|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 8496 • {1/97} (1)Wednesday, 13 December 2000 [Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth and the interpreters; good morning to the OTP and the Defence counsel. Good morning, General Krstic. How are you today? Is everything all right today? Are you better? You may remain seated, General. (10) THE ACCUSED: [Int.] Mr. President, I am not feeling well, and they have -- the doctors have told me that my leg might have to be amputated. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So the doctors are considering that, are they? (15) THE ACCUSED: [Int.] Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Well, we regret that profoundly. Please sit down, and we hope that you will be feeling better. Let us take up our work where we left off, and I know that we have come to the point of documents, but perhaps we can hear who the next (20)witness is, and then we can see to the documents after that. We have a set of documents, but shall we allow the witness -- shall we hear about the witness first please. Mr. Petrusic.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Good morning, Your Honours,
Mr. President, my learned colleagues of the Prosecution, and everybody
(25)else in the courtroom.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, thank you, Mr. Petrusic. (20)I see the Prosecutor, it is Mr. McCloskey, on his feet. Please proceed. MR. McCLOSKEY: Good morning, Mr. President. Yes, we've spoken, and we concur.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] The Chamber, bearing in mind the
(25)reasons presented by the Defence, and in view of no opposition from the
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, before the witness comes into the courtroom, the Defence would like to propose to the Trial Chamber that we go into closed session for a moment because the witness (10)will identify the unit he was in and which he commanded, and so the identification of that unit would lead to his own identification, which would mean that the protective measures would not serve their purpose. So that is my request. It won't last more than a few minutes while we get through the witness' particulars. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Madam Registrar, what is the pseudonym accorded to this witness? DF? THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, it's DF, and he is Defence Witness number 10.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you very
(20)much. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, Witness DF. It is I who am addressing you. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes, I can. Good morning. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] We need the usher. Would you
THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you. I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
WITNESS: WITNESS DF JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please be seated, and try to sit as comfortably as possible. THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you, Judge. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you for coming, first of (10)all. You are going to take a look at the piece of paper handed to you and tell us whether that is your name, with a yes or no. THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. Thank you very much. We
are now going to go into private session for a few moments.
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Witness DF -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, you may (15)continue. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Witness DF, at the beginning of 1995, where was your battalion located? • A.: My battalion was located on the following positions: to the left, (20)Lomanac brook, the village of Pajici, Gaj, Lemesac, Stolice, Vresinje, trig 555, Ilina Bara exclusively. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] I should like to ask the usher to have Defence Exhibit D25 shown to the witness, please.
• Q.: Witness DF, you said -- you told us what those points were. Could
(25)you take a look at the map, please. Place it in front of you, and draw
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. Usher, you need not place the (5)map on the ELMO, but this will be a problem for the Trial Chamber, I fear, because we can see the markings of the other brigades. But let us try it another way. Mr. Usher, could you just place the upper portion on the ELMO? No. (10)I think that we could overcome this problem by availing ourselves of the services of the Prosecutor. They have a map which has not been marked previously, so the witness can mark in the points on that map. Yes, Mr. Usher, you may place it on the ELMO. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could get a new number for that exhibit so (15)we can make it clear. Thanks. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Madam Registrar, may we have a number. THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number could be D25/1.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you. And perhaps we ought
(20)to clarify matters.
Mr. Petrusic, once the witness has marked something into the
exhibit, then the exhibit must be marked for -- that is to say, it must be
corrected. We ought to know what the witness has inscribed on the exhibit
in order to be able to revert back to the origin of the exhibit.
(25)Mr. Petrusic, please proceed.
• Q.: Witness DF, is that the line of your position, the one you held in 1995? • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: For purposes of the record, can you tell us what line that was with the places marked? • A.: I spoke in more detail of some points that are not on the map, but as I was in that region of defence, I know them very well and they are the following features: The Lomanac stream inclusive, the Pajici feature. (10)This is where the Gaj feature is, approximately. Then we have the Lemesac feature; Stolice; Vresinje; trig 555; Ilina Bara as it was called, exclusively. That is to say, there is a road here. It is a bad road, dirt road, and below that road was where my last soldier was, just underneath that dirt road. (15) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] For purposes of the record, the witness has, on D25/1, Exhibit D25/1, drawn in with a green marker the line which was his position in 1995. • Q.: Did your unit control the road from Bratunac to Konjevic Polje? • A.: No. (20) • Q.: And do you know who controlled that road, who was in control of the road?
• A.: The whole time, that road was controlled by the civilian police,
and they set up a permanent checkpoint in the region of Konjevic Polje.
From time to time, at the entrance to the town of Bratunac, they would set
(25)up a checkpoint and control this, control the movement of military
(5) • Q.: Is it in the area of responsibility -- of your area of responsibility? • A.: My battalion did not hold the area of responsibility. My battalion had a defence region. • Q.: Could you, Witness DF, tell us the difference between an area of (10)responsibility and what you call a region of defence or a defence region? • A.: An area of responsibility is more a peacetime designation and it does not apply to the level of battalion. In defence, a battalion is assigned a defence region and a brigade a defence zone or area. Also, on the attack, the brigade is assigned an attack zone and a battalion an axis (15)or a direction of attack. • Q.: Did you, or rather, your unit have any depth of defence? • A.: My battalion did not have a deep defence region. Actually, for there to be any defence, any depth in the defence, this implies that you have companies on the front line, on regulated and fortified positions, (20)and in the rear second line -- a second line company holding regulated or fortified positions, which, in this particular case, I did not have. JUDGE RIAD: Excuse me. Can you ask him to lower his voice because we can't hear even the translation because it is so high, so loud. (25)
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour. We didn't hear you.
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Witness DF, you have heard the comment of His Honour. Though -- (5)the equipment is highly sophisticated, so you need not worry that we will not be able to hear you. • A.: I'll try, but as an officer, I have become accustomed to speaking out loud to my soldiers. • Q.: Well, let's go back now to this question. How did you defend the (10)area if you had no depth? • A.: My battalion had a line system of defence, a linear system, which means that, along this line that I have drawn, our soldiers were deployed. First of all, because of the assignment of the battalion and because of the size of the area it was tasked to defend for according to (15)rules in force, a battalion can defend 3 to 5 kilometres of territory, and in this area, as you can see, the line is about 10 kilometres long. So primarily because of the possibilities of combat, the battalion was forced to organise such a method of defence in which there virtually was no defence depth. (20) • Q.: The reason for this was the shortage of personnel, equipment, weapons, et cetera, was it not? • A.: Yes, that is one of the main reasons, for our battalion throughout the period had to set aside a certain number of men who were deployed elsewhere throughout the Republika Srpska. (25)
• Q.: In view of such a drawn-out, linear defence, were there cases of
• A.: Yes, there were such examples. In fact, many. Around mid-1993, about 500 metres from my command post, an ambush was set involving the death of civilians. Also, there were frequent incursions of groups into (5)the area of Konjevic Polje where civilians were killed, Vojin Lazic and Ikonija Lazic. Also, in the area around the Lomanac stream, sabotage groups were infiltrated so that I requested from my superior command that this area be covered with mines so as the gap should be closed. • Q.: Let us now go on to July 1995. Did you and your unit at the (10)beginning of July 1995, were you at the position we have just described? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Were there any particular developments along the defence lines held by your battalion in those days? • A.: There was evidence of frequent provocations by enemy forces using (15)infantry weapons, particularly from the area trig 413, Cerska Kosa. THE INTERPRETER: I can't hear the witness. Could the witness speak into the microphone, please. • A.: Vicac. So as I was saying, there were provocations by the enemy, using infantry weapons, from the area of trig 413. (20) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.]
• Q.: It's all right, it is in the record, but in the future, please
bear in mind that you should speak into the microphone.
In view of these frequent provocations that you have mentioned,
did you, or rather, your command, take any steps? Did you report to your
(25)superior command about this?
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher for his (5)assistance, please. Could you show Exhibit 404, footnote 193, please. • Q.: Witness DF, we have here a request written by you, asking for replenishment of materiel from your superior command. Could you tell us the reasons? This is dated the 4th of July, 1995. What are the reasons for requesting the replenishment of materiel and equipment? (10) • A.: As I have said, the enemy frequently opened fire towards my battalion, which was an indication that it was planning to do something; and also on the basis of the order issued by the brigade command to raise combat readiness to the maximum level; and on the basis of available intelligence information, according to which the enemy, with the strength (15)equivalent to one brigade, was preparing an attack, was preparing to attack my battalion; bearing all this in mind, I took all the necessary organisational and concrete steps to be ready for the attack. • Q.: Witness DF, you mentioned the raising of combat readiness to the maximum level. You were assigned this task by the commander? (20) • A.: Yes. • Q.: The brigade commander? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you know what date that was?
• A.: As far as I can remember, this was on the 4th of July. We
(25)received the order to raise combat readiness to hundred per cent level.
