|
Content
/ Colormap • Page 9675 • {1/155} (1)Monday, 5 June 2001 [Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m. (5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth and the interpreters, the staff of the Registry. Good morning to the counsel for the Prosecution and Defence. Good morning, General Krstic. We're here today to continue the Krstic trial, our proceedings, (10)and I think that it is Mr. Harmon's turn to guide us today. Mr. Harmon, you have the floor. MR. HARMON: Yes. Good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours. It's been a long time. Good morning to my colleagues for the Defence. Initially, Mr. President, I wish to advise you that I have been (15)informed by the Defence that they wish to withdraw their objection to the document that has been a subject of many motions back and forth. They are withdrawing their opposition to the introduction of this document on the basis that the Prosecutor did not use reasonable diligence in obtaining it. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps we can now give the floor to Mr. Petrusic, to hear his response, or Mr. Visnjic. I don't know which one wishes to address the issue.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Good morning, Your Honour,
Mr. President, my learned colleagues of the Prosecution.
(25)The Defence did indeed withdraw its opposition with respect to the
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Mr. Harmon, what do (15)you suggest at this point? MR. HARMON: Mr. President, we have one witness we'd like to call. I would -- this witness will be a protected witness, and we can go into private session, I can explain why we have sought protection of this witness. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Let us move into private session. Not yet. Just a minute, please. Judge Wald.
JUDGE WALD: One question. It's a public question. In your view,
and in Mr. Petrusic's view, is there any area of dispute left now about --
and if so, how do you perceive it and how does he perceive it? Because
(25)I'm not clear, having covered the authenticity and the diligence, whether
MR. HARMON: Well, the Defence will be presenting its witness to put this document into context and particularly to characterise this document, whether it's genuine or not genuine, and they will be doing so (5)in the context of rules and regulations of the former JNA, as I understand it. JUDGE WALD: So your understanding is there's still some area of dispute? MR. HARMON: Yes. That's correct, Judge Wald. (10) JUDGE WALD: And that's the Defence's understanding, too? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, indeed, Judge Wald. That is right. The Defence will do its best, when it comes to its turn and presentation of evidence before the Trial Chamber, to explain the possible procedure; that is to say, how such a document came to be issued. That is (15)the first point. And secondly, it would like to demonstrate its weight to the Trial Chamber, what weight it has or probative value.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Let us now go into
private session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are in open session, I see, Mr. Harmon. (5) MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You may call Witness JJ now.
MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you. I'm waiting for Witness JJ's
arrival and then I'll commence. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Good morning, Witness JJ. Can you hear me? THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] You have been assigned this pseudonym as a protective measure. Would you now please read the solemn (15)declaration handed to you by the usher. WITNESS: WITNESS JJ THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Please be seated. I think that
(20)you are familiar with procedure in the courtroom. Let me start off by
thanking you for coming. You're going to start off by answering questions
put to you by Mr. Harmon, whom you know very well. But before we proceed,
could you take a look at a piece of paper that we're going to show you and
tell us whether your name is on the piece of paper, thereby making a link
(25)between your pseudonym and the name on the piece of paper. Give us a yes
THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you. Mr. Harmon, I think we're in open session, open session with (5)regard to the public; public, for the public. So please proceed, Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Thank you. • EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: • Q.: Witness, I'm going to be referring to you as Witness JJ during the (10)course of your testimony today. Let me begin by asking you what is your nationality? • A.: American. MR. HARMON: And that corrects the record. When we made our earlier submission, Your Honour, we indicated that this witness was (15)Canadian, so that should be corrected. • Q.: Now, where are you presently employed? • A.: The OTP here at the Tribunal. • Q.: How long have you been employed? • A.: Since October 27th, 1999. (20) • Q.: I'm going to pause between my questions and your answers so the interpretation can catch up. Now, prior to being employed at the Tribunal, where were you employed and for how long? • A.: I was with the New Jersey State Police for 15 1/2 years. (25)
• Q.: And while you were employed for the New Jersey State Police, what
• A.: Missing persons, homicide, unidentified dead, corruption, kidnapping. • Q.: Now, did you have occasion to meet with General Milenko Zivanovic? (5) • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: When did you first meet him? • A.: April 12th, 2001. • Q.: Where was it that you met him? • A.: In his home in Serbia. (10) MR. HARMON: May I go into private session for one question, Mr. President?
