111108ED

Page 25373

1 Tuesday, 8 November 2011

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to

6 everyone in and around the courtroom.

7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

8 Stojan Zupljanin.

9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.

11 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Joanna Korner and

12 Sebastiaan van Hooydonk for the Prosecution.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,

14 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery appearing for

15 Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.

16 MR. KRGOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Dragan Krgovic,

17 Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. [Microphone not activated]

19 Before the witness is escorted in, I don't know whether there are

20 any matters that the parties wish to raise, but the Chamber does have a

21 number of issues.

22 The first of which is -- deals with the replacement of exhibits

23 with revised translations. And the order is as follows.

24 The Trial Chamber has received two notices from the parties of

25 submission of revised English translations in relation to 15 exhibits,

Page 25374

1 one filed by the Stanisic Defence on the 14th of October and the other by

2 the Prosecution on the 18th of October. The Prosecution additionally

3 requested that new exhibit numbers be assigned to the individual daily

4 transcripts that currently make up Exhibit P6 -- 60.

5 In relation to 2D89, the Chamber clarifies that it will accept

6 the latest and most complete translation provided by the CLSS as the

7 official English translation of the exhibit. Since this version was

8 provided in response to a request for revision by the Prosecution, the

9 Chamber directs the Zupljanin Defence to upload this version into

10 e-court.

11 The Chamber is satisfied that the revised translations of all

12 15 exhibits address the concerns raised in court and directs the Registry

13 to replace the existing English translations on record of the following

14 documents with the revised versions submitted: P29, P60.3, P173, P313,

15 P630, that's 630, P633, P960.16, P1341, P1428, P2339, L-331, 1D123, 2D89,

16 2D97, and 2D137.

17 Finally, the Chamber clarifies the practice that has been

18 followed in these proceedings for the assignment of exhibit numbers to

19 the evidence admitted pursuant to Rules 92 bis, ter, and quarter. The

20 transcripts of prior testimony of witnesses are assigned one exhibit

21 number for each case in which they have testified. Consequently, while

22 transcripts of a witness's testimony from different days given in the

23 course of the same trial are to be assigned the same exhibit number,

24 transcripts from prior testimony in different cases are assigned a

25 separate exhibit number for each case in which the witness has testified.

Page 25380

1 in terms of other cases. So the -- we would respectively invite the

2 parties to urgently meet and discuss and, if necessary, revise the

3 current estimates that they have already provided so that we - this is

4 virtually the middle of November - so we know where we would be,

5 certainly by the time the winter recess ends in January. And so we would

6 be grateful if counsel could report to us on that at their very earliest

7 convenience.

8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I absolutely agree. And as already

9 pointed out, that our time estimates are regrettably based on guess-work

10 as we have no real idea what these witnesses are going to say.

11 And, Your Honours, in that connection can I raise the proofing

12 note for this witness, which arrived on the 7th, which is yesterday, at

13 12.10 a.m. So I've just picked it up now. Which contains a whole -- a

14 whole - at least two or three matters which are wholly new. Although

15 this witness was interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor and

16 testified in the Kvocka case many, many years ago, this information has

17 just come to us now. So we're put at a disadvantage again because we've

18 now got to explore at the last moment matters which we weren't aware were

19 going to be dealt with.

20 Have Your Honours seen this, the proofing note? Because it was

21 sent to the legal officers, I believe.

22 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

23 MS. KORNER: And, Your Honours, I've made this plain on a number

24 of different occasions now, particularly where there's been a two-week

25 break. It is simply not good enough and is likely to delay matters

Page 25381

1 potentially when we get at the last moment, literally, the midnight hour,

2 a proofing note which contains further information which could have been

3 obtained, and probably was obtained from him, at least a fortnight ago.

4 So, Your Honours, I do make that, I'm afraid, a rather repetitive

5 complaint. And also, it explains why it's so difficult for us to give

6 realistic estimates for cross-examination.

7 Your Honours, we will sit down after court today and try and work

8 out -- or certainly as far as Mr. Krgovic is concerned, which witnesses

9 are coming in and how long he thinks examination-in-chief will take.

10 But, again, I repeat my request for an order that we simply do not get

11 proofing notes with new information at the very last moment.

