Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 12718

Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 1741 Tuesday, 13 July 20102 [Open session]3 [The accused entered court]4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-08-91-T, the7 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.8 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Madam Registrar.9 Good morning to everyone. May we take today's appearances,10 please.11 MR. HANNIS: Good morning, all. I'm Tom Hannis along with12 Crispian Smith for the Office of the Prosecutor.13 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry, Your Honour. Slobodan Zecevic,14 Slobodan Cvijetic, Eugene O'Sullivan, and Ms. Tatjana Savic appearing for15 the Stanisic Defence this morning. Thank you.16 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For Zupljanin17 Defence, Igor Pantelic.18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you. And the Registrar -- sorry. The Usher19 may escort the witness back to the stand if there is nothing --20 MR. HANNIS: As the witness is coming in, Your Honour, I just21 wanted to indicate -- to request your attention to a matter regarding22 Ewa Tabeau. She's a Prosecution witness we hope to call as the last23 witness before the break, and there's matters pending that -- that we24 need a decision from you about whether we can use her new report, whether25 she will testify as an expert, et cetera.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 175 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 Thank you.2 JUDGE HALL: Thanks for the reminder.3 [The witness takes the stand]4 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to you, Mr. Markovic. Before5 Mr. Cvijetic resumes his cross-examination, I would remind you you're6 still on your oath.7 Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.9 WITNESS: SLOBODAN MARKOVIC [Resumed]10 [Witness answered through interpreter]11 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Markovic, good morning.13 A. Good morning.14 Q. Well, we can't away from this. We have to keep on going.15 A. Certainly, I am here.16 Q. Yesterday I showed you minutes from a government session of the17 Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina, of 28 July 1992, and we saw18 that the government discussed and supported the agreement on the19 conditions and manner of prisoner exchanges.20 Do you recall that?21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the 22nd of July.22 MR. CVIJETIC:23 Q. [Interpretation] Following that, I showed you a -- an agreement24 that I thought was the relevant one, agreement that was signed in Geneva25 on the 23rd of May, 1992, and agreed upon by representatives of theTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 176 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 Serbian and the Muslim parties, or sides. However, you pointed out that2 this could not have been the relevant agreement and that the government3 probably, at its session, discussed and deliberated on another agreement,4 and I did not show it to you yesterday because I misplaced it; it was in5 the Prosecutor's binder yesterday and I couldn't pull it out immediately6 so I would like to do it now.7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could we please pull up P1318.26.8 Q. Mr. Markovic, before you read this first agreement that we have9 on the monitors, let me just say that the agreement that we are going to10 discuss is attached to this -- to this contract.11 Would you please take a look at this contract before I put12 several questions to you.13 Have you seen -- have you read through it?14 A. Yes.15 Q. You see, this is a contract reached, concluded between two16 representatives of two commissions, the Serbian commission and the Muslim17 commission, but with the mediation of UNPROFOR representatives.18 Can you see that?19 A. Yes.20 Q. However, if we look at the text of this agreement, would you21 agree with me that this was agreement that actually related to one22 particular exchange, an ad hoc, as it were, exchange, in a certain area,23 because the agreement does not include some general -- general provisions24 on the principles which would be applied throughout the territory, the25 demarcation territory and so on.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 177 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 So let me ask you: Do you know anything about this agreement and2 can you shed some light on that?3 A. This agreement, I've never actually seen it before. It is true4 that it pertains to one particular exchange, a single exchange, and it's5 probably an exchange somewhere around Ilidza. I assume that, because the6 Serbian side, the representative whose side on their behalf was7 Nenad Vanovac, and the stamp was not the commission stamp but, rather,8 the Serbian Democratic Party of Ilidza stamp, as you can read for9 yourself, the Municipal Board of the Serbian Democratic Party at Ilidza.10 So probably the agreement and the list relate to the exchange in11 Ilidza, around Ilidza, or somewhere in that general area. And for this12 document, itself, I have never seen it before.13 Q. Thank you. I have to admit that I've actually -- I did not note14 what you've just told us about the stamp, but you did confirm that this15 was a specific exchange that this document relates to?16 A. Yes, absolutely. Because we see that the stamp reads Ilidza17 or -- or Vojkovici, some of those areas.18 Q. Mr. Markovic, do you agree that this issue, the issue of prisoner19 exchanges in wartime, the free movement of civilians and security of20 those individuals who are waiting to be exchanged, would you agree that21 this is a major issue that has to be discussed and decided upon by the22 highest representatives of the Serbian or Muslim nations specifically,23 but that the international community should also participate in that type24 of agreement to provide guarantees that it will be abided by and25 implemented.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 178 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 Would you agree with what I've just said?2 JUDGE HALL: I assume, Mr. Cvijetic, that that was a question and3 not a speech. I don't know what the witness can make of that.4 [Defence counsel confer]5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will rephrase my6 question.7 Q. Mr. Markovic, do you consider that this problem that you've also8 dealt with at the time in question should have been resolved and9 discussed by the highest authorities and representatives of these10 parties, as well as members of the international community?11 A. I fully agree with what you've just said, and especially in12 relation to the presence of the international community, because whenever13 I arranged some exchanges, it was always done with the presence of the14 UNPROFOR because they were there as a sort of judge and referee.15 Q. This is the following page of the document, and we should have16 the attachment to the agreement here, and this is something that we would17 need to discuss now.18 Mr. Markovic, I'm going give you some time again just to look at19 the document and then we will comment on it.20 Have you had the opportunity to look at the first page of the21 document?22 A. Yes.23 Q. You can see in the introductory paragraph, the agreement is an24 agreement that is concluded between the highest representatives of the25 Serbian and the Muslim people, between, thus, Mr. Radovan Karadzic, onTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 179 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 behalf of the Republic of Serbian Bosnia and Herzegovina and2 Alija Izetbegovic and representatives of state commissions for the3 exchange of prisoners, as it says at the top.4 You will see, however, that the date is missing, so we will5 remember this bit because when we finish this document -- with this6 document, I will go back to discuss the point why there is no date here.7 So let us just go through some of the provisions of this8 agreement now.9 You can see in item 1, that the subject of the agreement is10 noted. This is something that you dealt with in your commission as well.11 Isn't that right?12 A. Yes.13 Q. In item 2, it is said that the exchanges should be carried out14 through the commissions that should be formed by both sides. Do you see15 that?16 A. Yes, I do.17 Q. In paragraph 3, the priorities are set about the unconditional18 release of certain categories of persons, and what is meant here are19 primarily civilians. Do you see that paragraph?20 A. Yes.21 Q. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the commissions should exchange22 the lists of detained persons. And then towards the end, the principle23 all for all that you mentioned is also referred to. Do you see that?24 A. Yes, I do.25 Q. And just help us here with this principle. If you can justTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 180 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 confirm that this principle is supposed to guarantee that there will be2 no individual trading and bargaining one for one and so on and so forth3 but it will be an all-for-all exchange. I think you were explaining a4 little bit about that yesterday. Is that how matters were?5 A. I have to say that this principle all for all functioned sometime6 at the very beginning of the war. However, afterwards, the principle was7 not applied. For example, a high-ranking officer of the Serbian army8 would be exchanged for 15 or 20 Muslim fighters, and they would be9 requested by name, so the principle actually became meaningless as the10 combat progressed.11 Q. Yes, that is why I asked you. You will agree with me that the12 principle was put in the agreement with justification. There was a13 reason to put it in the agreement. Would you agree with that?14 A. Yes, yes, I would. But I'm noting that the principle was applied15 at the beginning of the war, for a month or two.16 Q. Very well. We already said that.17 Paragraph 5, you can see here that the agreement provides for the18 encouragement of agreements at local levels. And I have to remind you,19 you said that your Central Commission objectively could not cover the20 whole territory, and you will agree that this agreement actually21 acknowledges that. Would you agree?22 A. Yes, I agree completely. Because physically it was impossible23 for us to approach and to cover everything, because of the roads and24 everything. However, the commissions were unable to provide us with the25 lists of exchanged persons also because it was not possible toTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 181 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 communicate.2 Q. All right. Item 6, we can just briefly say that the agreement is3 also covering the exchange of dead bodies. So it is not only about the4 exchange of people who are alive but also the exchange of bodies.5 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to paragraph 7,6 which is on the following page, please.7 Q. In paragraph 7, there is an agreement on the release of all8 detained JNA soldiers. Do you see that?9 And then item 8 refers to other priority categories, and these10 would be journalists, medical science and culture workers, public11 workers, priests, and so on and so forth.12 Do you see that?13 A. Yes.14 Q. And you can see in paragraph 9 the agreement is reached on the15 humane treatment of prisoners. And I think this principle is also noted16 in the decision on your commission.17 A. Not only do I remember it; I know it off by heart.18 Q. What is interesting to me is paragraph 11, where the agreement19 provides for the sides enabling each other to check on the living20 conditions of the prisoners, guaranteeing mutual safety and return.21 So let us try to interpret this as meaning that you as a22 representative of the commission and your colleague, on the Muslim side,23 could cross the line of separation wherever you had information that24 there were prisoners and you had the right to inspect those facilities.25 Do you interpret this provision in the same way, in the way thatTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 182 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 I have just interpreted it?2 A. According to the agreement reached with the Muslim side that is3 how it should have been. However, this was not actually possible to4 implement. Who among the Serbs could enter the notorious Viktor Bubanj5 prison in the barracks of the same name or enter the central prison which6 is located in central Sarajevo?7 So this actually never happened on either side; I have to mention8 that.9 Q. The gist of my questions relating to this agreement actually is10 aimed at establishing the reasons why this did not happen. So now we11 will quickly move to item 14 where the parties would commit themselves to12 prevent occurrences of unlawful arrests, to ban blackmail, and I think13 that we will agree that this principle all for all would eliminate these14 options from item 14. Would you agree?15 A. Yes, to a large degree. Yes, of course, I agree entirely. And16 the principle all for all has been eliminated here completely and I will17 explain that with one detail.18 For example, when a brother of one of the Serbs would be19 arrested, then the army would arrest a Muslim, and then there would be20 private negotiations for the exchange of his brother for this Muslim21 person. There were many such occurrences because war is a difficult22 situation.23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see item 17 of the24 document; also in the B/C/S, please.25 Q. And you can see here that the contracting parties have committedTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 183 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 themselves to invite representatives of the UN High Commissioner for2 Refugees and UNPROFOR representatives as well as representatives of the3 Red Cross of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Red Cross of the4 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and representatives of the International5 Red Cross.6 We have now come to the introductory part of my question. You7 would agree, wouldn't you, that an agreement as detailed as this could be8 applied only with the presence of all these entities referred to in9 paragraph 17.10 Would you agree?11 A. I agree with you, absolutely. It's an ideally written agreement12 except that it was not possible to implement it in the field. And I'm13 noting here that the agreement was signed only by the Serbian side. It14 was