(5) • A.: As my battalion was short, first of all of ammunition and also of necessary quantities of fuel, on the same day I drafted this request in writing and addressed it to the Superior Command for replenishment with, as can be seen from this request, very small quantities of ammunition, materiel, and equipment. (10) • Q.: Witness DF, where were you on the 6th of July, the day when the attack on Srebrenica started or, rather, the beginning of the operation Krivaja 95? • A.: I was at my command post in the Magasici area. Actually, my observers reported that in the broader area of the 3rd Infantry Battalion, (15)certain explosions could be heard. I called up the operations officer on duty in the brigade, asking him what was going on. His answer was that our units were carrying out an attack and that we should raise combat readiness to the maximum. Also, it was my duty to capture my own forward command post in the (20)area of Vresinje. Before that, I issued specific orders to my subordinate officers in connection with the need to carry out resolute defence. • Q.: On that day and the days that followed the 6th of July, did you have any clashes with the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or rather, the forces of the 28th Division? (25)
• A.: Around that time, the provocations continued with infantry
(5) • Q.: Was fire exchanged between the participants in that conflict? • A.: You mean between us and members of the 28th Division? • Q.: Yes, of course. • A.: I said that there were provocations with infantry weapons, and it was our duty to respond if we were directly threatened. (10) • Q.: Tell us, how long did that situation last? • A.: It went on like that until the 12th. • Q.: On the 12th of July, did you remain in the same positions as you have described? • A.: No. In the defence region of my battalion, the brigade Chief of (15)Staff was also present, and I received an order from him that on that day I should take up positions in the village -- around the village of Cizmici, which I did in the afternoon hours. • Q.: So you moved your line, your defence line, on the 12th of July. • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: Witness DF, could you show us on the map, or rather, draw on the map the line indicating the positions you took up in the afternoon of the 12th of July. • A.: I will do so with a dotted line, if that is all right.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] For the record, the dotted line
(25)indicates, the dotted green line on Exhibit D25/1, Witness DF has
• Q.: In view of the positions you took up then, did you have control over the area in your rear, behind your lines? (5) • A.: I don't know what exactly you mean. We covered that area, and we considered it clear. • Q.: You mean that there were no enemy soldiers in that area? • A.: Yes. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher to show the (10)witness Exhibit OTP 487, and as the document identifies the unit, that is, the brigade ... • Q.: In this regular report of your superior command, it says that during the day, enemy -- the enemy attempted a breakthrough going through your area to Tuzla and Kladanj. (15)Witness DF, did you see or have any knowledge about the pulling out of these units? Did you have any contact with them? • A.: When taking up these positions, we did not encounter enemy forces, nor did we, that afternoon, see them at all. • Q.: The document also says in paragraph 2 that "our" forces are (20)clearing the enclave and preventing the breakthrough of the enemy along the mentioned axes. Could you explain this term "clearing the enclave"? What does it mean?
• A.: It means that we have to protect ourselves against possible
surprises because, according to our tactics, the enemy can be expected in
(25)the depth of our territory to seek to infiltrate diversionary sabotage
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher for OTP 464, please. And since there are technical possibilities, to prevent the (5)identification of the unit, that this exhibit should not be made public by the ELMO because, as far as I have been informed, it is possible for the exhibit to be seen on the monitors in the courtroom but not outside by the public, so that would be my suggestion for these exhibits, please. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, yes. The technical booth (10)will not broadcast it outside. Yes, they have taken care of it. You may continue, Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Witness DF, on the 14th of July you received an order to carry out a search of the terrain. Can you tell us a little more about that order (15)as your unit is actively included and specifically referred to in paragraph 1 of this order? • A.: This order was issued to me orally, and if I may explain on the map -- • Q.: Just comment on the order first, and then we'll give you the map. (20)
• A.: The task of my battalion was to search the terrain within the
following boundaries: To the right, the junction of the Bratunac-Konjevic
Polje-Jezestica road, or elevation 316 to be more precise, up to trig
point 555 exclusive, Lupoglav, trig point 675, the village of Susnjari
exclusive; on the left side, the Lomanac brook or stream, the village of
(25)Hranca, the village of Pale, the feature Zvijezda, trig point 906. The
• Q.: Witness DF, will you now draw on the map your route, though (5)perhaps it would be advisable to do so on another copy. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could use another colour, that would be helpful. I'm sure green is going to start getting a bit confusing. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] I was just going to suggest that. (10)Perhaps red would be better, but there doesn't seem to be any. • A.: I am going to mark the boundaries which my battalion was to have searched the terrain. • Q.: Witness, DF, you can comment while you're drawing this in. • A.: It is this junction, Bratunac-Konjevic Polje-Jezestica road, and (15)it is elevation 316, and then we have trig point 555 exclusive, the Lupoglav feature, the village of Susnjari exclusive; on the left side, Lomanac brook or stream, the village of Pale, and the feature Zvijezda. Can I draw in where I was on the 13th? • Q.: Yes. (20) • A.: [Marks] • Q.: Witness DF, on the line that you have just drawn in and as far as I can see, it was with respect to the Vresinje feature. Would you place the date the 13th of July there, please. • A.: [Marks] (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: We're not able to see any of this, so it doesn't
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. We're now going to see it. I think that we have this problem of protective measures because if the witness draws in what he is drawing in on the ELMO, we would be able (5)to follow, but that's the problem. So we're now going to have to repeat it all. But never mind, Mr. Petrusic, please proceed, and let us see the reasoning of the witness. Let's follow what he's been doing. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] For the record, the witness, on Exhibit D25/1, used a blue marker to draw in the line of the search of the (10)terrain pursuant to the order received on the 14th of July, 1995, and underneath the Vresinje feature, which was also indicated with a blue marker, he wrote the date, the 13th of July, that is to say, the position that he and his unit -- where he and his unit were located on that particular day. (15) • Q.: Witness DF, is that locality -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, where is the date? I don't see it. Where has the witness indicated the date? • A.: Yes. It's not quite clear. I apologise. It's a very thick marker. [Indicates] (20) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Witness DF, could you write the date in with an ordinary biro so that we can see it. • A.: [Marks]
• Q.: Witness DF, you and your -- that is to say, from this position
(25)where you were on the 13th of July, in the direction of Vresinje Pale, did
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Tell us please, Witness DF, which positions did you reach in this (5)operation of clearing up the terrain? • A.: When I received the order on that day, I did not start this work because I received the order rather late in the day. So on the 14th and the 15th, from these positions, I started reconnaissance work. I did reconnoitering in front of the line attained, and I reported to my (10)Superior Command about that. It was only on the 16th of July that I undertook the search of the terrain up to the features Lupoglav and somewhere around another feature, that is to say, the region of the Babuljice village at the Zvijezda feature. We did not mount up to the Zvijezda feature because it was (15)rather inaccessible. It was difficult to reach. And during those days, we did not have -- we did not engage in any combat with the enemy forces. There was no fighting nor did we see the enemy at all. • Q.: Witness DF, we have an order here from your Superior Command dated the 14th of July. I'm not going to place it on the ELMO, but the order (20)says that: "A smaller portion of the enemy forces is still located in the Bokcin Potok-Siljkovici-Mratinjci area." Do you happen to know anything about that, although in your previous answer you said that you did not come across any enemy forces while you were clearing up the terrain. (25)
• A.: Well, during those few days, we could hear, in the region,
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, I apologise for (5)interrupting, but the order that you mentioned, does it have a number? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding me. The Defence referred to exhibit -- OTP Exhibit 534, first paragraph of the order from the Superior Command of Witness DF. From Witness DF's Superior Command. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps this would be an opportune moment to take a break, Mr. Petrusic. Yes? You agree? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President, I do. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Let us take a 20-minute break. The witness will remain where he is for the moment until we leave the (15)courtroom. --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m. --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, you may proceed. JUDGE WALD: Excuse me, Mr. Petrusic and the witness. (20)Would you perhaps ask him - I'm just trying to follow the testimony - if they could hear fighting in the region and he assumed that the enemy was around, I'm unclear as to who was fighting against the enemy if it wasn't his battalion. I'd just like to get that point clarified, if I could. Thank you. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] And another thing, Mr. Petrusic;
• A.: This line here, the first line, represents the positions at which (5)I was located until the 12th of July. This dotted green line represents the position I took up with the bulk of my forces on the 12th of July in the afternoon hours. The blue line here represents the line we reached on the 13th of July where I moved my position tactically from this position to that (10)position, the next position; and in the region of the village of Pale, I was able to link up with the 5th Company of the 2nd Battalion. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. And to conclude, the red line was already on the map and has nothing to do with your testimony; is that correct? Am I correct in saying so? (15) • A.: Yes, yes, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please proceed. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, if I may.
• Q.: As there are many lines, Witness DF, could you please go back to
your own line, the line you occupied at the beginning of 1995. Tell us,
(20)please, what those positions were. What trig points did you hold? What
were their names, the names of the places or the trig points, please.
Could you give us those, and then you can comment and say that it's the
blue line -- no, this is the green line. So in 1995, we're dealing with
1995, the beginning of 1995, "I was on the following -- at the following
(25)positions."
(5) • Q.: Was that the position you held on the 6th of July as well? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Can you explain to us in the same way the positions on the 12th of July, 1995. Could you indicate those, please. • A.: Let me start off from the other side. Ilina Bara, I had to leave (10)a portion of my forces there, the equivalent of one company, and about two platoons of a second company. And with the 3rd Company and 4th and 5th Companies, I took up this position here, the region from the Vresinje feature via Cizmici up to Bljecevska River. • Q.: Witness DF, your positions on the 13th of July, please? (15) • A.: On the 13th of July, I resorted to tactical movement as I was in an unfavourable position should the enemy open fire from the Pale elevation. So I moved for tactical reasons and took up the line from the Vresinje feature to the Pale feature, exclusive, where I linked up with the 2nd Infantry Battalion, as I said earlier on, and their 5th Company. (20)I was there personally and was able to join up these forces, make the link. • Q.: Witness DF, Judge Wald asked you a question, and could you answer that, please; that is to say, did you hear or were you fighting the enemy or members of the 28th Division, rather, while clearing up the terrain? (25)
• A.: I said that we heard low-intensity fighting approximately in the
JUDGE WALD: Can I just still clarify. Then who was doing -- the enemy was fighting who? If it wasn't your battalion, who was it? That's (5)all I want to know. • A.: Your Honour, I indicated that this was outside my region, my area, so I couldn't see it. I couldn't actually see it nor could I go into action. This was done by units which I did not know. I do not know which. (10) THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Could the usher now give us OTP Exhibit 539, please, and 538 as well. OTP Exhibit 539 and 538. May we have Exhibit 539 first, please. • Q.: Witness DF, in this daily combat report from your Superior Command (15)sent to the Command of the Drina Corps, in paragraph 2 states, that is to say, it says that a battalion from your battalion has been set aside. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] May we now have Exhibit 538, please. • Q.: Pursuant to this order, which your Superior Command dispatched to (20)your unit, your battalion, the whole of your battalion was set aside and pulled out for engagement towards Zepa. • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Bearing in mind these two exhibits and the two statements,
assertions, made in those two orders, Witness DF, did you and your unit,
(25)on the 16th of July, go to the Zepa combat area?