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let us move into private
session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] We're in open session. Please
(25)proceed.
• Q.: Now, Witness JJ, I have presented you with an original document. (5)Do you recognise that document? • A.: Yes, I do. • Q.: When was the first time you saw that document? • A.: April 12, 2001. • Q.: What were the circumstances under which you saw that document? (10) • A.: I was speaking with General Zivanovic. He showed it to me. MR. HARMON: Now, if the witness could be furnished with a copy of that document, Exhibit 905. • Q.: And while we're getting a copy of that document for you, Witness JJ, -- well, I see it's arrived. (15)Could you, first of all, compare the copy with the original and tell me whether or not the copy of the document Exhibit 905 is a true copy of the original? • A.: It appears to be a true copy, sir, yes. MR. HARMON: Could the usher please place the original document on (20)the ELMO. • Q.: Now, Witness JJ, did you take possession of Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 on your first meeting with General Zivanovic? • A.: No, I did not. • Q.: Did you take possession of it later? (25)
• A.: Yes, I did.
• A.: April 23, 2001. • Q.: And did you then turn the original over to other investigators in the Office of the Prosecutor? (5) • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: Now, Witness, when General Zivanovic provided you with that document, did he also inform you of when he was told he was to be relieved of command of the Drina Corps? • A.: Yes, he did. (10) • Q.: When did he tell you he was to be -- he was first informed that he would be relieved as Commander of the Drina Corps? • A.: He said around -- between the 15th to the 20th of June, 1995. General Mladic had told him he would be relieved by Krstic, General Krstic. (15) • Q.: I'm going to pause there for a minute so the answer can catch up. Did he tell you when he actually turned over command of the Drina Corps to General Krstic? • A.: According to General Zivanovic, he gave up his duty on the 11th of July, 1995 in Bratunac. On the 12th he -- he was told that the new (20)commander was Krstic, and then on the 13th of July, 1995, General Mladic and General Krstic came to General Zivanovic's corps headquarters in Vlasenica, and the command was lined up so Zivanovic could say goodbye to them.
• Q.: Now, I'll turn my attention to another area, and that is this
(25)original document. Did General Zivanovic tell you that he had shown that
• A.: Yes, he did. • Q.: Who did he say he had shown it to? • A.: He had shown it to General Miletic and General Radinovic. (5) • Q.: Did he tell you that he knew one or both of those men? • A.: He said he knew both of them. He knew General Miletic because their children had grown up together in Zadar, and he had served with General Miletic. He knew General Radinovic because he had been a teacher at the academy and was -- now was a professor for military strategic (10)studies. • Q.: When did General Zivanovic tell you he had shown this document to General Radinovic? • A.: He could not recall the exact date. He thought it was winter. He knew it was last year, 2000, in the winter because there was snow on the (15)ground, he said, but he wasn't sure if it was January or February. • Q.: Did he describe the reaction of General Miletic and General Radinovic when he was -- when he showed this document to them? • A.: Yes, he did. • Q.: What did he say? (20) • A.: He had shown it to him in his home, and Miletic looked at the document. As soon as they had heard that he had nothing to do with command after the 11th, according to General Zivanovic, they wanted nothing further to do with him. Radinovic was not interested at all to look at the document further or to take a copy. (25)
MR. HARMON: I have no additional questions, Mr. President.