signed by the president of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and15 Herzegovina, Dr. Radovan Karadzic, and the president of the exchange16 commission, Nenad Vanovac. And there are no signatures by17 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic and Mr. Filip Vukovic.18 So I'm not sure to what extent this agreement is valid.19 Q. My reasons for dealing with this agreement precisely are in this,20 and that is that it was evidently not signed by the Muslim side because21 we will remind ourselves again of the introductory party where there was22 no date because it was to be expected that they would sign such23 agreement.24 So there was just a draft agreement, or an offer, from the25 Serbian side to the Muslim side to resolve this particular problem inTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 184 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 this particular way. Would you agree with what I have just said?2 A. Yes, I do agree. And evidently, the Muslim side did not agree to3 it because they probably didn't like it.4 Q. And you will agree with me that by signing and implementing this5 agreement, many ugly things that later happened in the area of prisoner6 exchanges and prisoner camps would have been prevented had both sides7 bilaterally respected each one of these provisions and had the8 international community guaranteed the implementation of this agreement.9 Would not those negative things that happened have been prevented10 by that?11 A. If the agreement had been implemented, it would have been very12 good for both sides and all the ugly things could have been avoided,13 especially if members of SFOR had always been present during prisoner14 exchanges, or members -- representatives of the International Red Cross.15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Markovic, you said just a short while ago16 that you thought that the reason why the Muslims hadn't signed this draft17 agreement was that they probably didn't like it.18 What makes you conclude that they didn't like it? What, in your19 view, would have caused the Muslims to abstain from signing, if you know?20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know precisely, but I21 believe that this agreement did not go in their favour for the simple22 reason that only in the city of Sarajevo, where I live, there were more23 than 200.000 Serbs left behind, and pursuant to this agreement, they24 should have released them all, freed them from Sarajevo. But they held25 them as hostages and mistreated them in their prisons.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 185 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you mean to say that the Muslim side held2 200.000 Serbs in prisons in -- within Sarajevo?3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in prisons but in Sarajevo4 itself and some in prisons. Because people were living in Sarajevo but5 under daily stress, fear, daily killings in buildings, but they were6 unable to leave Sarajevo in any case.7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Did the -- did the draft agreement make any8 distinction between prisoners of war and detained civilians?9 Forgive me for not picking this up when we went through the10 agreement, but I didn't see any provision to this effect so I'm just11 asking you, who are more familiar with the draft, if -- if any such12 distinction was made in the agreement.13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. I worked in the14 Commission for Exchanges of Prisoners of War, and I could not exchange15 them. However, the citizens of Serb ethnicity who lived in Sarajevo, I16 could not use them for these exchanges because they did not consider them17 prisoners. They considered them and used them as shields, human shields,18 during the combat operations around Sarajevo.19 Therefore, they did not have an opportunity to leave Sarajevo20 either through the commission or any other way. The only thing that I21 could do is exchange prisoners of war but not regular citizens and22 civilians.23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me, I thought you told us yesterday that24 you only dealt with the exchange of civilians; whereas, exchange of25 prisoners of war would be left to the military commissions.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 186 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The name of my commission was the2 Commission for an Exchange of Prisoners of War. But we also exchanged3 civilians. Let me explain it. Prisoners of war were civilians. They4 would, for instance, capture 100 Serbs in Sarajevo and then bring them to5 the demarcation line and they were considered, in that case, prisoners of6 war. As for the military aspect, members of both parties would exchange7 members of the armies, of the respective armies.8 JUDGE HARHOFF: But it seems to me, from what you now tell us,9 that both parties, actually, seemed to completely ignore the definitions10 of a prisoner of war, according to the Geneva Convention, the Third11 Convention.12 Was that done deliberately, or was it just by ignorance?13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in my view, it was out of14 ignorance. In my view.15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, yes, because if you were to abide by the16 Geneva Conventions - this goes for both parties to the conflict - then17 the detention of civilians would be unlawful unless you would detain them18 for some -- for the purpose of criminal investigation of some sort. But19 just to detain civilians in great numbers would be in contravention of20 the -- both the Third and the Fourth Convention.21 So my question is: If there was any awareness about these22 matters in the commission that you worked in.23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, of course, there was a24 certain awareness, and we tried to abide and comply as much as we could25 to the Geneva Conventions' provisions.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 187 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 However, Judge, you must understand that this was a war of major2 proportions, and I don't know what your opinion is on this, but do you3 think that the American army in Vietnam or in Iraq applied those4 principles? As for us, we did have to -- and, of course, they would have5 had to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.6 I mentioned this just for comparative reasons, for comparison.7 JUDGE HARHOFF: I have no doubts that the rules are broken in8 every war that has ever been fought in history. But, you see, I'm a9 Judge and my job to actually make sure that these international norms are10 respected. Because if they weren't, then things could get really out of11 hand.12 Back to you, Mr. Cvijetic.13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.14 Mr. Markovic, this draft agreement we are talking about now did15 you know of it at the time, or did you learn it lately here or ...16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've seen it for the first time17 here.18 JUDGE DELVOIE: So when you answered Mr. Cvijetic saying that you19 agreed that evidentially the Muslim side did not agree to it because they20 probably didn't like it, that is not something that you know of but21 that's something you are deducting from the fact that there is no22 signature on the Muslim side; is that right? You didn't know that this23 was just a draft and not a signed agreement, or did you?24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know. I used the word25 "I assume." That they didn't sign it because it didn't suit themTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 188 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 precisely because of the Serbs who were in Sarajevo, held captive there2 practically, and they couldn't leave the town. They were used as human3 shields to dig trenches around Sarajevo and for other physical labour.4 JUDGE DELVOIE: But you don't know if it has ever been signed or5 not?6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't.7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. But I can see that it wasn't,9 here.10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.12 Q. Sir, I would just like to clarify this by putting a few13 questions.14 Had this agreement been signed, you would have been the first, as15 a member of the commission, to know that there was such agreement in16 place because you would, among other things, have to apply their17 provisions; correct? Its provisions.18 A. I could know about it only if Mr. Vanovac, who is the undersigned19 person here, sent it to me. That would have been the only way for me to20 have any knowledge about this.21 Q. Very well. I would just like to remind you of a question that22 the Prosecutor asked yesterday. In one of the documents, the president23 of the commission on the Bosnian side, Filip Vukovic, regarding the free24 flow of civilians that is also mentioned here, referred to it as ethnic25 cleansing. In that respect, in order to clarify this for theTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 189 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 Trial Chamber -- or, rather to provide an illustration, we should mention2 what the scale of the flow of civilians was and the problems that this3 posed to the authorities.4 I would now just like to mention a few facts that I assume you5 are familiar with.6 You said that you live and work in Bijeljina; correct?7 A. Yes.8 Q. Do you know that before the war that town, the centre itself,9 numbered 35.000 inhabitants?10 A. Yes, around 36.000, that's correct.11 Q. Do you know that during the war and after the war the number of12 registered inhabitants, new inhabitants was 52.000. They were refugees13 or displaced persons. Do you know this fact?14 A. I know this fact. Bijeljina numbers today around 135.000 people,15 so --16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the -- could the witness please repeat17 the number of refugees who moved in.18 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]19 Q. Please repeat the figure that you have, because we have the wrong20 number here. According to you, how many people moved in, subsequently,21 into Bijeljina?22 A. Well, about 100.000 people.23 Q. Do you know the fact that at least twice as many people stayed or24 passed through Bijeljina, looking for some other place where they could25 actually settle and find some kind of shelter and accommodation. Do youTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 190 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 know that fact?2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'd like to object at this point. This3 is in the nature of tu quoque. We're not tying it to any specific dates.4 If it's between 1992 and 2010, there could be all kinds of reasons those5 people passed through, and without that connection, I don't think this6 evidence is very relevant or useful to you.7 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are discussing8 generally the problem of refugees and displaced persons, and that is the9 problem that this witness actually dealt with in his work. And after I10 mentioned these -- some these facts, I will actually -- this is just to11 provide the foundation for the question that I will put after this and I12 will go through this briefly and quickly.13 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I have another objection too.14 Mr. Cvijetic keeps talking about "these facts I'm suggesting to you."15 Mr. Cvijetic is not a witness and it's not a fact. He can ask a question16 based on something he knows but he can't call it a fact at this stage.17 And he keeps doing it and I would ask that he be directed to stop doing18 it that way.19 JUDGE HALL: In other words, Mr. Cvijetic, you must both come20 rapidly to the point that are you trying to make and remember, as21 Mr. Hannis has cautioned and as I attempted some while ago to point out22 to you, you're counsel, not the witness.23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will do my24 best. If you noticed, my questions were direct. They were not leading25 questions. I just asked the witness whether he knew the bit ofTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 191 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 information that I gave him.2 So now could you just briefly tell us, do you know -- did you3 know about that last figure that I mentioned, about the people who were4 there in transit?5 A. Of course. Because not all people could stay in Bijeljina. They6 would move on to Serbia, Bratunac, Srebrenica, Zvornik.7 Q. Very well. Now let me ask you this: You will agree, won't you,8 for Republika Srpska to resolve this problem was to tell these people,9 You were the victim of ethnic cleansing and just go back to where you10 have come from.11 Would this have resolved the problem, according to you?12 A. I don't think it would have resolved the problem, no way. The13 simple reason being that, for instance, today, only 1 per cent of14 Sarajevo population are Croats, and some 4 to 5 per cent are Serbs. And15 to this day, people are leaving Sarajevo for all sorts of reasons,16 because they can't get a job, because of religious discrimination, and17 for all sorts of other reasons.18 Q. In other words, this mass movement of the populations, the one,19 the second, and the third group, was something that had to be accepted as20 a result of the war. And you will agree with me that the authorities of21 Republika Srpska dealt with this problem and did not ignore the fact or22 the -- the claim that it was in the aftermath of ethnic cleansing?23 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I object to that question. It is vague.24 Which mass movements of the population, the one, the second, the third25 group? When in time is that? Which people is it? From where to where?