• Q.: Did the whole of your unit, your complete unit, leave? • A.: Yes, including this intervention platoon which was mentioned earlier on. (5) • Q.: Witness DF, how do you explain the fact that these two orders were issued on the same day and the difference being that in one order it is stated that the intervention platoon of your unit should be separated and in the second order it is stated that the complete battalion should be dispatched, deployed, to the Zepa region? (10) • A.: I explained that fact by the following: In the course of those days, events followed each other rapidly, there was a rapid success of events, and that orders had to be changed and issued as the developments evolved, and they had to be adopted to the newly-arisen situation, to the developments. So also this order for me to dispatch the intervention (15)platoon was not executed. This order was not implemented because of the importance of the second task, the second assignment, dispatching me to the general area of Zepa. • Q.: Witness DF, finally, you mentioned at the beginning of your testimony that you received an order to put up a decisive defence. I (20)think this was on the 6th of July. In that order or in some other documents, did you -- that is to say, did your Superior Command envisage the treatment of any possible prisoners of war? Did it provide for that in the region of your battalion?
• A.: I received that order in writing on the 6th of July, and it was
(25)brought to me personally by the Chief of Staff when he came to my area.
• Q.: Did you in fact have any prisoners of war, sir? • A.: No. (10) • Q.: Witness DF, we can note that on the 17th of July you went to engage in combat in the Zepa area. How long did you remain in that area? • A.: I remained in that area until approximately the 5th or 6th of August. I can't remember the exact date, but it was the beginning of August, sometime -- until sometime at the beginning of August, when I (15)returned. • Q.: Under whose command was your battalion at Zepa, within the operations at Zepa? • A.: Under the direct command of my brigade commander, Colonel -- MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I would hope that (20)that last name will be stricken from the record. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] And that concludes my examination of this witness, Your Honours.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Are you finished, or do you plan
(25)to finish?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, thank you. So, is it Mr. McCloskey? Your witness. (5) MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could go in closed session briefly for some background questions.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, let's go into closed
session for a few minutes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, you may continue. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: Did you have any knowledge that the Bratunac Brigade was involved in the offensive operations of Krivaja 95? (10) • A.: I was aware on the basis of the order I received from my brigade commander to the effect that the brigade, with a smaller portion of its forces, should act, should participate in the offensive operations. But I underline that I received that order only on the 6th of July and that before that I had no knowledge of any such assignments. (15) • Q.: And your assignment in participation of the attack was a resolute defence in your area of responsibility; is that right? • A.: Yes. Literally, the words were "decisive defence." • Q.: So in an offensive operation such as Krivaja 95, that can be referred to as a decisive defence in the context of your unit? (20) • A.: Yes. MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we show the witness OTP Exhibit 751, but could we make sure that the ELMO is not going over the public. • Q.: Now, Witness, you occasionally went to command meetings at the brigade command; is that right? You've got to answer out loud. (25)
• A.: Yes.
MR. McCLOSKEY: And if we could put the English, the first page of the English on the ELMO. (5) • Q.: And if you could look briefly at that, especially the first part that refers to your battalion. • A.: Yes. • Q.: And do you recall that particular meeting? • A.: I don't remember the details of it, but I do remember it, yes. (10) • Q.: You mention having -- suggesting problems with conscripts in town, and if you could look at the end of the document where Major Nikolic is referenced, that he agrees that conscripts and passes should be controlled, but he says there he thinks something was wrong with the battalion when so many conscripts were reported to the police. (15)Do you remember the discussion or the exchange with Major Nikolic that you had? • A.: It was a problem that we had from earlier on, but it wasn't dramatic. There weren't that many, but a certain number of military conscripts behaved in an undisciplined manner and would arbitrarily (20)abandon positions, and it was precisely for that reason in the aim of raising discipline to a higher level that I requested that tighter control be imposed on the movement of conscripts in town. • Q.: Now, the Major Nikolic mentioned in this meeting is this Major Momir Nikolic, head of security and intelligence for the brigade? (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: I did. • Q.: And what was his or her name? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, that will (5)identify the witness. MR. McCLOSKEY: Then we better go into closed session, Your Honour. I apologise.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let's go into private
session then, please. MR. McCLOSKEY: (20) • Q.: During the time period from July 6th through July 17th when you went to Zepa, what kind of communications did you have outside your unit? • A.: I had communication with the Superior Command and with subordinate units, mostly with them.
• Q.: So you were able to communicate with the neighbouring battalions
(25)in your area.
• Q.: Could you communicate with the MUP units? • A.: No. • Q.: Did your brigade command have the ability to communicate with the (5)MUP units? • A.: I don't know that. • Q.: You're in a very difficult position with potential enemy soldiers coming at you from several different sides, if I followed your testimony, and it would have been very important for you to able to communicate with (10)all VRS units in the area, would it not? • A.: In view of my level of command and the established hierarchy in the army, all requests that do not concern my level go through the Superior Command. I did not have the obligation nor the need to directly communicate with those people. (15) • Q.: Did you know where the MUP units were located? • A.: No. • Q.: You had no idea whatsoever on, let's say, July 12th and July 13th where any MUP units were? • A.: No. (20) • Q.: Did the local MUP units of Bratunac and Zvornik and Milici, did they form combat companies or squads for potential assistance in combat operations to the army? • A.: I think they did.
• Q.: You think they did? As an officer in the VRS involved in a war,
(25)is that -- do you want a little more time to think about that, to answer
• A.: There were such units. I know that because, for example, in the area of Trnovo, I knew that there was one such unit, but this was at the end of 1995. So I assume that, in those days too, that unit was (5)operating. But as regards its structure and anything specific about it is something I don't know because we did not participate together in any combat operation or combat activity. • Q.: You know Ljubisa Borovcanin, do you not, from Bratunac? • A.: I do know Ljubisa Borovcanin from the time when he was the chief (10)of the police station in Bratunac. • Q.: And are you aware of a special combat organisation from the Ministry of Interior referred to as the Special Police as it differed from the municipal police combat organisations? • A.: I've heard of it. Such units exist to this day. (15) • Q.: And what was Mr. Borovcanin's position in the Special Police in July of 1995? • A.: I think he was deputy commander of that brigade. I think from the position of chief of the police station, he was transferred to that position, as far as I am aware. (20) • Q.: And what were the Special Police doing, the Special Police under Borovcanin doing on July 12th, July 13th, July 14th, 1995, near your area of responsibility? • A.: First of all, my battalion does not have an area of responsibility. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Petrusic.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Mr. McCloskey, I think you will have no problem in following the suggestion of Mr. Petrusic. MR. McCLOSKEY: I think that was implicit in the question, but I can certainly make that -- (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but it is, in a sense, leading. But in any event, I think there is no problem in asking, first, the witness whether he knew and then go on to your next question. So please proceed. MR. McCLOSKEY: (15) • Q.: Do you know where the Special Police was on July 12th, 13th, or 14th, 1995? • A.: No. • Q.: Did you ever learn where they were during those time periods? • A.: Nothing specific, but from media reports and subsequent (20)information. But in those days, no. • Q.: So you have no idea whatsoever that the MUP Special Police were along the road between Bratunac and Konjevic Polje, just north of your position, during those time periods?
• A.: I am convinced that they were not at all in my region, in my area,
(25)my defence area. And also when you mention north of that area, I really
• Q.: Who would have been responsible for blocking enemy units infiltrating from the area of Lomanac brook into the rear of your area on (5)July 11th, 12th, 13th? • A.: Specifically related to that area, battle would be fought with them by units in the immediate vicinity. And in the event of a larger-scale blockade, if that sabotage group were to escape us and we would not get into direct contact with it, I would have to seek assistance (10)from the superior command, and then the brigade commander would decide as to who would participate in blocking that sabotage group. • Q.: You've stated that the area of the Lomanac brook was a common area for infiltration. Can you tell us what unit would have protected your rear on July 12th from coming into that area, or are you suggesting that (15)after they came in and attacked, then you would call for someone to protect your rear? • A.: If we were to identify an enemy sabotage group, then we would intervene in the way I have just described. • Q.: So there was no unit that you're aware of that was protecting your (20)rear from the area of Lomanac brook? • A.: Not that I know of. And anyway, in the area, there was an unidentified minefield, and this Lomanac brook during the daytime could be relatively successfully controlled by fire. • Q.: So you know the area? (25)
• A.: I do.
• A.: You mean my battalion? • Q.: Well, in the whole -- THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: (10) • Q.: In your whole brigade, and whether or not if your battalion had one also. • A.: I did, but there were a couple, maybe four or five in the battalion. And I really don't know about the others. • Q.: How many did you have that were actually on wheeled vehicles? (15) • A.: I didn't have any machine gun on a wheeled vehicle. • Q.: How many anti-aircraft guns were there on wheeled vehicles in the Bratunac Brigade? • A.: I'm afraid I don't know that either, because I am not aware of the numbers for the whole brigade. And I wouldn't say that there were any on (20)vehicles, any such anti-aircraft gun on wheeled vehicles. • Q.: Now, going to the Exhibit 778. I don't know if we need to bring it up or not, but you request a certain number of items. In item number four, it's referred to - well, in the English - as petrol for a self-propelled item of some sort, the word "samohotka." What is that? (25)
• A.: Yes. It is a samohotka of 76 millimetres of American make, a
• Q.: And did this have tyres on it? • A.: No, no, it had tracks. It had very low capacity, a very small tank for fuel, but it consumed about 300 to 400 litres per 100 kilometres. (5)In those days, we were short of fuel, we had a big shortage, so that it was never -- its tank was never filled to capacity. MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, if we could go to Exhibit 782/A and also continue not to have that exhibited on the ELMO. • Q.: This is a daily combat report from your command, and it states the (10)Chief of Staff is in the particular area of responsibility. What was the Chief of Staff doing there on the 9th in that area of responsibility? • A.: The Chief of Staff assisted me in my work. • Q.: Did you have any artillery pieces in your area, either belonging to your unit or to the brigade or to the corps? (15) • A.: If you consider mortars as an artillery piece, I did have them. • Q.: Aside from mortars, were there anything heavier than mortars in your area? • A.: I had this Samohotka, this self-propelled gun. And I don't know which calibre you consider a heavier weapon to be, from which calibre on. (20) • Q.: What was the Chief of Staff, in particular, helping you with? • A.: In organising the system of fire, in viewing the situation on the ground and, should a problem arise, we would deal with it together. • Q.: Now, could you look -- as a military person, you're aware of different kinds of weapons and ammunition, are you not? (25)
• A.: Yes.