MR. HARMON: Excuse me. The original should not be taken out. May I have one moment, please? May I have just one moment, (5)Mr. President? Thank you. I'm sorry for the interruption. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Mr. Petrusic, your witness. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Petrusic: (10) • Q.: Witness JJ, good morning. On behalf of the Defence of General Krstic, I will have a number of questions for you. How many times did you meet with General Zivanovic? • A.: Twice, sir. • Q.: Since the 12th of April. When was the second occasion? (15) • A.: April 23, 2001. • Q.: Did you have any telephone contact with General Zivanovic? • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: Could you tell us how many times? • A.: I think it was four to five times. If I could refer to my notes, (20)I'll be able to give you an exact number, sir. • Q.: Could you tell us what were the subjects you discussed at your meeting on the 25th of April, did you say? • A.: 23rd, sir.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Mr. Petrusic, perhaps this
(25)was part of the private-session discussions.
(10)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let us go into private
session.
(10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, you may continue now. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: You had a meeting with General Zivanovic on the 23rd of April? • A.: Yes, I did, sir. (15) • Q.: At that meeting did you discuss the document you have before you? • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: You saw the document for the first time on that occasion; is that right? • A.: No. That would be incorrect, sir. (20) • Q.: So you had seen it already before? You had it in your possession? • A.: No. That would be incorrect. • Q.: Had you seen the document before that date, just visually? Had you seen it? • A.: Yes. (25)
• Q.: Did General Zivanovic explain to you the contents of that document
• A.: The occasion of the 23rd of April? Yes, he did. • Q.: Did General Zivanovic tell you at the time that the subordinated units confirmed receiving that document at 2035 on the 13th of July? (5) • A.: That's correct. • Q.: After that meeting, did you contact General Zivanovic by telephone again? • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: On this document there is the so-called incoming stamp; is that (10)correct? • A.: There is a stamp where he said -- it showed outgoing and then incoming. Did you want me to point to the part I'm talking about, sir? According to General Zivanovic, this stamp right here, that shows that it went out to all the commands at 2000 hours -- (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Witness, excuse me for interrupting you. Mr. Petrusic, I should like this document to be diffused for the public, to be shown to the public, if possible - I'm addressing myself to the technical booth - but in a way that the whole document can be seen on (20)the screen, so to have a global view of it. Yes. Now, Mr. Petrusic, you may continue with your questions, please. Thank you. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.]
• Q.: So please continue, Witness, and tell us what General Zivanovic
(25)told you with respect to this stamp.
• Q.: Did you convey that information to your team, or rather to the Prosecution; that is, the interpretation given by General Zivanovic? • A.: Yes. I told that to Mark Harmon. • Q.: This column or line of the incoming stamp is -- the first column (10)says "received," the word "received" [as interpreted]? • A.: Is there a question, sir? • Q.: Yes. Yes. • A.: I'm sorry. I'm not understanding what your question is, sir. • Q.: On this incoming stamp -- (15) • A.: Correct. • Q.: -- is the first word on the left "received:"? • A.: I don't know. I cannot read B/C/S, sir. • Q.: Do you have a translation of that document, please? • A.: Yes, I do, and on the translation it does say "received" on the (20)upper left-hand column. • Q.: Beneath that word, do you see the word "processed"? • A.: Yes, I do, on the translation, absolutely. • Q.: And below that do you see the word "delivered"? • A.: Yes, I do, sir. (25)
• Q.: So let me repeat that General Zivanovic told you that all commands
• A.: That's correct. • Q.: Did you have any response to his comments? (5) • A.: No, none. • Q.: Are you aware that the heading "Received" indicates when the document was received in the room for encoding? • A.: No, I'm not aware of that. I'm only aware what the general told me, sir. (10) • Q.: So you conveyed the interpretation of General Zivanovic to Mr. Harmon? • A.: Absolutely. • Q.: Regarding the fact as to when, according to General Zivanovic's interpretation, the subordinate commands had confirmed reception of this (15)document? • A.: Yes, I did. • Q.: Were you aware of the fact that General Zivanovic had granted interviews to the media regarding his status in the Drina Corps in July 1995? (20) • A.: I understand he's given quite a few interviews to the press, sir. • Q.: Did you discuss that with him? • A.: He had told me he had given one particular interview after I'd met with him on April 23rd.
• Q.: After the 23rd of April, did he tell you anything about his
(25)interviews with the press?