12 JUDGE HALL: Well, as you have said, Ms. Korner, this is a

13 repetitive complaint, and I don't know what the Chamber can say that it

14 hasn't already said. But the -- among the things that we would

15 need to -- we, as the Chamber, would need to be in a position to -- to

16 get a sense of, is the latest date on which the Prosecution would be

17 moving for the addition of and scheduling of any rebuttal witnesses. So

18 the -- we await the results of your consultations.

19 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, going back to my repetitive

20 complaint: Your Honours do have power to make an order which I asked for

21 but you declined to give, namely that we should get it 72 hours in

22 advance. This witness is going to take the whole of the week. There is

23 no reason at all why one of the at least two counsel cannot deal with

24 proofing of the next witness. And again, I repeat my request that we get

25 it 72 hours in advance.

Page 25382

1 Your Honours, as regards the rebuttal evidence, we have put in

2 motions for two witnesses that we would like to call in rebuttal as far

3 as the Stanisic case is concerned, plus documents. And we await the

4 ruling on that. We can arrange, if we finish the Defence evidence, say,

5 in the first week of December, or whenever it is we're sitting, we can

6 probably try and arrange to call rebuttal evidence in the second period.

7 I can't remember now what dates in December we're sitting.

8 It's the last two weeks.

9 Well, if we finish the Defence evidence in the last week and

10 Your Honours grant us leave, then, as far as those witnesses are

11 concerned, we don't foresee any problem with getting them here whenever.

12 Your Honours, as far as Zupljanin Defence is concerned, we're

13 still in the middle of it, so we can't realistically deal with rebuttal

14 evidence until it's completed. Or we can do it in bits and piece, I

15 suppose, but that's the best we can do.

16 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

17 Do -- Mr. Zecevic, Mr. Krgovic, do you have any observation on

18 the scheduling matter before we continue with hearing the evidence of the

19 witness who's here?

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have informed

21 both the OTP and the Registry that the testimony of the witness will be

22 shorter. I will need about six to seven hours, depending on the medical

23 condition of the witness.

24 I've also informed the OTP that by the end of the week I will

25 revise the list of witnesses so that probably one witness will be

Page 25383

1 removed. We want to make sure that the Zupljanin Defence case, as

2 announced, finish in December.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour, my

4 only comment will refer to the rebuttal evidence.

5 We would kindly request that -- that the -- that the time

6 between -- between the decision of Your Honours on the application by the

7 Office of the Prosecutor be at least 21 days before the -- before the

8 witnesses appear in -- in the courtroom so we will have enough time to

9 prepare for their cross-examination.

10 Thank you very much.

11 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

12 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I appreciate, of course, that until

13 Your Honours rule, the Stanisic Defence and us are not able to say what's

14 going to happen, but there's no reason that I can see, in order to save

15 time, I think, really, we all want to finish the evidence in this case

16 and the case, that -- that, in anticipation of a ruling, the

17 Stanisic Defence could be doing some preparation work already. We're not

18 proposing to call any other evidence.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Of course we are doing the preparation work. But,

20 still, Your Honours, between the time when the decision is made and

21 the -- and the witnesses are -- are coming to testify, first we would

22 like to interview these witnesses, and we can't do that before

23 Your Honours' ruling and before we ask the Office of the Prosecutor.

24 Then we will have to go in the field and do the investigation and talk to

25 some other witnesses possibly for the -- for the rejoinder or -- or to

Page 25384

1 check the -- the truthfulness of the -- of the -- of the points which

2 these -- these witnesses are called to testify.

3 Therefore, we need to go in the field. And Ms. Korner is fully

4 aware of the fact that we don't have any investigators on our team.

5 Thank you.

6 MS. KORNER: No, just six lawyers.

7 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. Well, we've heard what you said,

8 Mr. Zecevic, and we would decide whether the 21 days is reasonable, and

9 decide accordingly.

10 So if there are no other housekeeping matters ...

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, one more thing. Are we -- yes, we are

12 in the open session. The -- Your Honours ordered us by today to go back

13 through exhibits which had been exhibited under seal to see if any of

14 them could be made public. We provided a list to the Defence last week.

15 We had a response from the Stanisic Defence to say they had no objection.

16 And I understand that yesterday they sent us a list for confirmation that

17 we had no objection, which I understand is documents they put to

18 Prosecution witnesses which were made under seal because the witness was

19 testifying either in closed session or -- or whatever. So we need to

20 check that, just to make sure that we agree with that. I'm sure we can.

