrived to

2 your area, and that made you conclude that after -- after the corridor

3 was cut through -- or, rather, after the corridor was established, things

4 started functioning and communications were possible.

5 A. Yes. It was only possible after the corridor was established.

6 Q. After that, a document was shown to you that the stations were

7 submitting daily reports to the ministry.

8 Do you remember the Prosecutor showing you that in the

9 examination-in-chief?

10 A. I don't remember.

11 Q. Very well. Then take a look at one of these daily reports. I

12 believe we have it on our screens now.

13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And let us turn to the last page.

14 In the English version, it seems we'll have to scroll up to the last

15 paragraph on the last-but-one page.

16 Q. Please read this remark, Mr. Petrovic.

17 A. Aloud?

18 Q. No. It doesn't have to be aloud.

19 A. I've read it.

20 Q. You will agree with me, won't you, that this corroborates what

21 you said; that this -- that for this daily report from Doboj, information

22 was not received in the period you were referring to?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. I suppose that you don't know this document, that you haven't

25 seen it, apart from confirming what I've asked you?

Page 10024

1 Therefore, I'll show you the next daily report, for which the

2 Defence established that was the first daily report, including

3 information from the Doboj municipality.

4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us see Exhibit 65 ter 995.

5 It is also marked as P170.

6 Q. This is a bulletin. We see that it's dated 24 July 1992.

7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Let us turn to the last page in

8 both linguistic versions. And could we enlarge the last paragraph which

9 refers to Doboj. It may be difficult to read it, but I think it's

10 legible after all. It says Serbian municipality of Doboj, and some sort

11 of explosion is mentioned and an on-site investigation.

12 Can you read it?

13 A. It is barely legible.

14 Q. In the last paragraph, it says, various goods are taken away on a

15 large scale, and persons in uniform are mentioned. And do read the last

16 sentence. "Equipment belonging to the Derventa SJB has been taken away,"

17 and so on.

18 So, can you see what I've just read to you, the last sentence?

19 A. Yes, I can see that.

20 Q. The first information to draft such a bulletin -- at least that

21 is my conclusion based on my perusal of all the bulletins, and I've read

22 them all, was received after the corridor was established after the 24th

23 of June [as interpreted]. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I said 24 July, if this could be

Page 10025

1 corrected, please. And the document also reads 24th July.

2 Q. Speaking about means of communication, let us see a 65 ter

3 document, 68.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Cvijetic, I wasn't sure what the purpose was

5 of showing this document to the witness.

6 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness was shown

7 a document, and he was required to say whether or not they were

8 duty-bound to send information to the MUP from the municipality of Doboj

9 about the events in that municipality. This has to do with the issue of

10 the existence or non-existence of communication lines with the ministry.

11 I just tried to confirm what the witness has said, that only after the

12 establishment of the corridor, this manner of informing the MUP became

13 possible only as of 24 July 1992, which date can be seen here.

14 The following document also has to do with this, but it isn't a

15 bulletin.

16 So, Your Honour, I'm actually talking about the setting up of

17 communication lines with the Ministry of the Interior.

18 May I continue, Your Honours, with the following document?

19 Can we see that 65 ter 68 document, please.

20 Q. Mr. Petrovic, I, again, would ask you to read it before I ask you

21 about it.

22 Have you read it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Sir, do you know the author? So this the Department of

25 Communications and Cryptographic Protection. Do you know the author of

Page 10026

1 this document?

2 A. I do.

3 Q. Thank you. And the signature down there should be his, right?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The information from this report, from the 30th of July until the

6 30th of September, does it look familiar to you? Do you know about the

7 problems in the communications that this document speaks of? You've

8 mentioned it yourself.

9 A. I know that there were problem, but I don't know about this

10 specific information. I don't know anything about it.

11 Q. In this document, it says that it wasn't until this period - from

12 the 30th of July until the 30th of September - that they started solving

13 the problems with the communications and that they started establishing

14 at least some basic communication channels but that, however, some

15 problems remained and that they were working on them.