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] May I ask the usher for his assistance, as we have a document that we should like to tender into evidence. (5)For Their Honours and the ELMO, please. THE REGISTRAR: This will be document number 180, D180. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] For the record, this document has been attached to the Defence filing of the 4th of May in attachment D. • A.: It's my understanding that this document may have to be done in (10)private session. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] This document, Mr. President, what I should like to quote from this document relates exclusively to the document of the 13th of July and the conversation that the investigator (15)had with General Zivanovic regarding this topic. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: I'm just reading the document now, and perhaps I need a moment to consult with the witness, because if there's a sensitivity identified in this document, she would be more aware of it than I would (20)be. So if I could have a moment to perhaps -- perhaps if we could recess for a moment. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic.
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. Harmon, I'm interested in the
last paragraph on page 2 of this document, that's all. That is the only
(25)area that I should like to analyse with this witness.
MR. HARMON: Again, I need to consult with the witness. If there's a sensitivity in the last paragraph or any of this document, we may need to conduct at least this part of the examination in private (5)session. So if I could have one moment to confer with the witness. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] How much time, more or less, do you need, Mr. Harmon? MR. HARMON: Two minutes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, do you have any (10)objection that we give Mr. Harmon two minutes to talk to the witness? MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] No, I don't object. I have no objection, but I wish to underline once again that what I intend to quote from this article is absolutely appropriate for public session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Harmon, you may speak with
(15)the witness now for two minutes, more or less. MR. HARMON: May we go into private session for just -- to address this document?
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let's go into private
(20)session for a few minutes.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, Mr. Petrusic, please proceed. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: Did General Zivanovic, at your meetings, mention the name of -- (25)
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, I do apologise, but
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Can you wait with that question for later on so that we don't have to switch back and forth? Can you ask it a little later? (5) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Very well. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. Petrusic. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] • Q.: You worked in the police. You have a great deal of experience in the work you do, in working with people. So my question -- next question (10)would be a general one. If from a number of articles or from what appears in the media, statements to the media which General Zivanovic made in -- during the period this trial went on, this trial was in process and which, in the opinion of the Defence, were different, that is to say, they differed to (15)one interview to the next the statements made, did you, in talking to General Zivanovic, in the discussions you had with him in view of the specific nature of the job you do, did you gain the impression that he was defending himself from something? • A.: I got the impression that he gave a lot of credibility and weight (20)to articles in the media that attacked him and didn't say very nice things about him. So he felt he needed to -- to speak out to that. But as a trained investigator, I don't know that I would put as much weight on the media that he seemed to do.
• Q.: Did he show you any article from the media, from the newspapers
(25)which attacked his credibility, the credibility of him as
• A.: He did. Actually, it said that he had been -- I did see an article. It was dated August the 24th. I want to say 2000 or 2000 -- August 24th, 2000, I believe. That was person from The Hague, a (5)spokesperson. Rick Butler was quoted as saying the general was in Potocari on the 12th of July. The General was adamant that he was physically not there. And that is the article that he did refer to while I spoke to him. • Q.: That means that in your opinion, he contested the statement made (10)by Mr. Butler, he challenged it? • A.: Oh, he absolutely challenged it. He said he wasn't there, and the article -- he was in disagreement with the article. Now, whether the article was a true account of what Mr. Butler said, I have no idea. • Q.: Did you ask General Zivanovic how the handover and takeover of (15)duty is conducted in the army at the level -- at the commanding level at which General Zivanovic himself was, how this actual procedure was done? • A.: Actually, I didn't have to ask him. He told me. He told me that Mladic had come to him between the 15th to the 20th of June, 1995, and then on the 11th, he stopped his duty in Bratunac, and on the 12th Krstic (20)was then put in command, and on the 13th, the general was then put in front of the troops to say goodbye at his headquarters in Vlasenica with Mladic and Krstic both there. • Q.: Therefore, General Zivanovic told you that the soldiers were lined up in Vlasenica when he was taking leave of them; is that right? (25)
• A.: Yes. He was saying goodbye to them.