21 We've not heard from the Zupljanin Defence about this, but we're

22 assuming, for this purpose, that silence is consent.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated]

24 MS. KORNER: Right, well, Sunday appears to be a busy day for the

25 Zupljanin Defence.

Page 25403

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Private session]

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 25404

11 Page 25404 redacted. Private session.

Page 25405

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

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 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.

24 We return in 20 minutes. But before we rise -- sorry.

25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

Page 25409

1 don't know if it was the Army of Yugoslavia. Anyway, there was a group

2 working with that.

3 Q. Who were the people in that group; and to which sector did it

4 belong?

5 A. It was a separate group made up of people who were trained in

6 communications. It was a group of operative officers called Milos who

7 had a direct line to the Army of Yugoslavia, and I believe they passed on

8 information through special devices that could send encrypted reports to

9 the headquarters at the Yugoslav level.

10 Q. Did they have connections with the state security of Yugoslavia

11 or Serbia?

12 A. Yes. I believe there was one period when they had links to the

13 state security but also the military security of Yugoslavia.

14 Q. What kind of information was sent through the centre where these

15 state security employees worked?

16 A. Dispatches on some information that was gathered in the area of

17 state secretary that was sent directly to the under-secretary or somebody

18 from the administration who was authorised by the under-secretary.

19 Q. Did the State Security Service also use the common line of

20 communication; and what kind of information was sent through common

21 communications?

22 A. Reports on some common affairs, like providing security for a VIP

23 or a convoy. That's where the state security people would get involved.

24 Whereas, things that were strictly linked to state security were sent

25 through the other line, because at that time we were given a special

Page 25410

1 device - I think it was called Neven [phoen] - and it was possible with

2 it to use this special communication, secure communication, reports that

3 were protected from being decoded.

4 Q. Within the Security Services Centre, you've spoken earlier about

5 the centre, what do you call it?

6 A. The state security centre.

7 Q. Is there another sector apart from the state security sector?

8 I'm talking about the Security Services Centre.

9 A. In the Security Services Centre, state security was practically a

10 tenant. All of our services were separate. Whereas, the Security

11 Services Centre, the public part, had their own separate services and

12 they held their main communications centre that was used for almost all

13 communications. It did not work very well at the beginning, but I don't

14 believe it ever went out of operation. At least, the communications with

15 the surrounding municipalities were linked through that.

16 Q. As regards reporting, can you explain the relationship between

17 the chief of the State Security Centre and the chief of the centre in

18 your line of work? You've spoken a lot about that in the interview.

19 Could you just explain.

20 A. I've said that there was a dual subordination. We were

21 subordinated, first of all, to the ministry; namely, to the state

22 security sector and the under-secretary for state security at the level

23 of the republic. Apart from that, our chief had this horizontal

24 co-ordination with the chief of the centre, and he had to provide certain

25 services to the centre chief connected with some operative activities

Page 25411

1 where the State Security Service could be of use.

2 Q. Did the state security chief report to the Security Services

3 Centre chief on everything, on all the information he had; and how did

4 that work?

5 A. I know that he was not required to provide all the information.

6 I don't think even the state security chief received all the information

7 available, because there were parallel services and parallel lines of

8 communications. He could provide what he thought was needed at the level

9 of the centre, something that had to do with law and order, some advance

10 reports on things that could be prevented, with the involvement of the

11 public security. That's how it worked in the previous system too.

12 Q. Who appointed the chief of the state security centre?

13 A. He and the authorised officers were appointed by the

14 under-secretary for state security. He also gave them their titles and

15 issued all decisions regarding the work of state security. I think he

16 was also authorised to provide approval for state security measures to be

17 applied.

18 Q. What kind of measures?

19 A. Operative and operative/technical measures. Since the state

20 security had the capability and the equipment, in cases when it was

21 needed it also provided certain services to the Security Services Centre

22 and their crime investigation unit, especially in the area of drug

23 trafficking and other crime.

24 Q. Were there any particular features to the state security work,

25 like secrecy, that distinguished them from the public security sector?

Page 25412

1 A. There were particular features, because the level of secrecy in

2 our sector was at a higher level, and all our dispatches and reports were

3 marked with a corresponding degree of secrecy or security clearance. And

4 we also identified the degree to which our information has been verified,

5 which was very important.