16 Do you see what it says here?

17 A. Yes, that's what it says there.

18 Q. You must know that the basic type of communication in the police

19 work is a dispatch or a teleprinter type of communication.

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Based on this document, I can't see that teleprinter connection

22 was established and they mostly relied on telephone and fax

23 communication?

24 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Cvijetic,

25 we have previously reminded you that you're counsel, not witness in this

Page 10027

1 matter, so please ask questions of the witness on the stand.

2 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour.

3 Q. Mr. Petrovic, do you see in this document on what type of

4 communication the people who worked at the CSB relied on?

5 A. Yes, can I see it in this report.

6 Q. Well, tell us.

7 A. Telephone and telegraph. It's added in handwriting, telephone.

8 Q. You weren't clear. Tell us, please.

9 A. In this report, it says that they used telephone. It says that

10 they established telephone connection.

11 Q. And, based on your recollection, was that the only type of

12 communication in that period of time?

13 A. I think so.

14 Q. Based on your answer, it is clear that the dispatch type of

15 communication is missing, right?

16 A. That's what it says in this report.

17 Q. Mr. Petrovic, other than confirming the author and the

18 authenticity of this document, can you also confirm that the content of

19 this document is accurate?

20 A. I can't remember.

21 Q. All right then. We will have to cover this with somebody else.

22 Mr. Petrovic, I would like us to go back to two documents that

23 have already been put to you. 65 ter 1274, which has become P1341, MFI.

24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we now turn to page 3 in the

25 B/C/S. That's the last page, so it should be easy to find it in the

Page 10028

1 English version as well.

2 Q. Would you please read the paragraph which begins with the words:

3 "Before the arrival of inspector Cedo Tosic ..."

4 Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Read it, please.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. You will agree with me that the inspectors from the Ministry of

9 Interior, by way of this document, request the exact numbers of both

10 regular police force and reserve force?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in this paragraph, we can see why they need this: In order

13 to plan accurately the funds for payments.

14 Is that your interpretation too?

15 A. Probably.

16 Q. Yesterday I showed you a document of yours, in which you inform,

17 I think in October, that you established police stations of reserve

18 force. But in that document, you say that it wasn't easy to reduce the

19 number of reserve policemen down to the number requested by the ministry,

20 right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. My question is: Was that number harmonised with the number

23 requested by the minister while you were chief of police?

24 A. I think so.

25 Q. Very well. I'll show you another document put to you by the

Page 10035

1 questions.

2 JUDGE HALL: Is it still the position of counsel for Zupljanin

3 that they have no cross-examination --

4 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, you're right.

5 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

6 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes, Your Honours, as I announced, I have about

7 half an hour to 45 minutes.

8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, you may begin [Microphone not activated].

9 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you.

10 Re-examination by Mr. Demirdjian:

11 Q. Good morning, Mr. Petrovic.

12 Yesterday you were shown the rules on the disciplinary

13 responsibility in the MUP. Do you remember that?

14 A. Yesterday? Yes, I remember. It was shown to me yesterday.

15 Q. And this was Exhibit 1D54.

16 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: If we could display it on the screen, please.

17 Q. And if you remember, the Defence read to you a number of articles

18 from those disciplinary rules.

19 Now --

20 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Mr. Cvijetic is on his feet.

21 Q. From what I remember, you were shown a number of articles. 1, 2,

22 3, and 4, et cetera.

23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: If we can go to page 7 in the English version

24 and page 4 in the B/C/S version, please.

25 Q. Now, these questions were put to you in relation to your

Page 10036

1 dismissal, and one article that was not shown to you was Article 8. If

2 you could take a few seconds to read that article.

3 And for the record, this article says that:

4 "In order for a request to initiate a procedure to establish

5 disciplinary responsibility for serious violations of work duty to be

6 filed, the worker must be questioned and other evidence obtained?"