(5) • A.: It is ammunition for an anti-aircraft gun. • Q.: And the "20" stands for the millimetres? That's the size of the ammunition? • A.: Yes. Yes, 20 millimetres, yes. And "3" stands for three barrels. • Q.: And so a little bit farther down the line, we have "Bullets, 30/2 (10)200 pieces." That is 30-millimetre two-barrelled anti-aircraft gun ammunition? • A.: Yes, it is. • Q.: Can anything besides an anti-aircraft gun fire this ammunition that was in the possession of your brigade? (15) • A.: I think that some kind of improvised weapons were made that can use such bullets. Grenade launchers. I don't know specifically for this ammunition, but these were indeed used mostly for the guns. I assume that. • Q.: This kind of ammunition cannot be used for a grenade launcher, can (20)it? • A.: For a weapon? For an infantry weapon you mean? These are anti-aircraft weapons and ammunitions. • Q.: Thank you. MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we now go to Exhibit 752. (25)
• Q.: Witness DF, this is -- you'll have a chance to take a look at it.
(5) • A.: Yes. • Q.: Was the chief actually assisting you in the direction of the artillery fire? • A.: I have already said that the Chief of Staff assisted in the organisation of what we call the system of fire, which includes this more (10)specific reference. • Q.: So did you have weapons that were capable of artillery fire? • A.: Which calibre are you interested in? • Q.: Any calibre of artillery fire. • A.: I had mortars, as I have said; one mortar of 60 millimetres, (15)several 82-millimetre mortars, and I think a couple of 120 millimetres. That is all that can be placed under the heading of "Pieces." These are mostly in infantry units, and they are considered battalion fire groups, and they are of lesser range. Also, I was very short of ammunition of these calibres, extremely short of them. (20) • Q.: So under your definition, a mortar could be considered an artillery weapon?
• A.: No. I wouldn't say that that was an artillery weapon because,
according to current provisions for establishment, a mortar, especially an
82-millimetre mortar, is manned by soldiers with infantry speciality, what
(25)we called VES, V-E-S.
• Q.: Prior to getting that document, could we -- can you tell me where the area of Gornji Potocari is? (5) • A.: If you give me a map, I can show it to you. • Q.: Can you just describe it? We know where the Potocari compound was, and could you first describe it, and we'll have a map also. • A.: I can. That is where Naser Oric's house is situated, so that is how I know where it is. (10) • Q.: Where is it in relation to the Potocari former Dutch compound that we know about? • A.: It is -- when you go along the road to Srebrenica, I think you take a turn next to the school at Potocari and then you reach Gornji Potocari. (15) • Q.: About how many kilometres is it from the DutchBat compound? • A.: Approximately 4 or 5 kilometres. • Q.: Is that in the direction of Vlasenica, or basically west? • A.: Yes, more or less west -- no. I really don't know. I can't tell you now, but I can show you on the map. Vlasenica is quite distant, a (20)distance away from Potocari.
• Q.: Now, if you could take a look at this Exhibit 753/A in the B/C/S,
and if we could put the regular exhibit on the ELMO.
This is a document that has as a heading, From the Command of the
1st Bratunac Light Infantry Brigade, dated 12 July, to the Drina Corps
(25)Command, attention Major Golic.
• A.: I don't know. I had no dealings whatsoever with intelligence officers of higher level commands, so I don't know. (5) • Q.: And this is authored by a Captain Pecanac, and did you have any knowledge that Captain Pecanac was a Main Staff security officer, working under Ljubo Beara? • A.: As I was saying, I had no contact with Captain Pecanac or Major Golic or any other people from the superior command, from the intelligence (10)or security sections, so I really cannot tell you whether that is that particular man. I don't know what positions he held. I really don't know what they were doing or what they engaged in. • Q.: Do you know a Captain Pecanac? • A.: No. (15) • Q.: Did you receive any intelligence reports about the Muslim column on the 12th of July from any source? • A.: I don't remember explicitly, but it is possible that we were warned to -- in order to be alert and to avoid any surprises. • Q.: But you didn't see -- you didn't capture one Muslim prisoner (20)throughout this entire time period; is that correct? • A.: Correct. • Q.: Did you see the column at any time? • A.: Yes.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we show the witness Exhibit 809 bis. It's
(25)the blowup.
THE INTERPRETER: I'm afraid we can't hear the witness. MR. McCLOSKEY: The witness is going -- I'm sorry, he's going to need the microphone, so we may need another usher, so ... (10) • A.: Let me repeat. The Lomanac brook inclusive, the Pajici feature. This is the Gaj feature which can be seen on the map here. It's rather -- the ratio is 1:25.000. Lemesac is next, then we have the Vresinje feature a little behind the trig point here, moving towards the Ilina Bara feature and trig point 555. I said this exclusive. Below this road here, that's (15)where my soldiers were. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: All right. And this is a map that was confiscated from the Zvornik Brigade that was put together by the members of the Zvornik Brigade. And noting the large circle with the arrow attached to it, that (20)is designed to represent the Muslim column that assembled there on the 11th of July and left in that area. From your position as you have just described, could you see members of the Muslim column fleeing in the direction of that arrow?
• A.: I could see parts of the column withdrawing from the positions
(25)around here somewhere, the Pajici feature, and from the Vresinje feature
• Q.: Did you fire upon that column with your mortars and your other weapons? • A.: As you can see, that is outside the range of the kind of weaponry (5)that I had, so I did not open fire, no. I did not open fire on them. • Q.: Did you feel that column was a threat to you? • A.: I did not consider it to be a threat to me, so I did not act. • Q.: Why didn't you think it was a threat? • A.: Because it wasn't jeopardising my own combat positions. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, may the witness be seated again? MR. McCLOSKEY: That's a good idea, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, that would make it more comfortable for him and for the usher as well. (15) MR. McCLOSKEY: I tried to have a setup, but with the protection, they weren't allowed to fit in the easel. THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, Mr. McCloskey, if I can make a suggestion. If the witness stays seated and the usher holds the map and makes the pointer longer, then it could be shown on the video. (20) MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, I think for now we can go on to another area. THE REGISTRAR: Okay. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness exhibit number 95.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. McCloskey, perhaps we could
(25)take a break at this point. I have just been informed that General Krstic
--- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m. --- On resuming at 1.07 p.m. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Please proceed, Mr. McCloskey. MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Could we show the witness Exhibit 95. And that can be placed on the ELMO. • Q.: Now, Witness, this is a rather unique-looking artillery piece. (10)This is a two-barrelled 30-millimetre artillery gun; is that right? • A.: Yes, known as Praga. As far as I can see, this is 30/2. • Q.: And do you recognise this particular vehicle? • A.: No. • Q.: And what -- can you read what's been said on the side of it? (15) • A.: "Lok" something. I don't know. • Q.: That's not a relatively infamous vehicle in the area? • A.: I didn't understand the question. What did you say? Which was -- • Q.: Have you ever read about this particular vehicle in any literature, magazines, papers, anything like that? (20) • A.: Not for this particular vehicle, but I do know what a Praga is as a means of anti-air defence. • Q.: Now, what particular village was your headquarters in prior to the Krivaja 95 operation? • A.: In concrete terms, in the village of Magasici. (25)
• Q.: Was it particularly in the village of Bozici or in that area?
• Q.: Okay. Well, we'll get to a map that will help us with that. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we can show the witness Exhibit 757. • Q.: As we're getting there, did you receive any information at that (5)time, any time, that the VRS killed thousands of Muslim prisoners from the Srebrenica enclave? • A.: No. • Q.: Have you ever heard of any information that's credible from Serbian sources that thousands of Muslims were killed between July 13th (10)and July 19th, 1995? • A.: Only after the war in the information media, the mass media, did these cases begin to be talked about, and it was only then that I could have heard or learnt something more about that. • Q.: So you heard not one word from any VRS source at all about what (15)occurred between the 13th of July, 1995 and the 19th of July, 1995? • A.: No. No. • Q.: Did you ever hear that thousands of Muslim prisoners were taken along the Bratunac-Milici road in the areas of Konjevic Polje-Nova Kasaba-Kravica? (20) • A.: As I say, only after the war, from the information media, but that I saw anything or knew anything, I did not. • Q.: Now, if you could look at this map and take a pen and if you could mark in a small circle, if you could, the area where your headquarters was. (25)
• A.:
[Marks]
• A.: No. As I said earlier on, together with me -- that is to say, first of all, the forward command post, on the 6th of July, was (5)established, and after the 12th, the officers, the superior officers of my battalion went, and then the command post was where I was, which means in the area of the Cizmici village. • Q.: So when did your headquarters actually move from the particular spot you've marked? (10) • A.: Well, most of the command at the 6th was already at the forward command post, but together with me on the 12th there were my officers too. We went, the command post and everything else that that implies. MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we hold up just very briefly this large Exhibit 809 bis again. (15) • Q.: Now, we've discussed the order that you received on the 14th to search the area, and is it not correct that the northernmost boundary of the area you searched was between the points of 1 and 5 on the map, I think 5 being the area of Lomanac brook and 1 being the area of Jezestica road junction? (20) • A.: That's this region here. This is the brook towards the village of Pale, and then we have this part here towards the Lupoglav feature. Pale-Lupoglav, that is the axis. But I did not return, I kept going forward. I did not have the obligation to see what was happening behind me or going back. (25)
• Q.: So your area of search was that V-shaped area between the numbers
• A.: Well, that's roughly so, yes. • Q.: And the northernmost boundary of your search area was the Bratunac-Milici road? (5) • A.: I had nothing to do with that road. I went off from the lines attained. What you're saying now is this here. It's a zone, an area, that is to say, a direction, an axis in which I would move. Now, for that axis to be denoted, you have to denote it for several points, and I had absolutely no goings back. There was no logic (10)in going back and, therefore, relinquishing my positions to the enemy. JUDGE RIAD: Witness, could you please speak a little bit softer. We can't hear the interpretation here. Thank you. THE WITNESS: [Int.] I do apologise. I have this deep, strong voice, and I am accustomed, as I said, to speaking loudly. Pity (15)I'm not an opera singer. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: Now, the area between point 1, Jezestica road, and point 5, the Lomanac brook, if you draw -- can you just take a pointer and draw a line between the two, just an imaginary line? (20) • A.: [Indicates] • Q.: Now, that area between the imaginary line between point 1 and point 6 north to the roadway, was that searched by your battalion? • A.: No.