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 192 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 How does that relate to anything in our case?2 That needs some clarification.3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, I will be specific.4 Q. Mr. Markovic, the agreement that you see before you, was it5 directed at resolving this problem in the proper way?6 MR. HANNIS: I object again. It's vague. Which problem? And7 what does "proper way" mean?8 It's the problem of prisoners? It's the problem of movement of9 population? Which problem is being asked about here?10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Well, simply the problem that is11 dealt with in the agreement.12 MR. HANNIS: Okay. Can we have pointed to us in the agreement13 what problem is being addressed?14 JUDGE HALL: I -- I don't know how helpful this, what we have now15 gotten bogged down in, is going to be the Trial Chamber at the end of the16 day.17 The -- Mr. Cvijetic, you have spent a considerable amount of time18 setting the background to this situation and eliciting the witness's19 observations, in light of his own experience. But for our purposes,20 could we move on to the precise point that you are trying to make as a21 matter of evidence.22 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the essence is this.23 As this agreement was not signed and therefore implemented, this problem24 in Republika Srpska was dealt with in the manner that I showed yesterday,25 when I showed the witness some documents of the state organs, and I wouldTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 193 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 like now to show how Republika Srpska continued to deal with this problem2 at the local level because this agreement was -- had not been signed.3 So the point is -- the point we want to make is that4 Republika Srpska had to resolve this problem irrespective of the fact5 there were no signatures of both sides, and the problem could not be6 resolved bilaterally.7 JUDGE HALL: Before, Mr. Hannis responds, and I expect I know8 what is he going to say, aren't you sliding into the tu quoque defence.9 I assume that was the point you were going to make, Mr. Hannis.10 MR. HANNIS: That and also, Your Honour, maybe it's just me but I11 still don't understand what "this problem" is. I'm simply asking him to12 explain what he is talking about. And he keeps referring to the general13 term of "this problem."14 I don't know what that is.15 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if the territory of16 Republika Srpska, and we mentioned one town alone, receives17 100.000 people from elsewhere, refugees and displaced persons, then that18 does pose a problem, that the highest organs of authorities have to deal19 with in a manner that we point -- showed yesterday and that we will see20 here, too, and that's a problem that cannot be resolved by shutting your21 eyes and just claiming that this is the problem to do with ethnic22 cleansing and we're not going to deal with it.23 So what I'm trying to show here today, and I've shown it24 yesterday, I would like to show a few documents to show how25 Republika Srpska tried to resolve this problem by using various methods.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 194 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 [Trial Chamber confers]2 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Cvijetic, I would remind you that the stage of3 the trial that we're at is that we -- evidence is being led from4 witnesses. You are in the process of cross-examining this witness, so5 you are testing and probing the evidence that he has given on behalf of6 the Prosecution and challenging it. But the question of conclusions7 and -- and what arguments you would wish to make, you would reserve for8 the end of the exercise when all of the evidence is in.9 So if you would confine yourself to getting the evidence from the10 witness while the witness is on the stand, we could get ahead.11 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honours.12 Can we now show the witness document P60.8, please.13 Q. Mr. Markovic, can you see the title of the document?14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the first page15 of the document, please. And there is an affirmation by the translator;16 I just wanted to note that.17 Q. Mr. Markovic, you can see here that the problem of the refugee18 population in the area of Sanski Most, for example, is something that the19 municipal civilian protection staff was dealing with. And you said that20 some parts of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina were inaccessible to21 members of the commission for certain periods of time.22 Can you confirm, however, whether this organ that was dealing23 with this question was one of those authorised to resolve this problem?24 A. I said yesterday, Mr. Cvijetic, that Crisis Staffs were25 established in all the municipalities which were practically the AlphaTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 195 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 and Omega of the work of the municipality. This municipality of2 Sanski Most I never visited privately and not during the war, so this is3 an order based on the conclusions of the municipal staff of Sanski Most.4 But, like I said, I never saw this order before, and I never went to the5 Sanski Most municipality myself.6 Q. The question was whether the municipal civilian protection staff7 was supposed to be dealing with this problem. This is what I asked you.8 A. If these were civilians, then, yes, absolutely, yes.9 Q. Very well. I'm going move immediately to the next document.10 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D03, please, 4458.11 Q. You can see here that the care for individuals in the centre in12 Trnopolje is being dealt along with the participation of the13 International Red Cross and they're asking for support in food and -- and14 other supplies.15 So is this one of the entities that should have been dealing with16 this question?17 A. Yes. Because, in a way, that's part of the description of the18 duties of the Red Cross, because what is being requested here is food,19 flour, meat, and so on, fuel and so on and so forth. So I think that it20 is proper for the organisation of the Red Cross to be dealing with21 matters that have to do with civilians.22 Q. Thank you. We have now rounded off - at least I think - of all23 the key state organs and factors from the Presidency, the government, the24 army, down to the local organs, which were dealing with the issues of25 detention facilities, the movement of civilians, and providing assistanceTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 196 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 and care for the population.2 Finally, I am going to show you three documents by the minister3 of the interior.4 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit 1D55,5 please.6 Q. Mr. Markovic, at the time this order was adopted, you were still7 a member of the commission so I'm not sure if you actually saw this8 document or not. But, please, can you now read the contents of the9 documents? If you're able to; the letters are very small.10 A. Yes, yes, I can.11 Q. Well, just go ahead, read it and then I'm going to put some12 questions to you.13 Have you managed?14 A. Yes.15 Q. You spoke yesterday about the delineation of responsibilities and16 the authority of the Ministry of the Interior when we're talking about17 these detention facilities, and you restricted that to facilities that18 were within the public security stations, which is where the police had19 the right to detain persons up to three days.20 A. Yes, that is correct.21 Q. Did you say that, and now that you see this -- did you say that22 based on your general knowledge of police affairs and regulations, or did23 you say that on the basis of the knowledge of this particular document?24 Can you remember?25 A. This order was quite specifically formulated and it states thatTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 197 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 the security of collection centres shall be the direct responsibility of2 the Serbian army and members of the reserve police can be engaged on3 these tasks. I know that the minister, in a document of his, issued4 orders for all reserve police force members to be demobilised from the5 police and to be made available for the disposition of the Army of6 Republika Srpska. I read this document.7 Q. Can you read item 2 of this document to the very end and I think8 that you will find what you have just said.9 A. Should I read it aloud?10 Q. No, just read it to yourself.11 A. Yes, that is exactly what it says, what I was referring to12 earlier.13 Q. My question at the beginning was whether -- do you -- are you14 aware of the regulations on -- of the Law of Internal Affairs, allowing15 the police to deal with matters like this only in their own public16 security stations, and are they able to then keep these persons detained17 for a maximum of three days? Is that what the regulations state?18 Just briefly.19 A. According to the Law on Interior Affairs, it specifically says20 that a person can be detained in a public security facility up to three21 days, so one, two, and up to a maximum of three days. And this is in22 police stations which have the adequate facilities for such detention.23 Q. Very well. And this order is dealing precisely with those24 facilities, what they should look like and so on and so forth.25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the nextTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 198 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 document? This is 1D56.2 Q. I'm sorry, your answer was not recorded completely, so ...3 You can see here Mr. Stanisic's order about the applications of4 the provisions of international laws of war and adherence to the5 conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and so on and so forth.6 Yesterday, responding to a question from the Prosecutor, you said7 that policemen, when they're engaged on military assignments, are under8 the command of the army, and they act pursuant to orders from the army.9 A. Yes.10 Q. Do you remember saying that yesterday?11 A. Yes, I remember that very well.12 As soon as members of the police are transferred to military13 units, they are immediately subordinated to the military officers and14 bound by their orders. They are considered to be soldiers.15 Q. And do you recall that I showed you an order from the16 commander-in-chief, President Karadzic, ordering that all these17 international convention regulations be applied?18 A. Yes, I remember that.19 Q. So, Mr. Stanisic, with this order, orders, in a general way, to20 the members of the police that if they should find themselves in a21 situation, even if they are not under the jurisdiction of the MUP but are22 in the status of soldiers, they should comport themselves pursuant to the23 regulations as they are stated here.24 So that applied to you in the same way, regardless of the fact25 that you were under the jurisdiction of the government and were a memberTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 199 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 of a government commission. I think you said that -- this was said in a2 meeting in a conversation. Do you recall that?3 A. Yes, I remember that very well. But here in the last4 paragraph it is stated that persons who violate the regulations and act5 contrary to our legal and international regulations in this field and so6 on and so forth, regardless of whether they were members of the MUP or7 the army, it is necessary to immediately start gathering information and8 documentation and submit criminal reports to the authorised prosecutor's9 office. Regardless of whether these were soldiers or policemen, if they10 commit a criminal act, criminal reports have to be submitted to the11 authorised prosecutor's office.12 Q. Very well. We have one more document.13 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] 1D57.14 Q. We can see here that the Ministry of Interior, and it says in the15 second sentence, regardless of its jurisdiction, should act pursuant to16 the request of the Ministry of Health, Work, and Social Security and17 assisted in the collection of certain data about these facilities that we18 spoke about yesterday and today. And it says that this was done at the19 request of the International Committee of the Red Cross.20 So the ministry did deal with this problem to the extent that it21 was able to assist other authorised organs that were authorised to deal22 with this problem. Isn't that right?23 A. Yes, precisely. Because this refers to data that was gathered by24 the Ministry of Health, and the minister instructed the centres and the25 stations of public security to collect the names of the places, whoTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 200 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 formed or set up those camps, the institutions, and so on and so forth.2 Q. I'm going show you one more document.3 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I think that this is P731.4 Q. We can see that this is a report or action pursuant to a dispatch5 by the public security station of Rogatica, where the chief of that6 station reports on the situation in his area, and then, in this second7 larger paragraph, speaks about the military engagement of members of the8 public security station and the problems that it encountered. And then9 at the end of that paragraph, it is said that after a struggle with the10 military organs, they managed to keep 50 per cent of their force in order11 to be able to perform their regular duties.12 Do you see that at the end of that paragraph?13 A. Yes.14 Q. What I am interested in is the problem -- one problem that was15 encountered and that the chief was forced to resolve in an ad hoc manner,16 again, regardless of jurisdiction, and this is in the last paragraph but17 one, if you are able to read it. After the army and certain civilian18 organs left a group of civilian population out of the zone of combat, he19 literally says:20 "Although pursuant to the Law on Internal Affairs they were not21 under our jurisdiction, we guarded those persons and transferred them to22 the territory controlled by the authorities of the Republic of Bosnia and23 Herzegovina."24 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And can we now move to page 2.25 [Defence counsel confer]Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 201 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleague is2 drawing my attention to the fact that the break is -- it's time for a3 break, so perhaps it would be good for the witness to have time to4 acquaint himself with this document before I can put some questions to5 him on it.6 JUDGE HALL: The -- when you say "have time to acquaint himself7 with the document," you're inviting him to read it during the break or8 what? I -- I don't follow you.9 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely.10 MR. HANNIS: I have no objection if a hard copy is provided to11 him to look at during the break.12 