7 Do you see that, Mr. Petrovic?

8 A. Yes, I do.

9 Q. Going back to 1992, were you ever questioned?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Can you look at the next article, which is Article 9.

12 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: And we will need to go to the next page in the

13 English version.

14 Q. You can see Article 9 on the screen, Mr. Petrovic. And it says:

15 "A request to initiate disciplinary procedures shall be delivered to the

16 accused."

17 Was anything of that sort delivered to you?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And from the beginning of 1992 until you heard of this meeting in

20 October 1992, did you receive any warning, whether written or verbal,

21 about your performance as a SJB chief?

22 A. No.

23 Q. I'm done with that document. We can put it away.

24 Let me ask you, Mr. Petrovic: In the Ministry of Interior, who

25 is responsible for the appointment of CSB chiefs and SJB chiefs?

Page 10037

1 A. The chief of the centre makes a proposal to the minister also for

2 removal. And the minister makes a decision about either removal or

3 appointment.

4 Q. Now, yesterday at page 9916 the Defence put to you that you were

5 not removed by the minister. And we saw the document of the 18th of

6 January, 1993, which came from the minister.

7 Now, did that document effectively remove you from your position?

8 A. I stand by my position, that a meeting was held with -- at

9 General Lisica's office in September, and I saw the document in

10 October 1992.

11 Last year, in September, I saw a document, a proposal, by the

12 chief of the centre to -- to the minister that I be removed as -- stating

13 that I didn't introduce order but not mentioning that I did not downsize

14 the police. And the third item, I believe, was that I protected staff of

15 Muslim ethnicity. Muslims. And I heard that those people were

16 subsequently dismissed from the SJB.

17 As soon as I get that document, I'll give it to the Prosecutor,

18 because it was only shown to me last year in September.

19 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: In relation to this, could we show Exhibit P625

20 which is the annual report of the RS MUP for the year 1992.

21 Q. Now, Mr. Petrovic, you haven't seen -- you probably have not seen

22 this document before. But I would like you --

23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I would like us to go to page 38 in the B/C/S

24 version, which is page 27 in the English version.

25 Q. Sir, do you see the section 4, which is: Organisation,

Page 10038

1 et cetera?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. And can you look at the third paragraph, which starts with the

4 sentence:

5 "In implementing personnel policies, the starting points were

6 primarily Serbian patriotism and professionalism ..."

7 Do you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you comment on this, in the light of what you told us about

10 the way you were removed from your position?

11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness knows

12 nothing about the document and still is required to comment and speculate

13 on who had what on their minds when writing this sentence. And, anyway,

14 this is something I never dealt with in my cross-examination.

15 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Demirdjian, in the same way that I queried

16 Mr. Cvijetic's dealing with a number of documents which speak for

17 themselves and questioning the utility of asking a witness don't you

18 agree that the document says, what -- well, there are two objections that

19 Mr. Cvijetic has raised. One is this doesn't come out of

20 cross-examination and that the -- whether the witness is capable of even

21 commenting on this. How does that assist -- how does the first

22 objection -- the first question is: How does it assist us, and in any

23 event, does this arise out of cross-examination.

24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: In relation to the first part of the objection,

25 yes, it does. I believe Mr. Cvijetic challenged the witness on the

Page 10039

1 reasons of his removal.

2 As for part two, this is the annual report of the RS MUP, an

3 organisation to which the witness belonged in 1992, and it describes the

4 policy of how personnel matters were resolved in 1992, and here is a

5 witness who can talk about the way he was removed.

6 I will not dwell on this document too long, Your Honours. I just

7 want him to comment as to the policy within the RS MUP, to which he was a

8 subject of.

9 JUDGE HALL: Yes, you may ask that question directly. Because

10 you need his reaction to this -- notwithstanding the statement that

11 appears, yes.

12 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes, I understand, Your Honours.

13 Q. Mr. Petrovic, let me repeat my question then.

14 What is your comment, in light of what you told us, about the way

15 you were removed?