• Q.: So when you received your orders to search to the right of
(25)Jezestica road over to Lomanac brook, you did not go up at all to that
• A.: Let me try again. Let me repeat this. I did not have any need or obligation to go back, to go backwards and to search something that is to the back of me, my rear; nor was I supposed to do that, because that would (5)have left me open to allowing the enemy to take over the positions I had already gained control of. So it is from the lines attained, reached, that we went forwards, not backwards. Never backwards, just forwards. And that is standard practice, that's what you're supposed to do. (10) • Q.: So have you seen the video of the soldiers all along that road in that area with their guns pointing up towards the direction where you would have been? • A.: I don't remember. I don't think so. If you have them, perhaps I can take a look. (15) • Q.: So you weren't concerned that there may be Muslims in that large area that you were -- between you and the road that was not being searched? • A.: During those days, many moved along that road, a lot of things were going along that road, both the refugees, Muslims that were being (20)transported from the Potocari region. So there was a lot of coming and going, a passage of people, movement of people, and so I did not consider it to be necessary to do anything. • Q.: So you did receive -- • A.: Nor did I receive any orders to do anything. (25)
• Q.: But you did receive information that people were going along that
• A.: Not in that way. I assumed that that was being done. Not that somebody directly informed me how much, what, for what reason, and so on. • Q.: Did you or any of your recon units or any of your men have the (5)possibility to see that road on July 13th or 14th to see what was going on on that road on those days? • A.: Well, from these positions, they could just observe movement. They could just observe movement, the means that were passing along that way, but nobody informed me about any activities which would influence the (10)establishment of a defence system, and, therefore, it was not the subject of my interests. I did not focus on that. • Q.: So you did have information from your soldiers who could see from the heights down on top of that road. • A.: Yes, they could see, but they did not inform me of any specifics (15)with respect to that, and they were at a great distance. They were very far off, approximately 3 kilometres as the crow flies. That's where they were. • Q.: Did they inform you that units along that road were firing heavy weapons up in the direction of where they would have been watching from, (20)all along the road from Konjevic Polje down to Bratunac? • A.: No. No. MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could go to Exhibit 758. • Q.: Now, Witness DF, you'll recognise -- this is a blow-up of one of the previous maps, and this is a NATO map. This is not the VRS map. (25)
• A.: Yes.
• A.: I can't do that on this map because it's not in the framework of the map, as far as I can see. I can show you on the other map. (5) • Q.: All right. Do you recognise the general area on this particular map? • A.: I recognise it. • Q.: Now, I'm calling your attention to the two dots in that particular area. Did you notice any -- any particular activity going on there (10)between July 12th and November 1st, 1995? • A.: I did not notice any activity in the area nor did anybody inform me of it. • Q.: Would it surprise you to learn that those are mass graves, it's the submission of the Prosecution, that were dug between 13 July and (15)17 July 1995, and contained thousands of bodies? • A.: It would not surprise me because I was -- I learnt about that fact at a meeting with you last year. • Q.: Prior to our meeting, had you heard anything about it? • A.: Only from the media. (20) • Q.: A huge mass grave in your backyard and you never heard anything about it from any other source but the media; is that right? • A.: It was far from my eyes, far, far from my eyes. I wouldn't say it was close by.
• Q.: Did you ever hear any discussion of the digging of those mass
(25)graves and how those bodies got there from anyone prior to our meeting?
• Q.: Did you speak to Major Golic - excuse me - Major Nikolic about what was going on there? • A.: No. (5) • Q.: If bodies were being buried there, would that be a reference to the Serbian word "asanacija" if they were related to killed prisoners or soldiers? • A.: The notion of asanacija is a broad concept. It could have been about that. Asanacija is carried out or implemented regardless of the (10)status of the dead bodies. When you say "asanacija," it can apply to cattle, to animals as well, because asanacija is an action that is undertaken in order to prevent diseases from spreading. • Q.: Did you ever hear any information that in October of 1995, those hundreds and hundreds of bodies were dug up over a period of days and (15)moved down south of the Srebrenica enclave, former enclave? • A.: No, I didn't hear anything about that. • Q.: Were you ever at a meeting where this was discussed? • A.: I was at meetings where this could have been discussed only superficially, but nothing specific at all. (20) • Q.: A superficial discussion of moving hundreds and hundreds of dead bodies is a discussion of that subject, so if you could tell me when you heard a superficial discussion of that subject, I'd appreciate it.
• A.: At one of the meetings, mention was made, I don't know exactly
when this was, I think October, that asanacija was being carried out, but
(25)no details were given when, how, why, under which circumstances, and so
• Q.: Now asanacija, is that something that is generally carried out in the middle of combat? • A.: It can be done in the middle of combat, and it can also be done (5)after combat, depending on how long the combat goes on for. • Q.: Ever hear of anybody burying troops while they're being shot at by the enemy, burying bodies while they're being shot at in combat? • A.: Not really. I haven't heard that. • Q.: Now, if we could go to exhibit number 712/A, and if you could take (10)a moment to look at that. That's another group of minutes from the meeting, this time 16 October 1995. MR. McCLOSKEY: And we don't want this to be on the public ELMO, but if we could have it on the ELMO, I'd appreciate it, as long as it's not going public. (15) • Q.: All right, Witness. Now, you'll note that you were present by this record at this 16 October meeting; is that correct? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And that at that meeting, there was a discussion, and I'll quote, "We are currently engaged in tasks issued by the army of Republika (20)Srpska, General Staff, sanitation," in parentheses, the word in Serbian, "asanacija." Do you recall that meeting? • A.: Barely, yes, I do.
• Q.: And this comes under the heading of "Nikolic." That's the same
(25)Major Momir Nikolic --
• Q.: -- the chief of security for the brigade? • A.: It should be the same one, yes. It should be him. • Q.: Now, I note here that this says that the task was issued by the (5)General Staff or the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska. Does that help you refresh your recollection as to this particular asanacija job? • A.: I really don't know how significant it was because I had absolutely nothing to do with that assignment; nor did I know what they (10)were referring to, who was tasked to do that, using which means; nor did I provide any kind of assistance, so it was not my obligation to know what it was about. And I'm quite convinced that, at that meeting, no details were given, any details, and you can check by asking these other persons who are listed as being present. (15) • Q.: As an officer in the army of Republika Srpska, is it not your duty when you are made aware of war crimes, to report those war crimes to your superior? • A.: It is. • Q.: It's not your duty to close your ears at a meeting or ignore (20)things that you don't want to hear; that's not the duty of a VRS soldier, is it? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic?
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the Defence objects
to this question. My learned friend can rephrase it and ask him whether
(25)war crimes were discussed at meetings that the witness attended.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I was merely responding to his response saying he didn't want to hear about it, but it's not an important issue. I think we can go on to others. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you. MR. McCLOSKEY: Now could we have Exhibit 161/4. • A.: May I just comment on what Mr. McCloskey just said, because in a way he said that I didn't want to hear. I had nothing to hear there because I assert with responsibility that no details were given connected (10)to that asanacija. And the concept of asanacija, as I have said, is nothing unlawful. It's an obligatory procedure that has to be engaged in. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Witness, perhaps we have to clear up this point now. What was the subject of discussion at the (15)meeting? • A.: As meetings were very brief, each person -- me, for instance, as battalion commander, would be given five minutes to report on the situation in my battalion. So that at those meetings, no details were entered into except if the commander had some queries about something (20)important. If details had been discussed, then they probably would have been part of this document, would have been referred to in these minutes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Do you remember the expressions used, what was said in connection with asanacija? • A.: I just remember the term "asanacija" being used. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] No, the circumstances, the
• A.: Yes, very briefly. It says as it says here in the minutes. "We are now working under orders of the General Staff on asanacija," no further details. And I think that that was the method of work applied at (5)such briefings. If somebody needed to brief the commander about details, he would have the time and place to do so after the meeting, to go to his office and discuss things with him in detail. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see. So no one at that meeting, when the word "asanacija" was used, nobody asked for any (10)clarifications? • A.: No. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In other words, everyone understood what was behind it, what it referred to? • A.: Not what was being concealed. We didn't know that anything was (15)being concealed. We just knew that asanacija was being done. Now, what that term was implied, Major Nikolic should know, and if my commander had an interest, he probably asked him. But as I see here that the Main Staff ordered this, then I believe that even my commander need not have been informed, not to mention us lower-level officers. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Continue, Mr. McCloskey, please. MR. McCLOSKEY:
• Q.: Witness, I would direct your attention to Exhibit 161/4 of a split
aerial photo, and I'll direct your attention to the right side. This is
(25)dated 20 October, and this is in the area of the yellow dots from the
• A.: I don't know what was implied, but in that period of time, my battalion and myself was focusing on the organisation of shift duty in the area of Trnovo so that I had absolutely no knowledge linked to this. • Q.: Now, did you have any knowledge about prisoners taken by the VRS (10)between the time period of July 12th and November 1? • A.: Nothing specific. I didn't know anything in particular about those prisoners because I didn't have any. All I can talk about is the things that I eyewitnessed. • Q.: We could also talk about what was discussed at this very same (15)meeting, because if we go back to the exhibit of the meeting of October 13th, Mr. Nikolic also discusses that there are still remaining so-called Turks in the area and that they've taken statements from them and that, "We have seven." So were you listening to the discussion about prisoners taken between the time period I just asked about when Mr. Nikolic was (20)discussing it? • A.: There was no discussion about the prisoners, except that the fact was stated that they were being held as prisoners somewhere by our forces.