JUDGE HALL: Yes, well, that can be done.13 And we take the break now.14 [The witness stands down]15 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.16 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.17 [The witness takes the stand]18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Cvijetic, you may continue.19 MR. CVIJETIC:20 Q. [Interpretation] We will be brief, Mr. Markovic. I assume that21 you've seen the report and read through it. I will only -- yes, we have22 the second page.23 Now here we see that the chief of the station is describing why24 he has done as he has, as described in the document. And what I would25 like to ask you is this: In the first part, he says that he was notTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 202 Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic (Continued)1 bound by law to take any action. Do you agree with me?2 A. Yes.3 Q. He informed about this incident. Now, let's see, if he received4 this dispatch on the 25th of July, he informed thereof the centre of the5 security stations in August. Now what I would like to know is whether he6 informed your commission and whether you knew about this transfer of7 civilians.8 Answer with just yes or no.9 A. No, I don't know about this. But the army brought them in, and10 neither the army authorities nor the civilian authorities wanted to take11 any responsibility for them so they just transferred their12 responsibility, as it were, to the police which then had to do something,13 and they simply let them go. This was a -- an attempt to remove the14 population, the civilian population, from areas where there was fighting.15 Muslim civilians.16 Q. Yes. That's what it says here.17 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] And I have no further questions18 for this witness.19 Q. Mr. Markovic, thank you, I have no further questions for you.20 A. You're welcome.21 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic:22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Markovic.23 A. Good afternoon.24 Q. I am Defence counsel Igor Pantelic, and I'm the Defence counsel25 for Mr. Zupljanin. Unfortunately, we didn't have occasion to meet theseTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 203 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 past days. My colleague spoke with you, but I will continue with the2 questioning in line with what we've heard before for the Trial Chamber's3 benefit.4 A. Very well.5 Q. My first question is this. Based on information that I have from6 client and certain exhibits that the Defence has, Mr. Zupljanin never7 participated in any kind of discussions to do with exchanges of prisoners8 or populations and so on.9 A. That's correct, he never did.10 Q. In your statement to the Prosecution on 26th of February, 2008, I11 found, as I read through it, a very tragic and moving incident described12 therein. And for the Trial Chamber to get a better picture, could you13 please tell us briefly what this was about. I am referring to the14 incident where Croatian soldiers from the HVO were supposed to be15 exchanged for Serbian prisoners of war and the Croatian prisoners of war16 were detained in the military camp Manjaca.17 A. That's correct.18 Q. Would you please describe to the Trial Chamber what you witnessed19 during the exchange and please describe how you felt about it.20 A. Well, I will begin with my arrival in Banja Luka.21 When I arrived Banja Luka, on orders from the prime minister, I22 first went to my own base, as it were. That's the CSB in Banja Luka,23 where I met Mr. Zupljanin for the first time. We met very briefly, a24 couple of minutes. I went to see him so that he could tell me and my25 colleague who was with me, Mr. Slobodan Avlijas, where the Banja LukaTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 204 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 court was, and we were looking to meet with the president of the court,2 Mr. Jovo Rosic, who is unfortunately -- who has unfortunately passed3 away. Mr. Zupljanin called Mr. Rosic and he said that we had come to4 arrange this exchange.5 I met with Mr. Rosic and Mr. Branko Dokic, who was the dean of6 the electrical engineering school in Banja Luka at the time, and they7 were representatives in the commission of the Autonomous Region of8 Krajina. That's what it was called at the time. I had lists with me of9 Croatian prisoners that were being sought by the Croatian side because I10 received them by fax from a certain Mario Plejic, who lived in11 Dusseldorf, somewhere in Germany anyway, and we exchanged fax messages12 and lists in that manner.13 I confirmed that I had found all these men and that all the men14 that they were asking, that were on the list, will be -- would be15 exchanged. Mr. Rosic Avlijas, myself, and Dokic went to Manjaca where we16 took over, took with us a certain number of prisoners of war of Croatian17 ethnicity who had been captured during combat. From there, we boarded18 buses, two or three buses, I can't recall exactly, and went to Knin.19 When we arrived in Knin it was already dark so we spent the night there,20 and the Croatians who were on the buses were guarded by the Army of the21 Knin Krajina.22 The next day we left in a convoy of buses for a place called23 Zitnic, which was in the territory of the Republic of Croatia. There, we24 met members of the Croatian commission, Mr. Ivan Bender, Valentin Coric,25 and two other men that I didn't know. In these negotiations, a member ofTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 205 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 the international mission also was present. I think his name was2 Martin --3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last name.4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- from Portugal. After some5 discussion and negotiation they asked to board the buses and check6 whether the men that they had sought were on the buses. We, on our part,7 had brought every single man that they had requested. And then, from8 there on, we continued to another place called Pakovo Selo, near Sibenik,9 where we were supposed to check our list of our people that we had sought10 and that had been agreed with Mr. Plejic. That's what we thought.11 When we arrived there, we were surprised, first, when the people12 started boarding the buses, there were very few men. There were women13 mostly and even young women with their children, babies. Perhaps14 5 per cent of the people that were on the list actually showed up. We15 didn't know what to do and then Mr. Jovo Rosic, as the president of the16 court and the most senior member of the commission among us, went back to17 Zitnic and made a telephone call, probably to the prime minister,18 Mr. Djeric, and when he returned he said there will be no exchange.19 Of course, the Croats began protesting, because, you know, for20 our people -- for our people it wasn't really simple. They were almost21 free and now they were supposed to go back to hell. I'm sure they didn't22 enjoy it there.23 Now, these -- this was a very difficult situation. There were24 people crying, the women and children, even some of the Croatian25 prisoners were crying. After this, on order from the prime minister, weTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 206 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 took them back to Manjaca and left them where we had taken them from2 originally.3 Q. Very well. Mr. Markovic, let me take you to that year, 1992.4 There's an impression here, and this is what the Prosecution is5 trying to build up, that the entire situation and atmosphere was quiet,6 peaceful, and that everything should follow in an orderly fashion, and7 every regulation and provision of the law should be applied by.8 Now, let me ask you this: When -- during the process of9 establishment of Republika Srpska, there were a lot of organisational and10 other problems and all authorities, all government organs, local and11 government -- and at the government level, had a lot of difficulties in12 organising this in a timely fashion because events just followed one13 after another at great speed. Correct?14 A. Yes, that's correct. Other than the documents that we received15 on how we were to proceed in our work, we also received a document from16 the mission, international mission, which basically followed the same17 rules. But have you to understand that in these circumstances, in the18 chaos of war it was practically impossible to implement all -- and comply19 with all of these regulations.20 Q. In answering my colleague Cvijetic's questions, you discussed21 that and I would now like to set up a framework, a legal framework within22 which we have to work.23 Now, do you know that in -- on the 12th of May, 1992, the24 Assembly of Republika Srpska declared a state of war. Did you know that?25 A. Yes. At the time, I was already a member of the commission and ITuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 207 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 was in Pale.2 Q. As an experienced police officer, you know that in circumstances3 of an immediate threat of war, the army has -- and the police have4 certain rules to abide by and they have to be resubordinated to the army.5 A. That's correct.6 Q. You've commented a document that Mr. Cvijetic showed you. That's7 P189. And I would now like quickly to go through it and discuss certain8 matters therein.9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] So could we please pull it up,10 P189. Here we have it.11 Q. First of all, Mr. Markovic, we see in the preamble to these12 instructions that it was adopted -- that they were adopted, pursuant to13 an order from the Presidency of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and14 Herzegovina of 13 June 1992, and these instructions are being issued by15 the Ministry of Defence; correct?16 A. Yes.17 Q. In item 1, the Ministry of Defence, for all practical purposes,18 issues an order to members of the MUP as well to comply with certain19 rules and regulations in keeping with the -- what we've earlier said20 about the resubordination of the MUP to the army; correct?21 A. Yes.22 Q. If we look at the paragraph 4 now of these instructions, it says23 there that the reception centres for captured persons shall be determined24 by a senior officer with a rank of company commander or higher; is that25 correct?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 208 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 A. Yes.2 Q. We will not go through all the items, the other items or other3 articles talk about conditions that should exist in all these centres and4 reception centres, detention centres and so on.5 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now let us move to page 3 of the6 Serbian or B/C/S version. The last three digits are 451, the last three7 digits of the ERN number. That's right.8 We see number 18, please. Can we please have number 18 on the9 screen in the B/C/S version.10 Q. In item 18 it is stated that for organisation and location of the11 camps, it is the commanders of the corps of the VRS of the Bosnia and12 Herzegovina -- it's the responsibility of the corps commanders.13 So all this was within the systematic regulations that define the14 role of the army in such conditions.15 A. Yes, that's correct. And if you remember, there was an order16 we've seen yesterday issued by General Ratko Mladic about establishment17 of camps where it is stated that the VRS should have exclusive control of18 such camps, that each of the corps has a task to that effect.19 Q. Now, Mr. Markovic, let us look into the circumstances prevailing20 in the Autonomous Region of Krajina in 1992. So if you have any21 information about that, I would like to hear your opinion.22 As far as we know, the entire territory of the Autonomous Region23 of Krajina was, practically speaking, a front line that was even24 encircled by the enemy forces until the corridor was made. They were25 encircled by the enemy forces. Is that correct?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 209 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 A. Yes.2 Q. Let us analyse the situation in the area of Prijedor, so-called3 Potkozarje region, if you have, of course, any information about that.4 In strong conflicts in that area, the VRS was very active in the period5 of April until July of 1992.6 A. Mr. Pantelic --7 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, I have to object there. The evidence in8 this case is that the VRS wasn't created until the middle of May 1992, so9 the question needs to be reformulated.10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Since my colleague11 Mr. Hannis insists on being perfectly precise, and this is an objective12 fact.13 Q. The fighting in the area of Prijedor was between very strong14 Muslim units and the forces of the Serbian Territorial Defence until15 May 12th, when the VRS was established, and, as of 12th of May, the16 fighting was between the VRS and its subordinated units and very strong17 Muslim forces in the area. Is that correct?18 A. Yes. Together with the Croatian forces.19 Q. These were hard battles with many victims on the Serbian side as20 well, with a lot of blood spilled.21 A. Yes.22 Q. In course of such fighting, unfortunately, as a consequence of23 military operations, the civilian population of all three ethnicities was24 in danger.25 A. Yes, that's correct.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 210 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 Q. And then the relevant command of the VRS ordered, in accordance2 with international law, that civilian population should be protected, and3 that's why Trnopolje reception centre was established, where civilians4 could find some kind of shelter; is that correct?5 A. Yes.6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic.7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.8 JUDGE DELVOIE: You were referring to Prijedor municipality and9 then the so-called region but the name of the region is not in the10 transcript, and I would like to know what region you were talking about11 where these heavy fighting were going on.12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.13 JUDGE DELVOIE: You mentioned it but it isn't on the transcript.14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I will clarify that.15 Q. [Interpretation] For the purpose of transcript let us repeat.16 The fighting took place in the area of Prijedor and the region of17 Potkozarje. This region means, in translation, "surrounding18 Mount Kozara." Is that correct?19 A. Yes.20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.21 MR. PANTELIC: You're welcome, Your Honour.22 Q. [Interpretation] So, according to the information that we have,23 Trnopolje was an open-type reception centre, where civilian population24 could freely enter or leave at any point; is that correct?25 A. Yes.