16 A. I can say that a man who wanted to help Muslims, in this

17 particular case, to preserve regular conditions would face problems.

18 Serbs were expelled from the Federation and -- but the innocent

19 population who responded to mobilisation calls and anyone who hadn't done

20 anything shouldn't fear any consequences. But as time passed, I noticed

21 that there was a certain mistrust toward myself, and it became ever

22 clearer that I would be removed. And this would also have been a reason

23 why these meetings were held in secret. They could have invited me from

24 October on.

25 Q. I'd like to move on to --

Page 10040

1 JUDGE HALL: It is --

2 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes.

3 JUDGE HALL: -- time for the break. So we would resume in 20

4 minutes.

5 I think you indicated you had about a half-hour with this

6 witness, so I suppose you would go for another 20 minutes when we resume.

7 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Roughly speaking, yes.

8 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

9 [The witness stands down]

10 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 12.38 p.m.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 [The witness takes the stand]

14 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: May I continue, Your Honours?

15 JUDGE HALL: Yes, please.

16 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Thank you.

17 Q. Mr. Petrovic, I'd like to ask you a few questions about that

18 issue of paramilitaries. And specifically at page 9923 of yesterday's

19 transcript it was put to you by the Defence that the police had nothing

20 to do with the paramilitary units.

21 Now, this may have been your case, but can you remind us what you

22 told us about the relationship between the CSB chief and the head of the

23 Red Berets?

24 A. Well, I think that they were not confronted.

25 Q. And can you expand on that? Have you seen them interacting with

Page 10041

1 each other?

2 A. Yes, I did. And I think that they were on good terms. The

3 assistant chief, Milos Savic, was issuing orders to a platoon of the Red

4 Berets, so I assumed that they knew each other and that they could

5 control them. That's what I understood.

6 Q. Now, the issue of payrolls was brought up, and this was at page

7 9925 yesterday, and the Defence put to you that the fact that the Red

8 Berets were on the payroll of the CSB didn't give them the status of

9 authorised officials.

10 Do you remember that part of your examination yesterday?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And then you were asked whether the Crisis Staff condoned the

13 payment of salaries and whether they approved the funds for the salaries.

14 Now, can you explain to us the relationship, first of all,

15 between the police and the Crisis Staff?

16 A. Well, I think that, as far as the -- the requests by the police

17 are concerned, the Crisis Staff approved the funds requested by the CSB

18 and the SJB, as far as the funds are concerned. And probably also the

19 army.

20 Q. And just to be clear on this, the CSB, you just said, or SJB,

21 requests the funds and those are approved by the Crisis Staff. Is that

22 how it worked?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. I'd like to move to another topic, which was the issue of

25 measures against perpetrators. Than was at page 9927 yesterday.

Page 10042

1 And it was put to you whether you were capable to stand up to

2 these men, and by "these men" we were talking about the perpetrators and

3 whether you were able to prevent their activities. And to that question,

4 in that context yesterday, you said no.

5 Now, on Monday, at page 9899, you said the following:

6 "I think that we had a different approach to work. Before the

7 war, I was a policeman; whereas, Andrija Bjelosevic was not. In my view,

8 what was require was more discipline and more work, and I believe that we

9 were capable of doing the job."

10 Do you still stand by these words?

11 A. Well, I still think that as soon as we noticed what the situation

12 was like and that there were paramilitary units, that it was necessary to

13 go through the chief of the centre all the way up and intervene to have

14 those people removed from Doboj, or through the army.

15 Anyway, something had to be done at a higher level to prevent

16 that.

17 Q. It was also put to you on that same page that Doboj was on some

18 sort of a siege from within and that the police did not have room for any

19 sort of ordinary police work.

20 You remember that was put to you yesterday?

21 A. Well, yes, because there were more and more units daily because

22 of the corridor, and there were a great many of them. So you were no

23 longer able to tell who was who and which units these were.