• A.: Yes, he did. • Q.: And after that, you informed the Prosecutor with that document, (5)you apprised the Prosecution with the document, did you? • A.: I apprised them at first that I had seen it, and then I went back and I turned it over to them when I retrieved it on the 23rd, sir. • Q.: Did the Prosecutor, after receiving the document, ask you to establish links with General Zivanovic and to ask you for the records or (10)minutes of this handover and takeover of duty? • A.: No. He did not ask me to get any minutes or anything of that nature. The first I'm hearing of minutes is from you today, sir. • Q.: So you never heard of the minutes that were signed or did anybody tell you to ask for the record or minutes signed by Krstic, Zivanovic, and (15)Mladic? • A.: No. As I stated earlier, the first time I'm hearing about any minutes being signed by anyone is today from you, sir. • Q.: Did you ask, in addition to the document you received, for any other documents which would indicate the status of General Zivanovic or, (20)rather, a document concerning the handover and takeover of duty? • A.: No, I did not. MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has no further questions.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you,
(25)Mr. Petrusic.
MR. HARMON: I have one question I'd like to ask in private session and then some in public. • RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Harmon: (5)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. So you wish to
proceed in private session. Let us move into private session, please.
(15) JUDGE WALD: Witness JJ, did the General say anything at all about what he did immediately after this goodbye ceremony that he spoke about on the 13th? Did he say whether or not he continued to clean up any affairs he had in the army or whether he immediately went into private life or what? (20) • A.: He had stayed, I think, around until about the 15th in the area of Vlasenica, but he was no longer in command. He mentioned he had stayed at his brother's home a few nights in the area.
JUDGE WALD: Did you get the impression from that that although he
may have been in the area, he packed up and left, he had nothing more to
(25)do with the army, or, as can happen, he was, you know, cleaning up loose
• A.: He may have been cleaning up some loose ends, because he did mention that somebody asked him about vehicles, and he decided after that he wouldn't show up at his command headquarters any longer, because they (5)would expect that he was still in command or treat him that way. So he did say he was in the area, but we didn't go into specifics as to what he did or didn't do. JUDGE WALD: Did he mention there being any later ceremony, even of ceremonial -- symbolic, ceremonial significance after the 13th, saying (10)of goodbye, or not? • A.: There was some sort of dinner or something, I believe he said, on the 20th of July. It was just a luncheon or a dinner. JUDGE WALD: Did he describe what its purpose was or what kind of a -- (15) • A.: It kind of made it sound as -- there was just a goodbye dinner that you give the outgoing people. JUDGE WALD: Did he say who was there? • A.: Just a group of people. I didn't really go into it. JUDGE WALD: You don't know whether or not either General Krstic (20)or General Mladic were there? You don't know whether he said they were there or not?
• A.: Well, no. He said it was mostly all the command. I mean, there
were lots of different soldiers and people like that, but it was -- I
believe he said Krstic, Mladic, probably Andric. I'm not sure. He named
(25)a few people.
(5) • A.: No. The way he described this document to me was this was the end-all, be-all. He says the command changeover is completed, and that's the only -- the way I understood it, that this was all -- this was the end-all, be-all document for him. JUDGE WALD: Although, as you know from looking at the document (10)itself, it says "pursuant," I think, someplace, "pursuant to the decree of the President." Let me find it. But anyway -- • A.: Yes, it's right on the front, I know, but he never mentioned that to me. JUDGE WALD: He never talked about what was in that decree that (15)this was pursuant to? • A.: Right. Absolutely not. JUDGE WALD: Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Madam Judge Wald. (20)Witness JJ, in your conversations, did you talk about the reasons for the changeover of power, for why the people were being replaced, one commander replacing another?