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 211 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 Q. However, the problem regarding Trnopolje got worse with time,2 mainly because of the food supply problems and other supply problems, and3 then the Red Cross from Prijedor also reacted to the situation. Am I4 correct?5 A. Yes. We've seen a document to that effect.6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D9 --7 apologies, 1D03-4458.8 Q. This is the document my learned colleague Cvijetic asked you9 about. As we see here, the situation on the 12th of September, 1992, was10 very serious, a shortage of food, fuel for heating, and the municipal11 Red Cross of Prijedor reacts by sending reports to the Municipal Assembly12 of Prijedor.13 A. To the Executive Committee, yes.14 Q. Generally speaking, although you were not in the area at the15 time, but you did have information that all such centres faced similar16 problems because of the war conditions and because it was very hard to17 organise everything required in relation to feeding the people and so on.18 Is that correct?19 A. Yes, that's correct.20 MR. PANTELIC: If there is no objections -- I don't know if that21 document was admitted. If there is no objection from my learned friend22 Mr. Hannis, I would like to -- to tender it, although it was uploaded by23 our friends from Stanisic Defence.24 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]25 MR. HANNIS: I do object to it, Your Honour. This witness can'tTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 212 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 speak to it. He wasn't at Trnopolje. He doesn't know who wrote this2 document. He doesn't know anything about it.3 I object to its admission through this witness.4 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe we could MFI.5 JUDGE HALL: Yes, marked for identification.6 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 2D93 marked -- this will be Exhibit 2D93,8 marked for identification, Your Honours.9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.10 JUDGE HALL: That's marked for identification pending a suitable11 witness being able to tender it.12 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. I was just trying to speed up this13 process, but, okay, no problem at all. Thank you so much, Your Honour.14 Q. [Interpretation] Next document I would like to --15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic.16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Pantelic, please, I suppose your actual line18 of question goes to the challenge of one or more of 39 adjudicated facts.19 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Can -- may I remember you that you should21 announce which facts you are challenging that way. If you could, that22 would be very helpful. Thank you.23 MR. PANTELIC: Could you bear with me one second, please,24 Your Honour.25 JUDGE DELVOIE: If you are not able to do it right now, you canTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 213 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 do it perhaps after the next break or something like that.2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.4 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record. Thank you. Thank you so5 much for your understanding.6 Q. [Interpretation] So the next document I would like to show to you7 and to discuss with you is the document that you already talked about.8 It's 560 from the Prosecutor's 65 ter list.9 We can see here that the author of the document was the warden of10 the Trnopolje centre, Mr. Pero Curguz. And on the 8th of October, 1992,11 he reports again to the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor and its Executive12 Committee about problems in relation to bread, flour and so on.13 In the end, at the end of the first paragraph, he is saying that14 there is many people coming in, that there's about 3.500 of them already15 there. Is that correct?16 A. Yes.17 Q. So the problem with Trnopolje is still active at the time. He is18 then saying that although the centre is officially closed, people keep19 coming, because people are feeling insecure and feel threatened because20 of the conflicts of war, and that's the reason why people do go there.21 Is that correct?22 A. [No interpretation]23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I would like to tender this document24 for MFI, please, if it is appropriate. Thank you. Because it is related25 to previous one.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 214 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 JUDGE HALL: Marked for identification, again pending admission2 through a -- a witness to whom there's a closer nexus.3 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit 2D94, marked for4 identification, Your Honours.5 MR. PANTELIC:6 Q. [Interpretation] If we could only have your answer in the7 transcript as well.8 So, my question was: The combat activities in the area was what9 prompted the influx of people to Trnopolje and the Red Cross is trying to10 do its best to make arrangements for the people.11 A. Of course, the safety of the people was the main thing. They12 were safe in Trnopolje. There's -- as you can see, there is mention of13 50 per cent of children between 1 and 12 years. They were safe in the14 centre. They did have food and the rest -- well, to some extent at15 least, they had it, thanks to the Red Cross.16 Q. Thank you. Let us now look at P194.17 While we're waiting for this document, let me just say it's a18 report by the commission of the Republika Srpska government consisting of19 Mr. Vojin Lale, who was Assistant Minister for Justice, and Mr. Erkic,20 who was an inspector in the MUP. This commission visited the object21 between the 10th and the 15th of August -- or, rather, facilities in22 Krajina region; namely, Trnopolje, Omarska, Keraterm, Krings in23 Sanski Most, and two other centres in Bosanski Samac.24 Let us deal with Trnopolje and the situation there.25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the followingTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 215 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 page of this document put up on the screen. Or, rather, the third page.2 So one more page, please. The last three ERN numbers are 062. Yes,3 thank you.4 Q. In the third paragraph, it is stated that this settlement of5 Trnopolje is under the protection of the VRS and that one can see in6 Serbian and English a sign saying "open reception centre".7 Can you see that?8 A. Yes, yes, I can see that.9 Q. Furthermore, the commission writes, that certain problems persist10 in relation to provision of food but that the local Red Cross11 organisation and a Muslim organisation called Merhamet are doing all they12 can to improve the conditions.13 And then, on the following page of this report, the commission --14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have the next page.15 Q. The commission states or writes about the conditions in the POW16 detention centre called Omarska. They discuss the conditions found17 there, and then explains what conditions were like in Keraterm,18 Sanski Most and Bosanski Samac.19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now can we please move to page 520 of the document. The last three ERN numbers are 066.21 So, conclusions or concluding remarks.22 Q. Mr. Markovic, it is a known fact that on the basis of the23 reaction by the Assembly of Republika Srpska in July, but also in24 August of 1992, such centres were subjected to intensive control and also25 that because of international outcry in relation to these centres. IsTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 216 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 that correct?2 A. Yes.3 Q. In item 1, the commission criticises the government of4 Republika Srpska and says that the government did not pay appropriate5 attention to the problems relating to these facilities; is that correct?6 A. Yes.7 Q. And then in the following items, the commission speaks about8 inadequate conditions, as well as noting that the government should have,9 through the Ministry of Defence, have taken appropriate measures; is that10 correct? This is in paragraph marked 3. Do you see that?11 A. Yes.12 Q. And then, on the next page in the B/C/S - that is, paragraph 5 -13 attention is drawn to the lack of suitable regulations regarding the14 treatment of civilian refugees which is particularly evident in the case15 of Trnopolje; is that correct?16 A. Yes.17 Q. So we could draw a conclusion on the basis of all this, on the18 basis of the circumstances and facts here, that there was quite a lot of19 disorganisation and lack of direction and lack of correct interpretation20 of the regulations and standards that had led to a number of abuses even,21 in this area, by a number of individuals; is that correct?22 A. Yes.23 Q. However, the government and the defence ministry are those in24 charge of taking measures and taking the lead on this and not the police;25 is that correct?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 217 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 A. Yes, absolutely.2 Q. Because the police, within the constitutional system, is actually3 an organ of state administration; is that correct?4 A. Yes.5 Q. And we can see on this page, especially in paragraph marked 5 --6 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up the B/C/S7 version, please.8 Q. That certain measures are being proposed by the commission to the9 government as to what the government should do on this matter. But what10 is important to me at this time is that when we look at item 5 that11 speaks about Trnopolje and possible manipulation of the public media and12 public opinion, I have a specific question. We know that representatives13 of foreign media did tour those places and we know that members of the14 foreign media exaggerated and presented the circumstances there15 unrealistically.16 I think you started to explain this but were interrupted by the17 Prosecutor. Do you have any information about Trnopolje or anything in18 terms of media manipulation and public manipulation regards conditions in19 Trnopolje? You wanted to say something but were interrupted by the20 Prosecutor.21 A. Well, perhaps one of the key things is that scene when that tall,22 thin, young man, with his bones practically protruding, is standing23 behind barbed wire fence. And when the journalist shows only that24 sequence, when you can only see him and the barbed wire fence, but25 actually there were shovels and other tools, working tools, standingTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 218 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 behind that fence, and she used that opportunity to make that photograph2 and that photograph was broadcast all over the world. And everything was3 presented in a very negative way. People were presented as criminals, as4 inhumane, even though that is very far from the truth, far from the truth5 of what the photograph is showing. And broader than that.6 Q. Throughout the war years, you had witnessed a high degree of7 manipulation by the foreign media, in terms of the events and objective8 reporting from the field; is that correct?9 A. Yes. I would just like to say that after the war, as inspector10 in the police administration of the Ministry of the Interior of11 Republika Srpska, I went to Prijedor to inspect the work of that public12 security station -- actually Prijedor was a public security centre at the13 time, and I did go to Trnopolje. Of course, the war was over, and that's14 when people explained to me what kind of a camp it was. My colleagues15 who were there explained to me. We toured Trnopolje. They explained16 what was being done in that camp, that that photograph that was shown had17 no relation to the truth, that actually only 2 metres away from there was18 a barbed wire fence behind which a -- a wire fence behind which tools19 were stored, but it was really contrived to make it seem as if it was20 some -- Auschwitz practically.21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, 45, 4, page 45, line 4, I believe the22 witness says that the -- the wire length was 2 metres only. That was my23 understanding.24 Maybe this can be checked with the witness.25 MR. PANTELIC:Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 219 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 Q. A small correction to the transcript. Can you please confirm2 what my colleague has just said.3 A. Yes, yes, it was two, two and a half metres, an enclosure where4 tools were kept, and this was set apart to prevent them perhaps from5 fighting or injuring each other in a fight. I mean, this is what my6 colleagues told me.7 Q. And now about the functioning of the police and about information8 from this topic. It's important that we cover that topic, and we would9 need to look at a certain number of documents in order to do that.10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Please, can we look at document,11 Exhibit 1D57. This is a Stanisic Defence document.12 Q. Of course, I'm not going to ask you to confirm if you have seen13 those documents or not, but I'm just using them as a certain illustration14 of the methods of work of the Ministry of the Interior. So I have a few15 questions on that topic.16 Here in this exhibit we can see a dispatch sent on the17 24th of August, 1992, from the Ministry of the Interior to all18 Security Service Centres and public security stations, where MUP, on the19 basis of the request of the ministry, is requesting certain information20 regarding the camps, the dates when they were set up, who ordered these21 persons to be brought in, and a deadline is given until the22 30th of August, 1992, for the MUP to inform about this.23 A. Yes, that is correct.24 Q. Of course, you, as an experienced policeman, police professional,25 will confirm that when the Ministry of the Interior orders something likeTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 220 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 this and because of its urgency, we can see that the dispatch was sent2 