6 Q. And how about submitting reports and information; were there any

7 particular features there?

8 A. There was this idiosyncrasy in our work. First of all, we had

9 more modern equipment for sending communications, and we had this

10 computer-driven device for coding and encryption; whereas the public

11 security sector worked with old equipment, and ours was more advanced and

12 more reliable.

13 Q. How about the circle of people to whom your information was

14 provided; were there any restrictions there?

15 A. There were. On dispatches it was always indicated to whom they

16 were available, like which administration or under-secretary, and then

17 they decided what kind of information could be made available to lower

18 levels. So it sometimes happened that our reports were later passed on

19 by the under-secretary or the administrations down to lower level

20 centres. They would just write: To All.

21 Q. Who was it that decided that the State Security Services Centre

22 to whom information would be sent? Who had that right?

23 A. It was the centre chief who had that right. In other words,

24 Kesic. Because, in practice, all information first went to him, and then

25 he would return some information that wasn't in line to -- with the

Page 25413

1 criteria, so he filtered that. Then following the next filter down was

2 the chiefs of the line of work, who could also request additional

3 clarification, and so on.

4 Q. You said, I believe, that it was the chiefs of the line of work

5 who first filtered the information. Was it that way, or how was it?

6 A. The official lines of work, that is, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, the

7 information went first through the chiefs of the lines of work. Whereas,

8 the Milos Group was separate and autonomous because they had links with

9 the Federation. And I cannot speak about the way they worked with any

10 certainty. But I suppose that they gave their information directly to

11 the centre chief. Or possibly, in some situations, they even passed him

12 by. I know from personal experience that the Federation sometimes

13 demanded that.

14 Q. Please tell me about the ethnic composition of the State Security

15 Centre personnel in early 1992.

16 A. The ethnic composition mostly remained the same, as far as we're

17 concerned. We had Croatian, Muslim, and Serbian personnel, and there

18 were also some members of ethnic minorities. They were all equally

19 represented.

20 Previously, ethnic representation was an important consideration,

21 and the composition of the operative staff had to reflect the ethnic

22 composition of the area where the centre was located.

23 Q. And after 1992, after April 1992, was this ethnic composition in

24 the State Security Services centre the same as before?

25 A. Yes. It basically remained unchanged.

Page 25414

1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please display

2 Exhibit 65 ter 25D2. That's at tab 2 in the Zupljanin Defence binder. I

3 do have hard copies for the witness, though, so could I ask the usher to

4 hand this to him.

5 Q. Please go to tab 2. You can see the tabs, and it will also be

6 displayed on the screen.

7 A. Yes, I can see the screen.

8 Q. Can you read what it says at the beginning?

9 A. It says: "Banja Luka Security Services Centre, National Security

10 Services Centre, salary, personnel records, media co. info systems

11 programme, LD-317, version: RM 1. List of bonuses for 1992."

12 Then it says personal identification number, first and last name,

13 and amount, and then there's a list of employees, the amount of the

14 bonus, and signatures certifying the reception.

15 Q. Could you please explain to us the notion of bonus at the time.

16 A. It was an amount that was added on top of the regular salary to

17 provide for the costs of going on vacation. It was usually paid out in

18 the summer, that is, during the holiday period.

19 And we can see here that it was paid out in mid-June.

20 Q. Are there any other kinds of bonuses or subsidies such as for

21 a -- for warm meals during working hours, and so on?

22 A. Yes, that existed earlier. But I believe that at this time these

23 weren't paid because of the shortage of funds. In that year we only

24 received money for vacation, and it was at that time, roughly.

25 Q. Did everybody get that who was an employee at the time?

Page 25415

1 A. Yes. You were eligible as an employee.

2 Q. Sir, please tell me if you recognise a name from this list. And

3 we can also turn the page.

4 A. These are all employees of the National Security Services Centre

5 at the time. I know that there were 48, and I've already found my name

6 too.

7 Q. Just be careful not to mention your name, or the number under

8 which it can be found, because of the protective measures.

9 Can you tell me if there are members of other ethnicities, that

10 is, non-Serbs on the list; and, if so, please point out the names to us.