• A.: General Zivanovic just told me that Mladic had told him it would
occur and that he -- General Zivanovic felt that Krstic was anxious to be
(25)in command, but he didn't give a reason as to why that changeover was
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Would I be correct in saying that Zivanovic presented the reasons and understood the reasons for the change being health reasons? Would I be correct in saying that? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. An article (10)was mentioned of the 24th of August. I would just like to ask you: There was a date that was mentioned, the 4th of July, and Zivanovic disagreed and said he wasn't at Potocari on the 4th of July. Is that a correct date or not? • A.: No. It would have been the 12th of July, sir, 1995. That is what (15)appeared in the article. And the General contends that he was not in Potocari on the 12th of July, 1995. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but I'm asking the question because the transcript, on page 26, line 19, mentions the 4th of July. So you're saying that the date in question is the 12th of July; is that (20)correct? • A.: Right. If I misspoke earlier, I'd like to correct that. It should be the 12th of July, 1995, sir. Thank you.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. Very well. Another
question. You said that the document was shown by General Zivanovic to
(25)General Radinovic in January or February. Do you have any idea of the
• A.: 2000. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Thank you. I don't think we have any more questions for you, Witness JJ. We thank you very much (5)for having come and for cooperating with us and we wish you every success in your work to come. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I would move for admission into evidence Prosecutor's Exhibit 905. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, perhaps you would like to state your views on the document. Any objections?
MR. PETRUSIC:
[Int.] The Defence would like to tender
into evidence Exhibit 180, and as far as Exhibit 905 is concerned, I think
it would be better to present our views after we hear the evidence put
(15)forward by the Defence in the proceedings in the course of the day. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Harmon. MR. HARMON: It is my understanding, Mr. President, that the Defence evidence will go to the weight of the document, not to its (20)admission, and therefore we would be seeking its admission into evidence now, and we have no objection to the Defence Exhibit 180 being admitted under seal.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Petrusic, would you like to
add anything with respect to the explanation made by Mr. Harmon just now
(25)with respect to document 905, Exhibit 905?
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Just a moment. Let me confer
with my colleagues. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The Chamber admits Exhibit 180 and reserves the right to decide with respect to the admission of document 905 until the end of today's proceedings. I think that the time has come to take a break. We're going to (10)adjourn for half an hour. --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m. --- On resuming at 11.26 a.m. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I see two people on their feet. Mr. Harmon. (15)
MR. HARMON: Mr. President. We have no additional witnesses to
call. We are going to now tender three expert reports, and what I would
like to do is describe for Your Honours' benefit, and for the benefit of
the public, summarise what's contained in those expert reports.
Two of the expert reports, the expert report prepared by
(20)C.H.W. ten Camp from the Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic
Institute and the expert report from Dr. J.A. de Koeijer, from the same
institute, were filed by the Office of the Prosecutor on the 11th of May,
and the Defence informed us in writing that they had no objection to those
reports. They informed us in writing on the 28th of May.
(25)The third expert report, a report prepared by Dr. W.P.F. Fagel
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Petrusic, do you have any objections to the admission of these reports or any other commentary. (10) MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has no objection. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Madam Registrar, can we have the number for the document, please? THE REGISTRAR: The first report will be marked 906, the second (15)report 907, and the Fagel report 908. MR. HARMON: We believe the Fagel report should be 909. THE REGISTRAR: 909. MR. HARMON: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I want to be sure. I see three (20)reports. Is -- the first report is 906, the second 907. Why is the third 909 and not 908?
MR. HARMON: There are three exemplars. We're more than happy to
submit copies of comparison documents. Those comparison documents were
initially marked as 908/1, 2, and 3. I'm prepared to submit those to Your
(25)Honours as well for examination. I have the original comparison documents
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Madam Registrar, we will (5)therefore have the first report marked 906, the second 907, and the third 909; is that right? THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Mr. President, that is correct. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In order to be able to understand, why have you left out 908? (10) THE REGISTRAR: Because the Prosecution already premarked it. It's, as Mr. Harmon explained, some exemplars, so we just skipped that number. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, then. Finally I'm happy, because I think I understand. (15)Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Mr. President, the three expert reports relate to
Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, a copy of which is on the ELMO.