both to the centres and to the public security stations individually too;3 is that correct?4 A. Yes. And this was upon the request of the Ministry of Health,5 Work, and Social Security.6 Q. Yes, precisely. Precisely. And now let's look at the next7 document related to this dispatch.8 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] And that is 65 ter document 536.9 It's Prosecution Exhibit P972, in fact, if I'm not mistaken.10 Q. We can see the first page of that document where the chief of the11 CSB, Simo Drljaca, in reference to the dispatch of the 24th of August,12 replies to it. And then on page 2 of this document, and that's ERN13 number 311, that those are the last three numbers, we can see on the14 second page this initial dispatch from the ministry. Now we can go to15 the third page of this same document, because it comprises a number of16 pages.17 And we can see here that the Banja Luka CSB, on the 27th of18 August, conveyed this message from the MUP, upon the request of the19 health ministry, and requested that action be taken pursuant to it.20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] But can I see my learned friend21 Mr. Hannis on his feet.22 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, if we're looking apparently at 65 ter23 536, Mr. Pantelic made a reference to a P exhibit number. This is not a24 P exhibit. As far as I can tell, this is still just a 65 ter.25 JUDGE HALL: The Registry has confirmed that --Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 221 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.2 JUDGE HALL: -- that it is not.3 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. It is my mistake. The next one4 is P. So I do apologise to all parties.5 Q. [Interpretation] What we are seeing now is that this is being6 distributed, this dispatch, further, an action is being taken on the7 basis of it. Is that correct?8 A. Yes.9 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, if we can mark this document for10 identification or maybe if there is no particular objection from --11 because this is a police matter and communication. If there is no12 objection from our friends from the Prosecution.13 MR. HANNIS: I don't have an objection to this one being marked14 as an exhibit. We believe it is authentic.15 JUDGE HALL: Tendered, admitted, and marked.16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 2D95, Your Honours.17 MR. PANTELIC:18 Q. [Interpretation] In the context of narrow police topics, I'm19 asking you this. There is an system of informing and reporting in the20 police where, using daily dispatches, weekly dispatches, monthly21 dispatches, the -- higher ranking organs in the MUP are being informed22 about the SJ -- by the SJB about work for the past period.23 A. Yes, about work for the prior period.24 Q. The main point is that these lowest organisational units, the25 public security stations, must, at the daily level, have a report aboutTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 222 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 events, including any abuses, professional abuses. For example, if a2 policeman exceeds his authorities or commits certain violations. Is that3 correct?4 A. Yes, that is correct. That is why police stations have a5 log-book of daily events where each event that is reported by citizens,6 in person or over the phone, is logged in.7 Q. And, of course, the responsibility of the public security station8 chief has -- is to suspend or take measures in the event violations are9 committed, such as, for example, a policeman beating up a civilian or10 things like that.11 A. Yes, that is correct.12 Q. And then the chief of that municipal police unit, in his regular13 reports, pursuant to regulations and rules of the Law on Internal14 Affairs, has to report to his superiors, and that would be the next15 level, the CSB; is that correct?16 A. Yes.17 Q. Of course, the CSB would not be forwarding all types of daily18 information directly to the chief but they would be sent to his assistant19 about daily activities if they are in the area of police duties; is that20 correct?21 A. Yes. They would be sent to the lower-ranking officers and then22 this would be sent down to the lower-ranking officers who would then go23 about implementing these duties.24 Q. Of course, for example, if a policeman in the municipal MUP were25 to commit a disciplinary violation or a criminal act, that would, ofTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 223 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 course, be part of the daily report that would be sent to the authorised2 CSB assistant in charge of police information.3 A. It would go, actually, to the Ministry of the Interior too. And4 if it was a more serious violation, then disciplinary proceedings would5 be initiated. In the event of committing a crime, he would be suspended6 and a criminal report would be submitted against that particular person.7 Q. All right. Sir, unfortunately, the times were extremely8 difficult, chaotic. The wartime period, 1992, was a very difficult year.9 And, unfortunately, the police found themselves with the problem between10 demands from the army and the local political structures, such as11 Crisis Staff, and each one of them pulled the police in their own12 direction. They misused their authorities and duties and were placing13 the police in a difficult position, making them very scattered and14 pulling -- pulled in all directions. Is that correct?15 A. That is correct. We saw a document yesterday where16 Minister Stanisic requested - and I believe this was at a government17 session - that the reserve force of the police be attached to the18 Army of Republika Srpska and that they no longer function as police19 officers but, rather, be subordinated to the Army of Republika Srpska.20 In other words, that they -- that the only -- that the professional21 police remain just as strictly police force and carry out their duties.22 Q. In order to illustrate this, although we have a wealth of23 evidence here, and that is what the Defence is trying to do, present all24 that evidence, we want to show the delicate position in which the police25 find itself because the civilian authorities are pulling it to one sideTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 224 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 and the army to the other.2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] So to illustrate that, I would3 like now to call a document, 1D166. It is a Stanisic exhibit.4 It is hard to make it out, but if we can just zoom in on the5 first paragraph of this order.6 Q. You see, Mr. Markovic, first of all, that the date on the7 document is May 31st, 1992, and that this is a document -- or, rather, an8 order from the Prijedor SJB. And in the introductory paragraph it says9 that in keeping with the order of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor, it is10 being ordered that the temporary collection point for individuals, for11 persons who were in combat, that this point should be -- the reception12 point should be in the Omarska mine.13 Do you see that?14 A. Yes, I do.15 Q. This is, indeed, a very stark example of how civilian16 authorities, such as the Crisis Staff here, and some military structures,17 as we saw earlier, initiate for their own needs these matters, such as18 detention centres. Correct?19 A. Yes.20 Q. And, of course, we've shown a number of decisions taken in21 Prijedor -- a number of judgements in the cases related to Prijedor,22 where we saw exactly what the roles of Simo Drljaca and others were. But23 if have you some knowledge, could you confirm here for the Trial24 Chamber's benefit whether Prijedor and its Crisis Staff, headed by this25 same person, Simo Drljaca, was in fact a state within a state, if I mayTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 225 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 define it as such.2 A. Well, I really cannot say anything about that. I don't know.3 Q. Very well.4 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Now, let us move on to5 paragraph 11 of this order. That's on the second page of this document.6 Paragraph 11. Could we please enlarge it, zoom in on it --7 Q. So that can you read it more easily.8 Now you see what it says there, what Chief Drljaca says there.9 He says that all the coordinators of those security services are10 duty-bound to report on a daily basis, every day, at 1200 hours, to him,11 the chief, their reports on their work for the past -- for the previous12 24 hours, and in the event of any extraordinary circumstances or13 developments that they should report immediately. Correct?14 A. Yes, that's right. That's what it says there.15 Q. From this I can conclude --16 A. Just a moment, please. That is correct. I can confirm that, but17 the principle and the standard procedure in all public security stations18 before, during, and after the war was to compile daily reports every day19 and inform the chief of the centre and other superiors on the work of the20 station for the previous 24 hours.21 Q. Very well. So the point is this: Drljaca must have been22 informed on these developments because they would have to have been23 reported by some of his subordinates?24 A. Certainly. And they would have had to have been -- they would25 have had to be registered.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 226 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 Q. Certainly.2 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] My question did not -- was not3 recorded in the transcript. Let me repeat it.4 Q. My last question was this. I said that he, as the chief in5 Prijedor, was duty-bound to report any violations committed by his6 subordinates to the CSB and that would have been part of the daily7 report. Is that correct?8 A. Yes. As a lower-level station, security station, they were9 duty-bound to report to their superior station, which in this case was10 the CSB.11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, just for the record, I have here12 fact, adjudicated fact 858, just for the record, 866, and 884. Because13 certain lines of question were related -- it's a living matter, it cannot14 be covered everything, but certain lines are related to the issues in15 Trnopolje and Prijedor.16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Markovic, I have no further questions for17 you. This is the end of my cross-examination.18 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, if it's appropriate time for a19 break. We have a couple of minutes left, and then my friend Mr. Hannis20 can take the boat after the break.21 [Trial Chamber confers]22 JUDGE DELVOIE: It's perhaps the appropriate moment to come back23 to the question of -- raised by Ms. Korner sometime ago about challenge24 of adjudicated facts by the Defence.25 The Trial Chamber reminds the parties that the Defence has beenTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 227 Cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic1 asked to announce very clearly the challenge of an adjudicated fact the2 moment they challenge it by asking questions of a witness or in whatever3 other way the challenge is made.4 The Trial Chamber is of the view that there is no basis in the5 rules nor in the jurisprudence that allows the Trial Chamber to impose6 the obligation to announce in advance the adjudicated facts taken7 judicial notice of that the Defence challenges.8 In other words, there is no basis that permits to impose an9 exhaustive list to be produced before the end of the Prosecutor's case10 that would prevent the -- the later challenge of any adjudicated fact not11 on that list. However, and even so, it would certainly assist the12 Trial Chamber and the expeditiousness of the procedure if both Defence13 teams could indicate at this stage of the trial the adjudicated facts14 that, to their actual knowledge, are going to be challenged for sure.15 This would materially advance the work to be done without putting any16 restriction on the Defence.17 Thank you.18 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Judge.19 So we now take the break and resume in 20 minutes.20 [The witness stands down]21 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.22 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I asked to address something before24 the witness was brought in concerning the adjudicated facts that25 Mr. Pantelic said he was challenging. I wanted to confirm that thoseTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Evidentiary Matters (Open Session) Page 2281 were numbers 858, 866, and 884?2 And -- and my review of your decision on adjudicated facts shows3 that 858 refers to Prijedor SUP -- detainees being transferred from4 Prijedor SUP to Omarska camp by policemen; 866 refers to what happened to5 some of the detainees in Omarska camp; and 884 details with the presence6 of interrogators from Banja Luka CSB and Banja Luka Corps in Omarska.7 I frankly didn't hear anything from this witness that really8 touches on that in Omarska. But now that I have confirmed those are the9 facts, I have maybe one question to ask the witness and I'm ready to10 resume with him. Thank you.11 MR. PANTELIC: Just for the record, in fact, line of questions12 was in relation to the role of the members of the army who, during which13 operation, ordered to civilian population to go to certain centres,14 what -- on which basis was that, et cetera.15 So I agree with Mr. Hannis that it was not specifically related16 to the wordings, but in, I would say, an overall context of Prijedor.17 That was the -- the line that I was following.18 Yes, thank you.19 [The witness takes the stand]20 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:21 Q. Mr. Markovic, now it's my turn once again.22 I wanted to ask you a question concerning some of your evidence23 relating to the problems with communications.24 You said, I think more than once yesterday, that when you were in25 Pale that there were problems with telephone lines and fax lines and notTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 229 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 having communications.2 And can you confirm for me where you were, where your office was3 or were you were housed in Pale? I understood it was in Kalovita Brda in4 what I have sometimes referred to as the scouts' house. You will have to5 answer out loud.6 A. No. The name of the settlement was Kalovita Brda, and the7 facility where I was was called Buducnost. That's a facility