11 A. Sead Besic.

12 Q. Which number?

13 A. Eight. He is a Muslim by ethnicity.

14 Q. More?

15 A. Milan Baric.

16 Q. What is his ethnicity?

17 A. A Croat. He was chief at the time. Department chief.

18 Q. Which number is he?

19 A. Eleven.

20 Q. Any more?

21 A. Emir Zahirovic, number 17, a Muslim by ethnicity.

22 Q. Any more?

23 A. Suvad Nokto, number 23.

24 Q. His ethnicity?

25 A. Muslim.

Page 25416

1 Josip Ladan, number 24, an ethnic Croat.

2 Q. Any more?

3 A. Muharem Zjajo, number 25, an ethnic Muslim.

4 Mira Ibrahimbegovic. I'm not sure, she may be -- she may have

5 been born in a mixed marriage. She's under number 29.

6 Q. What about number 27?

7 A. Dean Brzovic. He's an ethnic Croat.

8 Have I said 29 all ready?

9 Number 30, Blanka Komosar; she's a Croatian woman.

10 Mara Vignjevic, number 31. Vignjevic. Croatian ethnicity.

11 Nisveta Dervisic, 36; a Muslim woman.

12 Zeljko Domazet, 38; an ethnic Croat.

13 Ivan Figurek, 39; an ethnic Ukrainian.

14 I think that this is it.

15 Q. If you remember, who of these persons remained on the job until

16 the end of 1992? Did you see them around at the centre?

17 A. I did see Emir Zahirovic. I think that he was chief of one of

18 the lines of work. And I saw Nisveta Dervisic; she was the secretary of

19 the centre chief, and I saw her often. Maybe -- there may be more, but I

20 was out in the field a lot. But I'm certain that these were there until

21 the end. I think that there was Sead Besic; I did see him around too.

22 Q. Did you see Zeljko Domazet?

23 A. Yes, yes, him too. Yes, I think he was there until the end.

24 Q. Ivan Figurek?

25 A. Yes, him too. For a while he assisted our liaison officers,

Page 25425

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 [Closed session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 25426

11 Page 25426 redacted. Closed session.

Page 25427

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Private session]

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 25438

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Look at the document before you, please. There are several

14 pages. Look through them.

15 What are the first four pages?

16 A. As you can see, this is the payroll for August 1992.

17 Q. Look at the last page, please.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: And, Your Honours, for this purpose can we go to

19 the private session.

20 And I kindly ask this document not to be broadcast.

21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic, do we need to go into private session

23 or is it sufficient that the document not be published outside the

24 courtroom?

25 MR. KRGOVIC: I think that the second matter will resolve the

Page 25439

1 problem.

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

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 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

22 JUDGE HALL: Could we move into private session briefly, please.

23 Thanks, Anna.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

Page 25440

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 [Open session]

6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. I saw some entries, and you say that you recognise some of

9 these -- I'll ask you in private session who wrote these entries. But

10 what is this list?

11 A. It's a list of salaries received by the military component of the

12 unit.

13 Q. And on page 1 we can see that it says active-duty members were

14 not paid.

15 A. They didn't collect their money. It means that active-duty

16 members got what they were entitled to from their respective

17 organisational units. Only military personnel - I suppose that was the

18 agreement - was paid by the centre.

19 Q. Let us go to page 2.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The following page, please.

21 Q. Next to numbers 49, 50, and 55 I see empty lines. What does that

22 mean?

23 A. Oh, the empty spaces are next to the names of those unit members

24 who were taken off the wartime assignment. That is, they were kicked

25 out. And there is a number of active-duty members, but they are marked

Page 25441

1 by an A in front of their names. That means that all those who -- in

2 front of whose names there is no A means that they were kicked out or

3 that they went AWOL.

4 Q. I can see on the second page, next to persons number 49, 50 and

5 55 --

6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And could we go to the following

7 page, please.

8 Q. Here, too, I see a number of empty spaces.

9 A. The same applies to them.

10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 7 in e-court.

11 Q. And it's the last page of this document, sir.

12 I can see here eight names. Can you read out this handwritten

13 remark.

14 A. "Neither paid nor was the money for them collected."

15 Q. Do you know any of these names?

16 A. Yes. These are members of the special detachment who got killed

17 in Kotor Varos.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: And, Your Honours, before the last question, can we

19 go -- can we move to the private session.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 25442

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Please take a look at the following page of this document,

11 page 8.