24 Q. Yes. And what I wanted to focus was on the "ordinary police

25 work."

Page 10043

1 If you remember, on Monday, I showed you a criminal report which

2 was admitted as P1300. It was a criminal report against 30 Muslims and

3 Croats. Do you remember that document?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Now, this is not the only one that was out there. I showed you

6 one example of it. Could you confirm to the Trial Chamber that there

7 were many more of the same?

8 A. There were.

9 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, at this stage I don't plan on

10 showing all these examples. We have one, and the witness has confirmed

11 that there are.

12 Q. So, therefore, you do agree with the position by which the police

13 did not have room for ordinary police work is incorrect. Would you agree

14 with that?

15 A. Well, there were few policemen. It was very difficult for police

16 to work under those circumstances and with that type of organisation when

17 they had a combat detachment. It was difficult to do all that.

18 Q. Well, following this suggestion by the Defence it was put to you

19 that your police force was reduced and you said that you were left with

20 20 people.

21 Now, on Monday, you remember, I showed you the SJB payroll for

22 the month of May. And on that payroll, we could see roughly 60 staff

23 members. If you want, we can display that document; it was P1339.

24 Now, these 60 staff members, did they work at the police station?

25 A. Well, no. Most likely this list was made immediately after the

Page 10044

1 3rd of May, when it was determined who the active policemen were.

2 Immediately after the 5th of May, these active policemen were assigned to

3 these different copies that were established.

4 So they did not exist separately as a unit. No, this is just a

5 list of active policemen, 100 policemen who worked as policemen before

6 the war and remained on active duty.

7 Q. Now you told us a moment ago that this was brought up to the CSB

8 chief and probably went up higher up. When you told us that you were

9 capable to do the job, what did you mean by that? What could have been

10 done?

11 A. Well, I believed that if there were Red Berets, that they must

12 have belonged to somebody, and the story was that it -- they belonged to

13 Serbia. So either via the army or the MUP, we had to intervene and to

14 request that, because initially, I expected them, being a special unit of

15 the MUP of Serbia, to help establish law and order. That was my

16 impression. There was no paper. And if it were the members of the army

17 who did that, then the Army of Republika Srpska at the level of the corps

18 or some other level, would have intervened and removed those people from

19 the area.

20 Q. I'd like to move on to the issue of the Crisis Staff orders.

21 You were shown a document by the Defence, which is Exhibit 1D259,

22 by which, if you remember, you were tasked by the Crisis Staff to ensure

23 that their decisions were implemented.

24 Do you remember that document?

25 A. I remember the document. But one of the documents has no

Page 10045

1 signature or seal. Well, this one does. But the next one doesn't have

2 either the signature or the seal.

3 Q. Now, first of all, I want to ask you about -- a question of daily

4 management of -- of work in the municipality. Even in time of peace,

5 would the chief of police attend meetings or report to the head of the

6 municipality?

7 A. Well, if this involved problems from the domain of public

8 security, then, naturally, yes, they would call -- the leaders of the

9 municipality would call people from the public security station.

10 Q. Now, in this case, you find yourself in a situation of immediate

11 threat of war and a Crisis Staff is in place. How does that affect you

12 submitting reports along your chain of command?

13 A. Well, in this hierarchy, there was Commander Stankovic, who was

14 the commander of the city defence. There was the Crisis Staff and the

15 chief of the centre.

16 Therefore, the detachment was deployed and subordinated to the

17 army, because they claimed that they were at the defence positions. So

18 this decision is something that resembles a political document, because

19 they don't really say who is supposed to do this. There is a station,

20 which is a generic term, and then there is a detachment of 300 people who

21 is on the defence positions.

22 Q. And what I'm trying to get at is, does this document, or did this

23 document obstruct you from reporting along your chain of command?

24 A. Well, I don't know. I don't remember, but they should have

25 informed, and I think that they did keep abreast the chief of the centre,

Page 10046

1 the Crisis Staff, and Commander Stankovic about this, that they all knew

2 of it.