that before8 the war was used for scouts, for students of elementary schools, for9 nature tour classes.10 Q. Thank you. In connection with Buducnost - pardon my11 pronunciation - I would like to show you Exhibit P543.12 MR. HANNIS: This was not one that was in my original tab of13 documents to use with the witness but it arises related to the issue of14 communications.15 Q. You will see on the screen in a moment, Mr. Markovic, what16 appears to be an order from Mr. Stanisic to the CSB centres about sending17 in daily reports. And what I'd like to you look at is the upper18 left-hand corner on the original in B/C/S, what I would call the fax19 header line, and would you agree with me that that says "Buducnost in20 Pale"?21 A. Yes.22 Q. And the date of this document is the 18th of April -- on the fax23 header line is 18 April 1992.24 MR. HANNIS: If we can zoom out so the witness can see that.25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 230 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 MR. HANNIS:2 Q. So it appears that somebody in Buducnost had access to a fax as3 early as 18 April 1992. Did you know about that?4 A. Sir, I said that yesterday that on the 17th of April I actually5 resigned from the Bosnia and Herzegovina MUP, and I arrived in Pale on6 the 9th of May, 1992.7 The communications between Pale and the federal part of Sarajevo,8 Bosnia and Herzegovina, probably were in service, in operation, for some9 10 to 15 days after I arrived, and after that, no more communications10 lines were available, and this document actually is from the time while I11 was still in Sarajevo.12 Q. Fair enough, I understand. Did you know Dragan Kezunovic, who13 was chief of the communications and cryptographic data protection14 administration in the RS MUP in 1992?15 A. I do know Mr. Dragan Kezunovic. He was also the chief of16 communications in the joint MUP before the war, and when the Serbian MUP17 was established, it was normal for him to be appointed to that same18 position, to be the chief of communications, because he was19 well-acquainted with the work of that department.20 Q. And would you agree that he would be better informed than you21 about the status of communications in the RS MUP in 1992 because it was22 part of his job?23 A. Well, I believe so.24 Police officers had Motorola radio sets, they could use that for25 communication, and that was the only way they could actually communicateTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 231 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 amongst themselves. And --2 Q. I'm sorry, go ahead.3 A. And I'd like to stress here that these Motorolas were charged by4 way of batteries because there was no -- or -- generators because there5 was no electricity. There was a power shortage in Pale.6 Q. I now want to go to some questions that Mr. Cvijetic asked you7 yesterday.8 At page 12689, line 19, he said he was interested in your status9 and asked who you reported to, in terms of your work when you were on the10 Exchange Commission.11 During that time in 1992, when you were a MUP representative to12 the Exchange Commission, you've told us that you were paid by the MUP.13 Did you wear a uniform or civilian clothes?14 A. No, I wore civilian clothes, because my job was a government job15 and there are no uniforms there. And, of course, my salary was paid out16 through the Ministry of the Interior.17 Q. And did you retain all your service time during that period, that18 counted towards your retirement or your pension benefits in MUP? Did19 that time when you were working on the Exchange Commission count towards20 your MUP retirement?21 A. Yes, exactly so. Because I got my salary from them, I was still22 considered to be a member of the MUP, but I was just for a while seconded23 to the government as a representative of the group.24 Q. In terms of reporting to the prime minister, Mr. Djeric, can you25 tell us approximately when and how and how often you did that, in 1992?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 232 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 Was that on a daily basis; was it oral or in writing?2 A. It was not on a daily basis. It was in writing, especially where3 large-scale exchanges were carried out, and I also sent my requests for4 the necessary resources that we needed for our work, for the problems5 that the commission was facing and so on. And when we met at the6 government building in Kikinda, as you said, then I would describe to7 him, in an informal sort of exchange, about what was going on and what8 things would -- how things evolved. That's it. Thank you.9 Q. When -- when Mr. Djeric's government fell in late 1992 and he was10 replaced, who did you report to after that?11 A. I don't recall that I submitted my reports to anyone at that12 time, because some two or three months after that, I left the commission,13 when Mr. Djeric left.14 Q. At page 12694 yesterday, Mr. Cvijetic was showing you15 Exhibit P192.16 MR. HANNIS: And if we could have a look at that, please.17 Q. This is, I believe, the document from Mr. Kovac. And you recall18 in the second paragraph -- I'm sorry, the third paragraph. He is talking19 about the problem in the field about people not being categorised.20 Do you recall that?21 A. Yes. Mr. Cvijetic put some questions about that, and we22 described the individuals who were detained, and then other categories of23 persons, detained persons.24 Q. Okay. And would you agree with me that this is an indication25 that that was still a problem as of August 1992 in the RS?Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 233 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 A. Well, as the war became fiercer and fiercer, the problems2 increased.3 Q. [Microphone not activated] I'm sorry, I'm looking for a4 page number, Mr. Markovic.5 MR. HANNIS: Could we have a look at Exhibit P1318.22.6 Q. This is a document that Mr. Cvijetic showed you yesterday, dated7 in 1994, 28th of October, from Captain Bulajic, and it's talking about8 accommodation of Muslim citizens in Butmir since the start of the9 conflict.10 I see on the original B/C/S version, or the Serbian version, in11 the upper right-hand corner, it has Republic of Srpska Government Central12 Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners. And that's in English while13 all the rest of the document is in Serbian. Can you tell me why that was14 in English? Was this for communications to be made with the15 international community.16 A. Sir, this document is dated 28th of October, 1994, and on the17 1st of April, 1993, I left the commission, and the president of the18 commission, Captain Dragan Bulajic is addressing Mr. Ljubisa Vladusic,19 who was the chief of the refugee secretariat -- secretariat for refugees,20 so this document was sent after I had already left the commission. And21 why the letterhead is in English as well, I don't -- I can't explain it.22 Q. And in the body of the document where he says this facility was23 used for the purpose of accommodating Muslim civilians passing through in24 transit to the Muslim part of Sarajevo and it talks about the process of25 "family reunification" or "freedom of movement."Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 234 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 Do you know why those two terms are put in quotes?2 JUDGE HALL: Having regard to the answer to the previous question3 I'm at loss, Mr. Hannis, as to why you are persisting with questioning4 him on this document.5 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, he answered questions about this6 document on cross-examination, and I'm just trying to find out what the7 source of his knowledge is to be able to give those answers.8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said before that we9 worked on family reunification and freedom of movement for the people so10 that people could go where they wished to go. And in this document, it11 says that they were going toward the Muslim part of Sarajevo. And as for12 your question, why these terms are under -- within quotes, I really can't13 explain that.14 MR. HANNIS:15 Q. Thank you. Let me show you another document, P189. This was16 shown to you by Mr. Cvijetic. At page 12 -- I'm sorry. 12 ... 12707,17 you see this -- this is the instructions from the defence minister,18 Subotic, concerning the treatment of captured persons.19 And given that this is from the defence minister, would I be20 correct in understanding "captured persons" means "prisoners of war."21 That would be enemy combatants or enemy soldiers who had laid down their22 weapons and had been wounded and were captured?23 A. Well, they don't just have to be soldiers captured during combat.24 There was also -- arrests were also made in houses where weapons were25 found from which snipers would open fire. So there were such instancesTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 235 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 of arrests as well.2 Q. And was the army authorised to make those kind of arrests, or was3 that a matter for the police?4 A. No, it's not the police, sir. The police could not be on the5 front lines, so they could not arrest these persons. The army arrested6 them.7 Q. But I thought you told us -- I thought you had told us today that8 the police were subordinated to the army. And didn't -- did they not9 take part in combat operations?10 A. When the police - and I'm talking about the reserve force11 exclusively - once they are resubordinated to the military, they are12 considered soldiers and not police officers, and they are subordinated to13 the military command.14 Q. Were you aware of an order by Mico Stanisic, dated the15 15th of May, 1992, concerning the creation of war units in the MUP?16 Did you know about that? I'm sorry, I didn't hear your answer.17 A. I was expecting, waiting to see the text of that. I really18 didn't know about that. At the time I worked for the commission, and I19 did not receive dispatches from the Ministry of the Interior.20 Q. Thank you. Let me show you Exhibit 1D46.21 As I said, this is a document dated the 15th of May, 1992.22 From --23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --24 MR. HANNIS: Yes.25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] -- if I may, the witness hasTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 236 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 already said that he did not have occasion to receive this document and2 he explained why. And also, during my cross-examination, I did not touch3 upon this order, nor did I cross-examine about the problems dealt with in4 this order, so I think there is no foundation for the Prosecutor to now5 ask questions about this.6 MR. HANNIS: My foundation for asking about this subject relates7 to Mr. Pantelic's question at page 33, line 18, today. He asked him: As8 an experienced police officer, you knew that in the circumstances of war9 that the police are subordinated to the army. And I think I'm entitled10 to inquire into the basis of his knowledge about that.11 JUDGE HALL: Please proceed.12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.13 Q. You see -- you see this document in item number 1, Mr. Stanisic14 is directing the creation of --15 A. Yes.16 Q. -- certain war units. If we could go to item number 6 on this17 page, you'll see he says authorising the chiefs of CSB and the commander18 of the police detachment of the ministry to appoint the appropriate19 officers with the appropriate qualifications to ensure the principle of20 subordination and superiority in the command system.21 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the next page in both English22 and B/C/S, at the top of the page, item number 7 says:23 "The use of the ministry units in coordinated action with the24 armed forces ... may be ordered by the minister ... commander of the25 police detachment ... and chiefs of the CSB ..."Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 237 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 And the last paragraph under number 7 says:2 "While participating in combat operations, the units of the3 ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the armed forces;4 however, the ministry units shall be under the direct command of certain5 ministry officials."6 Now, wasn't it true that during a state of imminent threat of7 war, the police could be subordinated to the army for purposes of combat8 operations but it did not mean that they were subordinated to the army9 for every purpose, for all times during such a state?10 A. Of course, it doesn't mean that they would be subordinated to the11 army forever. It would depend on the operations. In large-scale12 operations, the reserve complement of them ministry would be engaged in13 the Army of the Republika Srpska.14 As for what is stated here, that it is under the command of15 certain ministry officials, that relates to the transfer of the military16 command, for instance, from the company command -- that relates to the17 transfer or forwarding of orders by the officials within the ministry to18 their subordinates because -- for instance, to a company commander, and19 if you can -- you can also see that it says here that officials, workers20 of the ministry will carry out the duties, the same duties that they21 carry out in peacetime; in other words, they carry out their regular22 police duties.23 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Could I please suggest that the24 witness also read this paragraph 8, if he can be given the opportunity to25 just read through it, at least the first subparagraph.