So the Court understands why these expert reports have been
prepared, the Office of the Prosecutor, upon receiving Prosecutor's
(20)Exhibit 905, submitted that document for forensic examination to the
Ministry of Justice, Netherlands Forensic Institute to do a number of
tests on it and comparisons on it.
As Your Honours can see from Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, the
document is a document which is a handover of Corps Commander's duties
(25)information dated the 13th of July, issued from the Command of the Drina
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Harmon. We do not need to see the documents for the moment. (5)I would like to ask Mr. Petrusic whether he has any objection to the admission of those reports into evidence or not. Mr. Petrusic or Mr. Visnjic? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. As Mr. Petrusic has already said, the Defence has no objection to the (10)admission of these documents. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, then. The Chamber admits and orders the admission into evidence of Prosecution Exhibits 906, 907, and 909. Very well. Mr. Harmon. (15) MR. HARMON: We have no additional evidence to present to Your Honours. We will reserve our application for admission of Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 after the conclusion of the Defence submissions. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. So I now give the floor to Mr. Visnjic, I think it is, to present your arguments. (20)
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. I should
briefly like to refer to the expert reports that Mr. Harmon has just
tendered into evidence and which have been admitted by the Trial Chamber.
At the time that the Defence was supplied with Exhibit 905, it was
an entirely new document for us, and at that point in time, we denied it
(25)on all grounds. Later on, as the Prosecution conducted its investigation,
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Mr. Usher, will you please
bring in the witness.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Good morning,
(25)Professor Radinovic. Can you hear me?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In French, there is a saying, "We never say adieu but au revoir." So obviously there is an example, and we thank you very much for coming again. We will consider (5)this a continuation of your testimony, so you don't need to make the solemn declaration again. I just wish to remind you that you are continuing under oath. Do you accept that formulation? THE WITNESS: [Int.] Yes, Your Honour. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Then please take a seat. (10)
WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC
[Resumed] JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Professor Radinovic, do you prefer to be called Professor or General? Which is your preference? Or Professor-General, General-Professor? (15) THE WITNESS: You can call me by whatever name you like, just don't break me. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] No. No. Don't worry. If you don't behave, we will caution you. So we can call you Professor or General. (20)So, Professor, you will now be answering questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic. • EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: Good morning, General Radinovic. • A.: Good morning. (25)
• Q.: General Radinovic, before we try to explain the document dated the
• A.: It was on the 14th of February, 2000. • Q.: Where did you see General Zivanovic? • A.: I saw General Zivanovic in Valjevo, which is a town about 100 (10)kilometres from Belgrade. • Q.: Was that your only encounter with him related to this topic? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Did you perhaps meet again with General Zivanovic in connection with some other topics? (15) • A.: No. I never met with General Zivanovic again for any other reason except on the 14th of February, 2000, in Valjevo. • Q.: General, where did that meeting take place? • A.: We met in the army club in Valjevo. • Q.: Who was present during that meeting? (20) • A.: There were the two of us present at the meeting, General Miletic and a gentleman whose name I cannot recall, but I think he was the president of the association of officers in reserve of Valjevo, but I'm not quite sure of that. In any event, there was a person who was in contact with the army club, and we met in his office. (25)
• Q.: What did you discuss during that meeting? Briefly.
• Q.: General, you have brought your notes with you, haven't you? • A.: Yes. It's in a block. I encoded it Milenko, the 14th of (10)February, 2000. My handwriting is rather bad, but if necessary, I can assist in deciphering it. As I have some other personal notes in this block, if this needs to be tendered, I would request that those pages be torn out; if necessary, of course. • Q.: General, at the meeting, were you shown a document dated the 13th (15)of July, 1995, an information on the handover of duties? • A.: No, sir, that document was not shown to me. I saw it for the first time when you gave it to me to take a look at. • Q.: General, at that meeting, for which you kept notes, was any mention made of the handover of duty between General Zivanovic and General (20)Krstic?
• A.: No. That event, that act, was not mentioned at all at the
meeting. As I said, this was the first meeting, and I had counted on
having several and that the time would come when that would be discussed.