3 Q. Very well. I'll move to another topic.

4 The issue of subordination was raised with you yesterday.

5 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: And if we could display 1D0046, please. I'm

6 sorry, that is Exhibit 1D46.

7 Q. This is an order of the 15th of May issued by the Ministry of

8 Interior. And I would like us to go to paragraph 7, which is on the next

9 page.

10 Now if you look at paragraph 7 --

11 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Yes.

12 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. This

13 document was not put to the witness either in-chief or in cross. It

14 wasn't even a topic discussed.

15 So if it is brought in now, we will have to re-examine the

16 witness. The Prosecution did announce this document but then they didn't

17 use it in their examination-in-chief.

18 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Your Honours, this comes directly out of the

19 cross-examination of the Defence in relation to the subordination of

20 police units during combat activity. This -- this -- this topic was

21 hashed over and over yesterday. And I wish to show him what the MUP

22 orders were about this very topic.

23 JUDGE HALL: Yes.

24 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

25 Q. Mr. Petrovic, did you have time to look at paragraph 7?

Page 10047

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and do you see the third

3 subsection in paragraph 7 which says that:

4 "While participating in combat operations, the units of the

5 ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the armed forces;

6 however, the ministry units shall be under the direct command of certain

7 ministry officials?"

8 Do you see that paragraph?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This deals with combat operations. Can you explain to the Trial

11 Chamber happens to policemen when they come back from combat operations

12 and they are in the town of Doboj, specifically with the issue of

13 subordination.

14 A. Well, as a company -- or, rather, they were either subordinated

15 in that way or as detachments on special assignments say, breakthrough of

16 the corridor, and upon completing their assignments, they would go back

17 to their original location. Say Company 405 was headquartered in a

18 certain village, so they would go back to that village. And then -- so I

19 explained that this was due to the fact that the demarcation line was so

20 close by.

21 Q. Maybe to clarify this topic a little bit, we know that there are

22 policemen left in the town of Doboj; is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. These policemen, while they were in town, who were they

25 subordinated to?

Page 10048

1 A. Well, in town itself, there was a company. The commander of that

2 company was, in this particular case, Zoran Djeric. The headquarters of

3 that company was at the station, and it used to be called the reserve

4 station. So he was at the station. One company had its headquarters,

5 had its seat at the public security station and the senior officers of

6 the detachment.

7 Q. And with regard to the inspectors and other policemen we see

8 drafting those criminal reports we saw earlier yesterday, who are they

9 reporting to while they're doing their normal duties?

10 A. If they were from the station, the crime investigation service

11 would send its report to the crime investigation service of the centre

12 and they, in turn, would send it up higher, at the level of Republika

13 Srpska.

14 Q. You were asked questions about the report of the activities of

15 the Doboj police detachment. This was P1345.

16 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: If we can display that document, please.

17 Q. Now, if you remember that document, as it is coming up,

18 Mr. Petrovic, you remember that today it was put to you that this

19 detachment was not necessarily reporting to the police, if you remember

20 that line of questioning this morning.

21 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: If we can go up to the top part of the first

22 page in the B/C/S version. Unfortunately, the stamp is not very legible.

23 But, Your Honours, we pulled out the original from the vault here, and I

24 would like this document to be shown to the witness.

25 Perhaps if it could be shown to Your Honours first, and then to

Page 10049

1 the Defence, and then to the witness.

2 There's a stamp on the cover page and on the last page.

3 I see Mr. Cvijetic on his feet. Could the document be put to the

4 witness in the meantime.

5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we're

6 dealing with something that is not contentious. This document was

7 certified with the seal of the centre. So that is not at issue.

8 What is at issue is what I discussed with the witness and which

9 stems from the conclusions of this document that this was sent to the

10 municipal organs and that the help was requested.

11 So that was the focus of my examination, not the form of the

12 document, signature, seal, et cetera.