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 238 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, exactly what I said earlier,2 in carrying out regular duties and tasks, the provisions of the Law on3 Internal Affairs and other regulations of the Serbian Republic of BH4 shall be strictly upheld; whereas, in military operations, military5 regulations and rules shall be enforced. And I feel -- I believe this is6 quite clear.7 MR. HANNIS:8 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about one further item in9 connection with the Exchange Commission and Mr. Vanovac.10 MR. HANNIS: If we could look at P1318.26.11 Q. Which was shown to you earlier this morning.12 At page 3, line 18, Mr. Cvijetic was asking you about this13 document. And he asks if you would agree with him that the agreement was14 actually related to one particular exchange ad hoc. And in your answer15 you -- you noted that although you'd never seen this document before, it16 is true that it pertains to one particular exchange and it is probably an17 exchange somewhere around Ilidza.18 A. That's exactly what I said. And I also said that where it says19 the president of the Commission for Exchange is Nenad Vanovac, the stamp20 that is affixed there is not the commission stamp, but, rather, the21 Municipal Board of the Serbian Democratic Party, because the stamp of the22 commission was with me in Pale.23 Q. Yes. I wanted to ask you about that. This document says based24 on an agreement concluded on the 5th of July, and then it talks about25 some events that will happen on the 11th, and the 13th, and theTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 239 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 15th of July. So it appears to be this is a document that was signed and2 stamped sometime between the 5th and the 10th of July. Would you agree3 with me?4 A. Well, that's what it seems.5 Q. And we saw yesterday that Mr. Vanovac was appointed by6 Mico Stanisic to be president of the Exchange Commission, I think on the7 4th of July. Do you recall that?8 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, just a moment,9 please.10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is not Mico Stanisic but,11 rather, Momcilo Mandic.12 MR. HANNIS:13 Q. I'm sorry if I said -- you're correct.14 A. The minister of justice, Momcilo Mandic.15 Q. You're absolutely correct. If I said otherwise, I misspoke.16 Do you recall that, that it was about the 4th of July? Or do you17 need to see the document again?18 A. Yes.19 Q. Okay.20 MR. HANNIS: If we could show the witness P1318.25.21 Q. Does that refresh your recollection?22 A. Yes, very much.23 Q. And do you recall yesterday Mr. Cvijetic showed you a document24 indicating when he had actually been appointed by the government, and25 that was in one of the government sessions, sometime after theTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 240 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 4th of July.2 A. I don't think that he was appointed by the government but the3 Ministry of Justice with the signature of Momcilo Mandic. But he didn't4 sign it himself. Somebody signed it on his behalf. And the last5 sentence states:6 "The decision by the government of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia7 and Herzegovina will be forwarded subsequently."8 And in the heading it is stated the Ministry of Justice, and he9 was appointed by the ministry as one of its members.10 Q. Okay. And you told us, when talking to Mr. Cvijetic, that after11 the first time you met him, there was some 20 days or so later that he12 came back and got the commission stamp from you; correct?13 A. Tried to, but I wouldn't give it to him.14 Q. Um ...15 A. Because the seat of the Central Commission was at Pale, not in16 Ilidza. And the president couldn't be in Ilidza and the commission at17 Pale, so the stamp stayed with me. I didn't let him take it.18 Q. Okay.19 MR. HANNIS: Let's look first at Exhibit P200.20 And could we look at item number 7 and number 8.21 I'm sorry, we have to go over a couple of pages.22 Q. You see number 7 is the proposal for appointing a president of23 the Central Commission?24 A. Yes.25 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to item number 7 within the text.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 241 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 MR. ZECEVIC: It's page 6 in the --2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Mr. -- thank you, Mr. Zecevic.3 Q. You'll see the proposal of the Ministry of Justice to appoint4 Nenad Vanovac to the post of president "has been adopted."5 Do you recall now having seen that yesterday?6 A. Of course, I do. And earlier I said that he wasn't appointed by7 the government but by the Ministry of Justice. I don't know whether the8 government issued a decision. But he was appointed by the Ministry of9 Justice instead of Rajko Colovic.10 Q. At what was page 76 yesterday, line 12, you said that some11 20 days or a month later after the first time you met him, he showed you12 a document apparently about his appointment. And you said he took the13 Central Commission stamp from you and returned to Ilidza.14 Today you're telling us he did not take the stamp.15 A. No, no. I'm sorry. Then the interpretation was incorrect.16 He tried to take it, not that he took it. He tried to take it,17 and the stamp stayed with me until I left in March, late March, 1993.18 No. It was probably a mistake in the translation.19 Q. Okay. Well, then one of the reasons that he couldn't have used20 the commission stamp on this agreement that he signed as president of the21 commission is because he couldn't get the stamp from you, right?22 A. Absolutely.23 Q. But then if that's your reason for saying that this was only a24 local particular exchange is because it has the Ilidza stamp, that25 doesn't make sense, because he couldn't have the commission stamp evenTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 242 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 though he was president of the commission.2 So why do you say that this agreement was not a general agreement3 proposed for the entire territory?4 Again, I'll show you Exhibit P1318.26 just so you can be clear5 what I'm asking about.6 A. Very well.7 Q. This is agreement on mutual release of prisoners along the line8 of all for all. And item number 1 says:9 "Both commissions accept that all prisoners on both sides will be10 immediately released along the line all for all and latest by 1511 July ..."12 On its face that seems to be an agreement about all prisoners on13 both sides, signed by the respective commissioners of the state14 commissions for the RS and for the other side.15 A. It's true that they signed, but this was impossible to do in16 those conditions, because probably Mr. Vanovac didn't have the17 experience. He was active, he worked and was carrying out exchanges in18 the Ilidza, Hrasnica, Vojkovici areas, neighbouring places that were19 around Ilidza. And at the time, this was a little bit difficult to20 implement, especially with Vukovic.21 Q. Let me ask you, at line 24, on page 6 today, you were asked about22 the all-for-all exchange principle. And you've said that this functioned23 sometime at the very beginning of the war. However, afterwards it wasn't24 applied, and you gave the example of a high-ranking --25 A. That's correct.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 243 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 Q. You gave an example of a high-ranking Serb officer would be2 exchanged for 15 to 20 Muslim fighters.3 My question is: Isn't it true, though, unequal exchanges, like4 one Serb officer for 15 to 20 Muslim fighters, unequal exchanges happened5 both ways, on both sides?6 A. I mentioned that only as an example, Mr. Prosecutor. But it did7 happen, absolutely, on both sides.8 Q. Thank you. We saw yesterday that -- that that document related9 to Mr. Stanisic's request for the release of Anes Bucan, in exchange for10 three Serb families and the bodies of four --11 A. Butmir. Butmir.12 Q. No, no, no. The individual named Anes Bucan, Mr. Stanisic had13 requested be released in exchange for three Serb families and four -- the14 bodies of four Serb soldiers. Do you remember that?15 A. Very well.16 Q. Thank you.17 A. And I said that it was illogical for a minister to write, "I18 kindly request." He is asking somebody who is ten levels beneath him to19 make the release.20 Q. Yes. You told us about that yesterday, that you thought he was21 begging and pleading, the way that was written.22 My next question --23 A. No, he was kindly requesting even though he was a minister. He24 was kindly making a request from some prison warden.25 Q. Really, really, Mr. Markovic, do I need to show you theTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 244 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 transcript from yesterday, where you said he was begging and pleading?2 You don't remember saying that?3 JUDGE HALL: Let's move on.4 MR. HANNIS: Okay.5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Begging. I didn't use that word,6 definitely.7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours will see the transcript for yourselves.8 I'll move on.9 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Mr. Hannis. I don't -- I was listening10 to yesterday's testimony and I never heard witness saying that either.11 So it is better that we clarify this with the witness while he is here.12 I'm sorry.13 MR. HANNIS: Well, he said what he said and what's in the14 transcript is in the transcript. If I'm incorrect, I'm incorrect. But I15 don't think it serves us for me to go show him the page.16 JUDGE HALL: In any event, this is a side issue, let's move on.17 MR. HANNIS: Yes. Yes, I'm trying.18 Q. At page 10, line 23 today, Mr. Cvijetic was asking you about this19 agreement and the failure to sign it and implement it, that many ugly20 things that later happened in the area of prisoner exchanges and prisoner21 camp would have been prevented, and you agreed. But isn't it correct22 that by mid-July, a lot of ugly things in the area of prisoner exchanges23 and prisoner camps had already happened in April, May and June of 1992?24 A. What do you mean "ugly -- ugly things"? War is ugly by its very25 nature.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 245 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis1 Q. Well, it wasn't my term. It was the one that Mr. Cvijetic used2 and you agreed with. So I assumed you knew what he was talking about.3 A. All right. There were bodies, corpses of our soldiers that we4 exchanged which had been massacred without eyes, ears, without hands,5 with serious stab wounds with sharp objects and so on.6 MR. HANNIS: For the record, the reference to "begging" was at7 transcript page 12675, line 7, from yesterday's testimony.8 Q. Two other areas, Mr. Markovic, and then I will be done.9 You were shown -- pardon me. You were shown Exhibit P -- I'm10 sorry, I've lost the number. I'll find it in just a second.11 Regarding Trnopolje, you were asked several questions by12 Mr. Pantelic today. You never visited Trnopolje in 1992, did you?13 A. No.14 Q. How about -- how about Omarska?15 A. No.16 Q. Keraterm?17 A. No.18 Q. Manjaca?19 A. Yes, I took the Croatian prisoners from there for exchange in20 Sibenik.21 Q. That's right. And that was in October?22 A. Yes. On the 25th, 26th, or the 28th of October. I -- I don't23 know. We mentioned the place already, Zitnic.24 Q. Okay. And your information about Trnopolje is what you heard25 when you talked to some of your colleagues who had been there, and thatTuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Witness: Slobodan Markovic (Resumed) (Open Session) Page 246 Evidentiary Matters1 conversation was some years after 1992; is that right?2 A. Yes. After the war, when, as an inspector, as the police -- of3 the police administration I came to inspect the work of the public4 security station in Prijedor, and I went with a colleague to see it, and5 they told me the story about that footage and the photograph.6 Q. Okay. You never spoke to any non-Serb who had been in Trnopolje7 in 1992, did you?8 A. No, no, I didn't. I didn't know any of them.9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Markovic.10 MR. HANNIS: I don't have any other questions, Your Honours.11 Thank you.12 [Trial Chamber confers]13 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Markovic, we thank you for your assistance to14 the Tribunal. You are now released as a witness and we wish you a safe15 journey back to your home.16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And thank you.17 MR. ZECEVIC: Just for the purposes of transcript, Your Honours,18 and the concerning my intervention just earlier on the -- on -- on what19 the witness said.20 Actually, we already filed a verification request, I don't know21 if you remember, I raised the issue of -- of incorrect recording of the22 witness's testimony yesterday. On pages 12674, line 15, until 12675,23 line 3. And we already filed that request for verification. And that is24 exactly where this -- the word "begging" was recorded. Plus some other25 things as well.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 2471 [The witness withdrew]2 MR. HANNIS: Well, no. "Begging" was at 12675, line 7, four3 lines further on.4 MR. ZECEVIC: Then we will extend our verification request.5 Thank you very much.6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I have to report we have no other7 witness until the witness who is scheduled for videolink on Thursday.8 Again, I think the estimate for cross-examination was a total of six and9 a half hours, which, with the Prosecution's estimate of three hours for10 direct, would have carried us into at least the end of the first session11 tomorrow.12 I don't know what else to tell you, other than to request that we13 adjourn until Thursday morning.14 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]15 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.16 I understand that we are assigned to this courtroom again on17 Thursday --18 Mr. O'Sullivan.19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: One last thing before we rise, Your Honour. We,20 at the break, had a very long and protracted discussion with Ms. Korner21 and she was quite insistent, and, as usual we have given in to her22 request. And, in short, she has put me up to this, to wish Mr. Hannis a23 happy birthday today. And it is quite clear, and we have to agree, that24 no one would believe that he is 39 years old today.25 Thank you.Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 2481 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, if I may, I have to respond. I suspected2 that Ms. Korner might do something like this, and, as I recall, there was3 something about her recently. I would only indicate that, for the4 record, although I am slightly older than Ms. Korner, I am much younger5 than the great and glorious country of Canada. Thank you.6 JUDGE HALL: And we join in the congratulations.7 So we take the adjournment to resume in this courtroom on8 Thursday morning at 9.00.9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.18 p.m.,10 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of July,11 2010, at 9.00 a.m.1213141516171819202122232425Tuesday, 13 July 2010 Case No. IT-08-91-T

Procedural Matters (Open Session) Page 12718

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support