• Q.: The Bratunac Brigade was in fact getting prisoners all the way
through the period of 12 July up until at least this period noted in this
(25)document, weren't they?
MR. McCLOSKEY: Can we go into closed session briefly, Mr. President? (5)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, let's go into private
session. Not yet.
MR. McCLOSKEY: 799, please. • Q.: Now, you mentioned that the brigade had a military police unit; is that correct? (10) • A.: Correct. • Q.: Who is the chief of that military police unit in July 1995? • A.: I think it was Dragisa Jovanovic. • Q.: And what was his rank? • A.: I think he was a Lieutenant. (15) • Q.: Was he a colleague, colleague of yours that you communicated with? • A.: Not frequently. If I came across him, we would exchange greetings, jokes, but nothing in particular. • Q.: Did you discuss with any members of the military police what they were involved in, in Pilica in July 16th, 1995? (20) • A.: I have no idea where they were nor what they did nor was it my duty to know what the military police were doing.
• Q.: If the military police from Bratunac transported prisoners to the
Zvornik area brigade of responsibility and thereby assisted in the
execution of prisoners in the Zvornik Brigade area of responsibility, what
(25)commander would be responsible for those crimes?
MR. McCLOSKEY: I can rephrase that, Your Honour, so it's not meant to pass judgement. What I was trying to get to is a hypothetical (10)that would show us military responsibility and not any particular names of any individuals but just, in a situation where jurisdictions change, which jurisdiction becomes responsible for their soldiers in another jurisdiction that commit crimes, in this officer's opinion. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Then ask who was (15)responsible for the soldiers, not for the crimes. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: Well, can you answer the question who was responsible for the soldiers in the situation that I've posed to you? • A.: Specifically regarding the situation you have described to me, I (20)don't know who could have been responsible. I assume that for activities carried out by subordinates, then the leader of that unit should be responsible. MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I have no further questions of this witness. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Thank you very much,
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has no further questions of this witness. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you very much. Judge Fouad Riad? No questions. Madam Judge Wald. JUDGE WALD: Just a very few. • QUESTIONED by the Court: (10) JUDGE WALD: Witness, you mentioned at one point that you had an opportunity at some point to see parts of the column that was moving towards Tuzla. My question is simply: Did you know at that time -- it's referred to in several of the Bratunac Brigade command reports that there is this column attempting a breakthrough at particular points. Were you (15)aware that the column consisted of -- basically two-thirds of it were civilians from Srebrenica or, in other words, not full-time soldiers but people who were fleeing from Srebrenica? I mean, was that well known in the area? Because it keeps being referred to as a breakthrough of the 28th. In fact, that was at the head, obviously, a third of it were (20)members of the 28th Division, but two-thirds of it were people fleeing from Srebrenica, some armed lightly, some not armed at all. Was that well known?
• A.: No, not at all. From our positions, we couldn't distinguish
whether somebody was armed or whether someone was a civilian or not. And
(25)I can tell you that it was the practice in our brigade, and I assume also
(5) JUDGE WALD: So basically -- I know you had no combat contact with them, but basically in terms of knowing that they existed and were moving in a particular direction, they were regarded across the board as the 28th Division, right, as the enemy armed forces of the 28th Division; is that right? That's the way they were thought of in terms of the Brigade (10)Command reports or whatever you heard? • A.: Now that so much time has gone by, my conclusion would be that the civilians who were safely evacuated from Potocari, they simply had no need to go with the column which it was assumed could encounter our forces and clash with them. So I would not assume that any civilians would move with (15)that column, and especially not in such a high percentage as you have mentioned.
JUDGE WALD: Okay. My other question is: With regard to the
report of the minutes of -- I believe it was the October 16th meeting in
which it's said that one of the parts of the brigade were carrying out
(20)assignments and asanacija with regard to orders from the Main Staff. My
question is whether or not in your military experience it was usual or
unusual for the Main Staff, rather than the battalion or the brigade, to
be directing asanacija - however it's pronounced - of the particular
battleground area in which a battalion or a brigade might have
(25)responsibility. Did the security part of the Main Staff generally take
• A.: I am not aware of such cases of asanacija of the battleground, so I cannot tell you what the practice was. I really don't know whether it (5)is customary, and I, generally speaking, don't know much about the concept of asanacija because I was trained in a different area. JUDGE WALD: In this particular instance, however, although the main -- I gather from the report that although the Main Staff was giving direction to the operation, actually, soldiers from parts of the Bratunac (10)Brigade were being used to do it, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't have been in the report. It was the soldiers from not your part but from other parts of the Bratunac Brigade that were doing the work in asanacija under the direction of the Main Staff. Is that the right interpretation of the report? (15) • A.: I really don't know. As I have said, I cannot comment on that because I don't have any proper information. I don't know any details. I don't know who was doing it, following whose orders. I see from this record that it was the orders of the Main Staff, but who actually participated, how, using which devices, with what aim, I really don't (20)know. JUDGE WALD: Okay, thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Mr. President, I do have a brief
statement from the witness in his interview that would be directly
(25)relevant to Judge Wald's -- one of Judge Wald's questions, and so I would
JUDGE WALD: I don't know what you're talking about. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Is the Prosecutor referring to the statement made by the witness in Banja Luka in December last year? MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, I am, and it's on the subject of the makeup of the column. (10) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] The Defence has asked to obtain that statement. As we now have a witness testifying about his own statement, something will be shown to him from that statement, and I think that also would be in accordance with the ruling of the Chamber when other witnesses were testifying, the Defence would request to obtain that (15)statement. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Has the Defence had an opportunity to examine that statement? MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. We are in the situation we have been with other statements that witnesses have given to us that have (20)testified. But this has to do with his statement of this witness to us. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If I understand correctly, Mr. McCloskey is telling us that -- you know that the witness has information which can respond to a question put by Judge Wald to the witness; am I correct? (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
JUDGE WALD: Can I just clarify something? THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. (5) JUDGE WALD: Obviously I can't ask a question about a statement I've never seen, and apparently Mr. Petrusic can't ask a question about a statement he has never seen. You didn't cover this in your direct, so the most -- let me make an attempt just to ask, if I might, with the President's permission, just to ask the witness if he remembers saying (10)anything previously in a previous statement about the makeup of the column, and then I think we should let it go at that, if that's satisfactory to you. • A.: I didn't say anything in particular. I don't think that it differs in any sense from what I have just said. As far as I am (15)concerned, he can refer to that statement.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Let me address the parties. As
you know, the principles that reign over the debate is fairness, and it is
true that it is the truth that interests the Chamber. So the Chamber can
call a witness, and there would be no sense in the Chamber, having learnt
(20)that there is something that may be important, should call the witness to
come.
What I think would be practical and would be fully in observance
of the fairness of the proceedings is perhaps to say to the Prosecutor you
can put your question, and the Defence has the possibility to respond, to
(25)cross-examine, in a sense, on that point, and the Judges may, too, so that
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we will be coming (10)back again to the disputed issue. Putting aside the fact that the Prosecution has completed his examination-in-chief, that Your Honours have started the questions, so leaving that aside, we will again come up against the disputed issue, which is that the Prosecutor will show the witness a statement. The Defence has neither had that statement nor -- (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm sorry for interrupting you. I am really sorry, but my suggestion would also mean that the Prosecutor puts the question. But without using the statement. So "I have heard" or "I have been informed," or something like that. He doesn't need to show the witness the statement. We forget that there is a statement; he just (20)puts a question to the witness, and then the witness can be cross-examined on that particular question. Would you agree with what? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. McCloskey, what do you think of that suggestion? (25)
MR. McCLOSKEY: I can certainly give it a try. I understand I can
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No. I'll give the floor to (5)Judge Wald. The question is that you cannot confront the witness with a statement. You cannot say, "You said this and now you're saying something else." You just accept the answer of the witness and then the Defence can cross-examine him. JUDGE WALD: I'm sure you're familiar with it. I think, Mr. (10)McCloskey, you say, "Did you, on a previous occasion, say, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah?" He may say no or give any explanation he wants and we have to let it go at that. And it doesn't get accepted into evidence, the statement, you're just asking him whether on a previous occasion he said something. (15) MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Your Honour, I understand that, but I want to be careful. So I may say, "Did, on another occasion, did you say," and then say what I believe he said. JUDGE WALD: If it doesn't go on forever. I mean, if it's very brief. (20) MR. McCLOSKEY: It's very brief. JUDGE WALD: Very brief. Okay. MR. McCLOSKEY: It's very brief. Thank you, Mr. President.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] The parties agree that we
(25)proceed in this way: The Prosecutor puts a question to the witness and
• Q.: Witness, do you recall in the questioning that we had several months ago Mr. Ruez was talking to you about the column, and you were talking to him about it, and do you recall -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic? (10) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we come back to the same issue. The question in the way I understood your ruling and the suggestion of Judge Wald transcends that framework. It is not my intention to give him any suggestions or advice, on the contrary. Whatever was discussed with Mr. Ruez can be phrased in a separate (15)question. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Mr. McCloskey, I think that is my opinion. I speak in my own name, but my colleagues can also comment. You can put a question about the column. Go directly to the gist of the question and then we'll see what the answer is. (20) MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
• Q.: Do you recall being asked about the column and the -- whether or
not you took any action against the armed movement of the column, and your
response -- do you recall this response: "As far as I was concerned,
those are not troops. Those are lines of people. Columns which were
(25)moving on their way to the" --
MR. McCLOSKEY: No. I was referring to Mr. Ruez. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No. Forget that. Forget that there was a statement. Put the question to the witness without reference to the statement. That is our ruling. That is our decision. The question has to do with the column. I know that. You have told us that it is about the column, following a question by Judge Wald. (10)So regarding the column, put one, two, or three questions but without mentioning any previous statement that he may have made to you. JUDGE WALD: There may be some confusion here. At least, it's my understanding, based on past experience here, that you can phrase a question along the following lines: "You testified in answer to (15)Judge Wald that," whatever; you paraphrase what the witness just said. "Do you, on any previous occasion say that you considered the column to be mainly civilians," et cetera, something like that, and then just accept what he has to say. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see Mr. Visnjic. I'm told (20)that the General needs a break. Is that what you want to tell us?