12 What is this about?

13 And the following document, which ends in 77470.

14 Can you tell us what this is?

15 A. This is a list of persons who were vetted upon the request of the

16 chief, I think. There are over 265 persons on the list who were

17 allegedly members of the CSB special detachment, and I think that I

18 entered these remarks and somebody before me entered the remarks in

19 handwriting.

20 Q. Please stop for a moment. What you looked at before, as this is

21 a single exhibit, and what we're looking at now, is this one document?

22 A. No. These are two completely different documents. The first one

23 was drafted - actually, I did it - to pay the members when the detachment

24 was being dissolved. In other words, this is a list of persons who, in

25 August 1992, were entitled to salaries, that is, they were on the payroll

Page 25443

1 of the detachment; whereas, the second contains these persons about whom

2 checks were made, and most of them were totally unrelated to the

3 detachment.

4 I was requested by Djuro Bulic to make -- to do this, I think it

5 was in 1993, because there was some negative connotations with regard to

6 the detachment, and we didn't have all information about persons against

7 whom action had been taken because of some offences.

8 So first somebody checked with public security, and then I

9 received the list with this incomplete information, and what I was able

10 to find out, I entered here. But it was very difficult because many

11 people had already returned to their original units or towns or had left

12 the Banja Luka area, and it was difficult to come by all this

13 information. That's why the information is not complete.

14 There may be some people among them who either got killed or were

15 members of a unit about which we were unable to get information.

16 Q. Please take a look at number 6. It says Dragoljub Blazevic.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Please read out what this says beside his name.

19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And its ERN 77463; that's page 8 in

20 e-court. Number 6.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person under number 6 is

22 Dragoljub Blazevic. I indicated that he was taken off the war-time

23 assignment in June 1992 and that he is with the military police brigade.

24 And it is also indicated, Did not take part in combat activities. But

25 then I struck that out, because we were unable to verify that probably.

Page 25444

1 But, certainly, he was taken off -- or out of the

2 war-time establishment in June probably because of some offence.

3 Q. Please take a look at numbers 32 and 34. What do these remarks

4 say?

5 A. Person 32 is Dubravko Calo. The remark reads, "Removed in

6 June 1992."

7 Q. And 34?

8 A. Sinisa Civcic. The same remark, "Removed in June 1992."

9 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The English translation is not on

10 the screen.

11 Q. Can you tell us ... have you found persons on this list who were

12 not members of the special detachment?

13 A. A significant number of these persons were not members of the

14 special detachment. This even says so. But some units entered such

15 information in their war-time assignment, so we saw that in military post

16 number 7007. There are a number of persons, but that military post

17 number had nothing to do with us. And there are quite a few people who

18 were removed for lack of discipline or criminal activities.

19 Q. Please take a look at ERN 0077466.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That's at page 11 in e-court. Person number 129.

22 A. Mirko Lukic.

23 Q. Please read out the remark -- the remark next to his name.

24 A. "Military police captain." And underneath -- or, rather, to the

25 right we can see that he is in Odzak.

Page 25445

1 Q. If a certificate about participation in the war were requested

2 to -- to exercise some rights, who would the people who needed that turn

3 to?

4 A. To me. I paid out their salaries, and I always consulted with

5 the chief of his department -- or, rather, the platoon commander, issued

6 them a certificate stating that he was a member, because I didn't know

7 them all, so the platoon commanders provided information about somebody

8 being a member of their platoon or not.

9 Q. Please return to the previous page.

10 JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Krgovic, you

11 haven't forgotten Ms. Korner's request for five minutes.

12 MR. KRGOVIC: Yes, Your Honour, this is my last question.

13 Q. Take a look at persons 104 through 106. There's a summary

14 remark, can you read it out.

15 A. It says: "Zoran Tatic should know these people."

16 Q. What does that mean?

17 A. We had no information about them. We didn't know who they were.

18 And somebody said that Zoran Tatic may know, and that's why I made that

19 remark.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is all I had for

21 today, so we can finish with this witness's evidence for today.

22 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, we are about to take the adjournment

23 for today and I'm obliged to point out to you that having been sworn as a

24 witness, you cannot have any communication with counsel from either side

25 until you are released by the Tribunal. Moreover, in such conversations

Page 25447

1 Your Honours, Mr. Krgovic was giving the explanation and then

2 asked if the witness could leave while he carried on. And I think I then

3 suggested --

4 JUDGE HALL: Sorry -- [microphone not activated]

5 MS. KORNER: Oh, I see. The noise.

6 JUDGE HALL: Could you wait for the blinds to go up because it

7 interferes with the recording.