13 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Very well. Maybe if we can just ask the witness

14 if he can see what is the stamp on the -- on the cover page.

15 Q. Which unit is that from?

16 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Because it is in Cyrillic, and it is not visible

17 in English.

18 Q. So whose stamp is that?

19 A. The centre of public security. I think that this document was

20 sent not just to the municipality but to MUP as well. I can't believe

21 that it was sent to municipality only.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: That's all I have for this document. Your

24 Honours, we are going scan the document again in colour to have a better

25 copy of the stamps.

Page 10050

1 Q. Mr. Petrovic, this morning, it was put to you that the atmosphere

2 in Doboj made it possible for crimes to be committed. This was in

3 today's transcript at page 26.

4 Do you remember that?

5 A. I don't remember.

6 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: Let's just go back up to page 26. Just a

7 second.

8 Q. Today, this morning, Mr. Cvijetic asked you that in the course of

9 questions put to you, the investigation of crimes, which took place in

10 the territory under the jurisdiction of your centre -- well, about which

11 you will agree with me that the atmosphere which persisted in Doboj was

12 suitable for commission of various crimes, including the gravest one, to

13 which you answered yes.

14 And then Mr. Cvijetic said that there was an enormous jump in the

15 number of crimes, and you answered yes.

16 And then he put to you that the aggravating factor was that the

17 perpetrators' identity, identification of the perpetrators was

18 problematic because people stayed briefly and then they left. Do you

19 remember that?

20 A. I remember.

21 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... can you remind us, to your

22 knowledge, when did the Red Berets arrive in Doboj?

23 A. The town itself or Ozren mount? They came in mid-April to

24 Mount Ozren; and to Doboj, they came between 2nd and 3rd.

25 Q. And we saw that you had sent a report in August about the Red

Page 10051

1 Berets. Can you tell us until when did the Red Berets remain in the

2 municipality of Doboj?

3 A. They remained until mid-July of 1992.

4 Q. Very well. The last topic that I want to cover with you very

5 quickly is the issue of communications.

6 A report was shown to you this morning which covered the period

7 of 30th of July until the 30th of September, if you remember.

8 A. Yes.

9 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: [Previous translation continues] ... and maybe

10 if we could just display that document. It was 65 ter 68. I don't

11 believe that it was admitted.

12 Q. Now, sir, in answering questions to Mr. Cvijetic you said that

13 you knew that there were problems of communication.

14 Now, first of all, this report does not say anything about the

15 period prior to the 30th of July, 1992; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And as far as we can see, the police did not remain idle. They

18 attempted to establish lines of communications; is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And isn't it a fact that you were able to communicate with

21 Banja Luka?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. To your knowledge, if an urgent message was to be sent to the MUP

24 headquarters, would you have been able to forward this message through

25 the Banja Luka centre?

Page 10052

1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.

2 The witness is being asked to speculate whether it was possible

3 or not. I don't think it was formulated properly, the question.

4 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I'm requesting the questions from his own

5 experience, asked was it possible.

6 [Defence counsel confer]

7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I think that the witness should

8 first be asked whether he was in Banja Luka and whether he is aware of

9 what the situation was in this regard. First, my learned friend needs to

10 lay the foundation for the question.

11 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: I don't believe the witness needs to be in

12 Banja Luka to know whether they can send documents through Banja Luka.

13 If this [sic] function at the time he should be able to know that.

14 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed, Mr. Demirdjian.

15 MR. DEMIRDJIAN:

16 Q. Mr. Petrovic, do you remember the question?

17 A. Well, if it were the reports, we sent them to the centre. Now

18 whether the centre sent them via Banja Luka, I don't know. All I know is

19 that there this was unit from Banja Luka. That's all I know. Other than

20 that, I wasn't there, and I know nothing about how the chief of the

21 centre communicated with the MUP of Republika Srpska.

22 Q. Very well.

23 MR. DEMIRDJIAN: No further questions, Your Honours.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Petrovic, we thank you for your assistance to