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, yes, but before that,
if possible, I should like this question put by Mr. McCloskey that
contains a direct quotation from a statement that we are not aware of
should be redacted from the transcript as it has entered into the record.
(25)It is page 66 or, rather, 65, rows 24, 25; and page 66, rows 1 and 2.
(5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, yes, yes, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So we'll have a 10-minute break now. --- Recess taken at 2.12 p.m. --- On resuming at 2.25 p.m. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Visnjic. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, thank you. May I very briefly explain my request? The main issue why we objected to Mr. McCloskey's question is the problem that we are having as we are unable to see whether the (15)Prosecution, during this interview or interrogation or whatever we like to call it, whether his statement was faithfully recorded as we do not have the Serbian or the English versions. As we know, those statements are not interpreted simultaneously so that there are often very serious problems connected to translation. And (20)that is one of the main reasons why we are objecting, because we have no way of checking whether what the witness told Mr. McCloskey was correctly translated, whether the Serbian and the English version of those statements coincide. That is one of the reasons, among others.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I think we are turning round in
(25)a circle. You have mentioned the statement, so I don't know whether you
(10) MR. McCLOSKEY: The purpose, the basic purpose was for the Trial Chamber to be able to see what this witness would say in a response to what he said before in order that this matter regarding the column be fully flushed out. In my normal practice, I usually will first use something to (15)refresh the person's recollection, and if it doesn't refresh their recollection and they have said something opposite to what is in this, then I would use it to impeach them. And in that regard -- however, in this particular situation, having it come after the Judge's questions, this is a new area for everyone. And I would -- I am content with what I (20)believe Judge Wald was getting at, is that we just bring this up, see what he says about it, and then, and then stop and it's over.
JUDGE WALD: Do you think, do you think your purposes would be
satisfied - mine would, I know - if you just more or less paraphrased the
question along the line of, "Have you ever on a prior occasion said that
(25)you weren't going to" - I'm just using a - "pay attention to the column
MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Your Honour, I'm fine with that. And of course, based on our previous practice, then we could show, even show the (5)-- though we haven't used it directly, if counsel insists, we could show them the area so they could do the same thing. But that actually gets us into a whole other area, so maybe we should just avoid that. JUDGE WALD: Why don't we end it with the question and let him answer it the way he wants to answer it. (10) MR. McCLOSKEY: Fair enough. JUDGE WALD: Until --
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I think, Mr. Petrusic, because
we're slightly in a different situation than on other occasions, we have
here a witness called by the Defence, and the Prosecutor has the
(15)obligation to disclose statements of the witness to the Defence, but of
the witnesses which the Prosecution is calling. Isn't that so? After
all, that's a little different. In other words, the Prosecution does not
have the obligation to disclose because this is a witness called by the
Defence.
(20)So I think that we will manage to preserve fairness, which is our
objective, and the adversarial principle by allowing the Prosecutor to put
one or several questions on this issue. And since they haven't tendered
the statement into evidence, the information that will be used is what the
Prosecution obtains here in the courtroom, that is, the information --
(25)that is the only information you need to cross-examine. There would be a
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Following what you have said regarding fairness and the adversarial principle, I agree with you, but if we resume the examination on the basis of the statement that was given, (10)then the Defence has the right to say no on the basis of the Rules. If we are opening the debate on this issue to establish the credibility of the witness on the basis of that statement, that is, impeaching the witness, then the Defence is opposed and objects. So let me repeat. I agree if we're trying to establish the truth, (15)that is, in accordance with your decision, the decision of the Chamber, and the suggestion of Judge Wald and yourself, that the witness be asked a concrete question regarding what he knows about the column or so on - let me not advise the Prosecution as to the wording - and then the Defence can, if it considers necessary, cross-examine the witness. (20)I find that our situation is rather tricky.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. McCloskey, we are really in
an exceptional situation. I think that we're all trying to find a path
which will contribute to the truth. It is not customary, after the
questions of the Judges, to resume the examination-in-chief and the
(25)cross-examination of the same witness. So it is normal that we should
(5) MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't fully understand Mr. Petrusic's suggestion. I think I do understand Judge Wald's suggestion and I am perfectly prepared to say, "On a previous occasion," and then give a paraphrase. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm sorry for interrupting you, (10)Mr. McCloskey. Mr. Petrusic said that he agreed with the suggestion of Judge Wald. You also said that you agree with Judge Wald. So there must be a misunderstanding. Let me ask Madam Wald to formulate her suggestion, and then we will check because we do have a problem. Mr. Petrusic just said, "I agree (15)with the proposal of Judge Wald." You also said that you agreed with Judge Wald, but, at the same time, you said you do not agree with Mr. Petrusic and he does not agree with you. So there must be some misunderstanding between the three of you. So Judge Wald. (20)
JUDGE WALD: My understanding of my suggestion was that
Mr. McCloskey would say something along the following lines: "You just
testified in response to Judge Wald's question that," paraphrase of what
the witness just said right here in the courtroom. "Have you ever on a
prior occasion said," a paraphrase. I would not -- given the context
(25)here, I would not get into the quotes; a short paraphrase, and then let
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Now let us try to come to an agreement. Mr. Petrusic, have you heard the suggestion? Do you agree? (5) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Yes. Let it be like that then. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Mr. McCloskey, do you agree with this proposal by Judge Wald which Mr. Petrusic agrees with it must be said? MR. McCLOSKEY: I'll certainly give it a try. I can't recall (10)exactly all the details but I think I can give it a good try. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, then. You will find your own way within those frameworks, I hope. So please proceed. MR. McCLOSKEY: • Q.: Witness, in a question from Judge Wald regarding the column, you (15)suggested in a manner that the column was not a civilian column. However, at a previous occasion did you tell someone that you did not think these were troops, that they were just people seeking safety or something to that effect?
• A.: Can I try and resolve this dilemma by saying, Mr. McCloskey, I did
(20)not say that in that way. First of all, I should like you to bear in mind
the fact that, from a large distance, I was able to observe that column
with very poor quality optical instruments, that is, binoculars, and even
then when I said what I said and now again I believe absolutely that it
was a military column. Now, whether a certain percentage of civilians
(25)were among them, I don't know by what means I could have possibly noted
MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we're finished. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You managed; you found your way. So, Mr. Petrusic or Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, while we're still on the subject, I should like to remind you of my objection and request for (10)the redaction of the quotation referred to by Mr. McCloskey and that has been recorded in the transcript. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] But in his answer, the witness mentioned it, so I don't think we can redact it. But in any event, we will not be using that statement as evidence, so there's no problem (15)regarding the identity of the witness. And as we are not using it as evidence, we cannot use the statement of the Prosecutor, which cannot be admitted into evidence, anyway. So, Mr. Petrusic, do you have any cross-examination on this point? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. So no additional questions from Mr. McCloskey, so I think we have succeeded in our attempt to further the truth. Instead of having the witness come back again, I think we found a way out. I personally have a few questions, so it's my turn now. (25)
• QUESTIONED by the Court:
• A.: Yes, at certain points in time. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Because after all, your soldiers were not stationary; they were moving. I also think I understood you saying in an answer to Mr. McCloskey that there were transports of people coming from Potocari. Did I understand you right? • A.: I assume there was, and I think that's what I said on the basis of (10)what I learnt later on; otherwise, that road was a road with heavy traffic. So I couldn't note where the starting point was for a truck, for example, tractor, bus, or anything like that. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] My question is the following, Witness: Did you learn about that movement because your soldiers told you (15)about it; or did you learn from any other source, and if so, which source? • A.: First of all, my soldiers informed me about -- from the observation posts that we had, that along the road there was dense traffic, but they could not have informed me as to the means, the equipment, or anything else that was being transported in those vehicles. (20)And later on from the information media, as I said, or from the newspapers or television, I learnt that that was the road where the transport, among others, of the civilians and prisoners took place, that sort of thing. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] When did you learn about this from the media? (25)
• A.: It was after the war and just before I started to follow this
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So this link between the traffic on the road and the transportation of people coming from Potocari, when did you link the two together? (5) • A.: Well, I might have linked it up in more detail only after I had insight into what the press was saying and the media. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] When your soldiers informed you that there was a lot of traffic along that road - I think that is what I understood you to have said - did you understand also why there was that (10)traffic and that movement? • A.: I could only have assumed, but not in any detail because, as I say, it was not my duty to control the passage along that road. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You said that you could only make assumptions. What assumptions did you make at the time? (15) • A.: I assumed that it was exclusively civilians moving along that road which were being transported from the Potocari area further on, I did not know where. Because please believe me when I say, from that distance, whatever you have in the way of optical equipment, you wouldn't be able to distinguish what the person was being transported. That would be (20)impossible. You couldn't distinguish that by looking through -- at it through binoculars. You could just distinguish whether it was a bus, truck, tractor, or something like that, but no other details at all.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You were responsible for a
military unit at the time. Did you know what the objective was of the
(25)military operation that you were involved in at the time?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Can it be said that you learnt that there was an operation on Srebrenica on the 6th when the Chief of Staff visited you? (10) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Something else: Could you try to explain to us how come that there were trucks and buses and vehicles going past? Of course, as you said, you were not able to identify the persons inside, but in any event, there was a lot of traffic. Was it (15)possible for the civilians themselves to be aware of that movement? • A.: I'm afraid I did not understand the question. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You said that you were a rather -- some distance away from the road, some soldiers 3 or 4 kilometres away. Let me put the question differently. Were there any (20)civilians along the road, people living there, civilians who lived in the area? • A.: Well, I really don't know. I can only assume that there could have been some.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you very much,
(25)witness. You have just finished your testimony here. Thank you very much
THE WITNESS: [Int.] Thank you too, Your Honour.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] The usher must pull down the
(5)blinds to lead the witness out because we have some other things to
address. So don't move yet for the moment. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I was about to address the question of documents that we have to deal with. I think that we have (10)documents referring to this witness and the other documents of which we have a list. Perhaps it would be better to deal separately with the documents of Professor and General Radinovic, then the documents of this witness, and then we'll come back to the others. Would you agree with that, Mr. Petrusic, Mr. Visnjic, Mr. Cayley, (15)and Mr. McCloskey? So Mr. Visnjic, for General Radinovic, I think that we have a list of your documents. Perhaps to facilitate things, we could give a number to this list and then refer to all the documents in that list under that number. (20)Would you agree with that, Mr. Cayley -- MR. CAYLEY: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] -- instead of going through the whole list?