8 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, just this. Mr. Krgovic's explanation

9 about this last witness and the late proofing note was that he didn't get

10 here till Friday. But, Your Honour, we've had two -- in fact more than

11 two weeks, because a witness couldn't be got here, apparently, to fill up

12 time, and we finished the last witness before the end of our allotted

13 period, to see the upcoming witnesses. And that's what I asked for, and

14 indeed I sent a reminder, that it would be helpful to have the proofing

15 notes last Wednesday. There is no excuse for this. Your Honour, we do

16 not have, for the most part, statements from these witness [sic]. With

17 this witness we do, but he came up, as I've just made clear, with

18 entirely new information which he has never ever said before and which,

19 we submit, has never been put to witnesses.

20 And so we say, because of this gap, there is no excuse for

21 getting proofing notes at the last moment like this. Your Honours last

22 time said as soon as possible. Well, Your Honours, I'm afraid that the

23 Defence are not making use, proper use, of the time.

24 The witness who is coming after this witness, next week, we ask

25 Your Honours now to make an order that we be told in terms, because all

Page 25448

1 we've got is a vague description of what the witness will say, again,

2 about Kotor Varos, the events thereof, we would like to have a proofing

3 note now, please, by, at the latest, Monday of next week, and we'd like

4 an order to that effect.

5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as regards the next

6 witness: According to the scheduling order he should be here on Friday

7 or Saturday, and we believe that we will be able to give the Prosecution

8 proofing notes on Monday. I don't think there should be problems with

9 that witness.

10 I am not saying that this is justification, but the Defence is

11 really trying to do all we can for the OTP. But the witnesses mostly

12 have medical problems and they all arrive 72 hours in advance of their

13 testimony. That is, not more than 72 hours before. And we have little

14 time to talk to them. And some of them we haven't even seen. And

15 therefore cannot give a full -- cannot give full and detailed information

16 before the witnesses come here.

17 Apart from two witnesses, all witnesses on our 65 --

18 62 [as interpreted] ter list have already testified before or were

19 interviewed by the Prosecution, and 90 per cent of the events they will

20 testify about is already contained in that material. The OTP has no

21 reason to assert that they are precluded from anything on -- or

22 prejudiced against. All witnesses will speak about events that have --

23 about which evidence was given by Prosecution witnesses, and this means

24 that no more topics have appeared after the end of the OTP case. All

25 events these witnesses will speak about have already been mentioned

Page 25449

1 during the Prosecution case.

2 We are making an effort to use the time between two adjournments

3 as efficiently as possible. We're trying to remove witnesses from our

4 list, if possible, or shorten their testimony or adapt the manner of

5 their testimony. We're trying to verify some facts. So it is very

6 complex work. We don't limit ourselves to give any information

7 whatsoever to the OTP.

8 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, this is simply - I'm trying to think of

9 the polite word for this. Your Honours, each and every one of these

10 witnesses allegedly refused to be interviewed by the Prosecution. Very

11 few of these witnesses have actually been interviewed by the OTP and none

12 of the upcoming witnesses that are left have been interviewed by the OTP.

13 Accordingly, Your Honours, I'm sorry I said Monday, it's far too late, of

14 course, because of course he will be up on Tuesday. There is nothing,

15 nothing whatsoever, to stop Mr. Krgovic, Mr. Aleksic, and their endless

16 team of investigators taking proper statements from these witnesses, or

17 proofing notes, whatever you like to call them, during the two-week

18 adjournment. Banja Luka is hardly a million miles from Belgrade or

19 wherever counsel live.

20 So, Your Honours, can we please have an order now - forget about

21 Monday, because, of course, the witness will potentially be starting on

22 Tuesday - we want the proofing note or a full statement from this witness

23 72 hours in advance, which will be Friday.

24 JUDGE HALL: Well, we're passed the time for the adjournment for

25 today. So we have on board the application for an order. And the

Page 25450

1 Chamber, of course, would decide what to say that is consistent both with

2 the Rules and is effective, because we have walked this path many times

3 before, and we understand Ms. Korner's frustration that we have said

4 heretofore has not yielded the desired results.

5 But we will see where we are tomorrow when we resume.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.49 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of

8 November, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.