MR. CAYLEY: I have not actually seen this list, Mr. President,
(25)but I have been through all of the Defence exhibits for Professor
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, all that remains for me to do is to suggest that this list be numbered D161. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Can you confirm that, Madam Registrar? THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President. It will be Exhibit D161. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Visnjic. I don't know whether this is a problem or not, but I have with me Defence Exhibit 160/A and B. No. I was going to say that it was not on the list, but it is, so I withdraw what I had just said. So the documents on the list -- Mr. Cayley, you have the list (15)now? MR. CAYLEY: I do, Mr. President, yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So the documents figuring on the list which has been marked as D161 are admitted into evidence. So now, Mr. Cayley, do you have any observation to make? (20)
MR. CAYLEY: The only observation I would make is something that's
already been agreed between the parties, but just to put it on the record,
that we agreed that there would be a deletion of a section, which I think
has already been said. It was the section on law which
Professor Radinovic addressed, and I think the Defence have agreed to
(25)submit a revised version of the report without that section.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Visnjic. I think it's paragraph 2, page something. It's slipped my mind. Is that correct? So we will have a new version of the same document which will be marked bis. (5)Is that acceptable, Mr. Visnjic, Mr. Cayley? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I think that we already have a number under bis, and it is the corrigendum. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, I believe so. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Perhaps the number could be 160/1. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Madam Registrar. Or ter perhaps. THE REGISTRAR: I was just going to confirm that we did have D160 bis. Perhaps we could have D160 ter. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Yes. (15)Mr. Cayley, is that acceptable? MR. CAYLEY: That's fine, Mr. President, yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So have we regulated everything regarding the exhibits produced during the testimony of General Radinovic on the side of the Defence? (20)Now, Mr. Cayley, do you have any documents to tender?
MR. CAYLEY: I have four documents. They are Prosecutor's
Exhibit 746, 759, 760, 762, and 777.
I don't believe that Mr. Visnjic has any objections to those
documents - we've already discussed the matter - and if that is the case,
(25)I would apply for those to be admitted into evidence. Thank you.
MR. CAYLEY: That's correct, Mr. President. It's 746. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So the French interpretation, I (5)think, made an error, but never mind, everything is clear now. So, Mr. Visnjic, any objection? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Your Honour, no objections. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much. So these exhibits of the Prosecutor are admitted into evidence. (10)Now, then, Mr. Petrusic, the testimony of this witness. Are there any exhibits to be tendered by the Defence? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, it was Exhibit D25/1 that I wished to have admitted, and the other exhibits that the Defence used have been assigned numbers by the Prosecutor and those will be the (15)numbers that they will go by. They were Exhibit -- OTP Exhibit 782, but after I hear from the Prosecution. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but are you saying already that you have no objections or do you have objections? To speed things up. (20) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] We have no objections at all with respect to the OTP exhibits in connection with this witness who was Witness DF.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. McCloskey. And you have the
advantage that you know in advance that there are no objections. So maybe
(25)you can take advantage of it and tender some more.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Have you taken note, Madam Registrar, that there is no objection on the side of the Defence, and these exhibits are admitted into evidence. (10)We now have this, an older set of documents, if I may call them that. You remember that we discussed previously some exhibits among which some required additional clarification. The question was addressed by Mr. Harmon and Mr. Petrusic, that is to say, Exhibit 792/A and "B." I think there was a memo from the translation service, and is it ready or (15)not? Do you have any information about that, Mr. Harmon? The translation service, I think, should have provided a brief memo regarding a discussion we had. MR. HARMON: If you can bear with me for just a minute, (20)Mr. President. I did receive a memo in respect of an exhibit. I don't have it at my disposal. There it is. I just don't have the exhibit number associated with this memo that is dated the 28th of November, 2000. Perhaps we could pass on this for just a moment and I can clarify this, Mr. President. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well, Mr. Harmon.
(10)
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] As it is a translation, just one
moment, Mr. President, if I may, to consult my colleagues. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, we cannot give an answer at this point. My colleague, Mr. Visnjic, has suggested to me, (15)that is to say he said he probably asked the translation service. I know the document that it refers to, the May document, and the witness who commented on that document, but as far as I have been informed by Mr. Visnjic, the translation service has still not provided us with a revised translation, that is to say, no information about this (20)translation. So we will have to wait.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So Mr. Petrusic, we will see
what we can do.
Let's go on now to Exhibit 830, 830, and Exhibit 838 bis, and I
would like to ask the Prosecutor whether 838 bis should not be 830 bis?
(25)Regarding this exhibit, the Defence said the same thing, that it
MR. HARMON: My colleague who manages these affairs very capably for me informs me there is no 838. It is probably 830/A bis. Furthermore, that the translation service has completed their revision of this document, and that the Defence has been provided with a copy of the (10)revision, but they needed time to review the revision. And that's where I left off, my office left off in terms of assessing the status of this particular document, so we're waiting for a reply from the Defence. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So we should address 830 bis and not 838, because in the transcript there is reference to 838 bis, so this (15)needs to be corrected so that the document should bear the number 830 bis. Has the Defence got a position on this document? Because I think the document is dated the 11th of July, 1995, and there was a problem regarding the signature, the signature block, and which was revised, but the Defence said that it would take a position later. Is the Defence able (20)to do so now?
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, I owe the Trial
Chamber an apology, and I hope you accept that apology, because I'm not in
a position at this point to give my opinion. I haven't got the document
at present, and I just did not have time to focus on that problem, which
(25)does not mean that in the coming period we shall not be informing the
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Surely. But after all, we cannot decide without having everything cleared up. If one party tells us (5)that they will give us an answer, we need to have that answer to be able to decide. So I'm now going to review all the documents that are in this status before we make a decision. We have the Defence Exhibit 79, which is in the same position and is awaiting revision of the English translation. The same applies to (10)Exhibit 81. Have we received revisions of the English translation? Do we have them down, Mr. Visnjic? Mr. Harmon has just told us that the translation service has completed all the revisions. I don't know whether Mr. Harmon was (15)referring to revisions as well or just translations. Yes, Mr. Visnjic. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] As far as Exhibit 79 is concerned, I think that it was a poor photocopy of that exhibit. We showed a better copy of this to the Prosecution, and as far as I was able to understand, (20)they have no objections to it. By the time Mr. Harmon says whether he agrees with me, I can look up the next exhibit and give you my opinion there.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You know the answer in advance
too, Mr. Visnjic, perhaps.
(25)Mr. Harmon.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I think that is a good
suggestion because we are overstepping the time already by 15 minutes. So
(25)my suggestion would be the following: With the exception of this exhibit
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So I'm going to tell you which
exhibits we can decide on straight away to clear things up a little.
(10)The exhibits which were, in a sense, admitted but which the
Chamber did not declare admitted are Prosecution Exhibits 145/1, 367 bis,
765, 765/A, 765/B, 807, 812, 837. Defence exhibits which are also
admitted, D74 and D76 through to D134. That's it. Also D135, D137/A
and B, D138/B, D139/A
[Realtime transcript read in error"D39/A"] and B,
(15)D140/A and B. I see on the transcript "D39." It's not D39, it's D139.
So D139/A and B. So 541/A and B -- no, sorry. 141/A and B, 143/B, 144,
145, and 146.
As you know, there was a question regarding Exhibit 836/1
through to 7. So 836/1 through to 836/7. These were documents related to
(20)General Krstic, and one could call them private documents.
The position of the Chamber is that these documents were not
relevant and, therefore, rules not to admit them into evidence.
So those are the rulings of the Chamber for the moment.
The documents that remain outstanding are Prosecution Exhibits
(25)792/A and B; 830 and 830 bis, since we have clarified that 830 bis
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I just see in line 24, Mr. President, that you said D142/A and B, but whereas in the transcript it says D132. Am I right that you said D142/A, B, that was the last number you (15)read out? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The last number is 142, yes, 142. Which line is it? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Twenty-four, page eighty-six. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Line 24. Yes, you are quite (20)right, thank you very much. It is 142/A and B, not 132/A and B. Mr. Harmon, any observations or remarks by the Prosecution? MR. HARMON: Not at this time, Mr. President. Should there be any, we will raise them at the next occasion. Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you very
(25)much. I apologise, I hadn't intended to overstep our time limit. When we
|