At that point in time and at that stage, this was not for me of the
(25)greatest importance because I felt that I knew the basic facts about it.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Perhaps it would be best for you to continue with your examination, and then later, at the end, we can address that particular issue. So please continue now. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] • Q.: General, how long did the meeting last before you went for lunch, roughly? • A.: I'm not quite sure, but I guess it was about two, two and a half, maybe three hours, not longer than that. We arrived around 10.00, we went (15)for lunch between 1.00 and 2.00, so that would approximately be the time we spent together. • Q.: You said that the second part of the meeting took place during lunchtime. • A.: That was a conversation at lunch. It wasn't a meeting. (20) • Q.: Where did you have lunch? • A.: We had lunch in a restaurant which was not a very impressive one in appearance or name for me to remember it. I simply have not remembered the name of the restaurant. • Q.: Who was present at the luncheon? (25)
• A.: Apart from the two of us, there was General Miletic and this
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I should like to ask the registrar to provide the Chamber and the Prosecution with the witness statement. (5) • Q.: General, sir, did you ever go to General Zivanovic's house in Valjevo? • A.: No, sir, I was never in his house. • Q.: Do you know, General, that General Zivanovic said that the meeting with you was held in his home in Valjevo? (10) • A.: I know that as of a few days ago. You yourself told me that. • Q.: General, during the luncheon, did General Zivanovic show you any documents, and did you take down any notes during the lunch? • A.: General Zivanovic did not show me any documents at all during the lunch. The documents stayed in the office we had our talk in. And during (15)lunchtime I made no notes, because it was a leisurely conversation at lunch and didn't have anything to do with any official business. It wasn't of an official nature at all. • Q.: General, the individual who had lunch with you and who brought you to Valjevo, was his name Svetozar Perunicic? (20) • A.: Yes. I knew him by his nickname, who was Toza. I didn't know that his actual first name was Svetozar, but Toza was probably a nickname from the full name Svetozar. • Q.: General, did I show you his statement a few days ago with respect to that meeting and the talk you had with General Zivanovic? (25)
• A.: Yes, you did, sir. You showed me it.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'm sorry, I'm back here. I will be cross-examining General Radinovic. This is a statement of the driver who (5)drove General Radinovic and General Miletic to Valjevo. I've already expressed to Mr. Visnjic that I object to this witness' statement being admitted through General Radinovic. This is a man who purely gives evidence of the trip down to Valjevo and what he knows about what happened. He's a pure fact witness, and he should be here to give this (10)evidence. Apparently, it's Mr. Visnjic's cousin, this witness. Why he's not here, I don't know, but I really do think it is inappropriate for this witness to be commenting on the factual evidence of a witness who is not even here. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, your response to (15)the objection, please.
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Certainly, Mr. President. The
Defence, only on the 28th of May, was informed through the Prosecution and
the Prosecution motion as to which witnesses would be called in the part
relative to the summary of the investigator of the Tribunal. So we were
(20)only informed on the 28th of May that General Zivanovic had stated that
he, to General Radinovic and Miletic at a meeting held in his own home, in
his own house, showed documents. The witness was testifying to that. We
heard him a moment previously.
Unfortunately, between the 28th and the present day,
(25)Mr. President, we have been unable to do anything for technical reasons,
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, if I understand you (15)correctly, the Prosecutor is not objecting to you asking questions. They're going to object to having the witness statement admitted -- tendered and admitted into evidence. Is that right? I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Cayley in a moment. But I think you can go ahead and ask your questions and use the statement other than in the sense of (20)subsequently asking to have it tendered. Is that right, before I give Mr. Cayley the floor?
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, my sense is this witness should be
here. If he's talking -- one of the essential elements of this hearing is
to deal with whether or not this trip took place, as to what documents
(25)were shown to General Radinovic, as well as offering his expert
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, why isn't the witness here? Why didn't you think of that?
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the information about
(20)the fact that is now the subject of a discussion here, although it is
another matter whether that fact should be the subject of discussion - we
took it to be an attack on the credibility of our witness - we received
that only on the 28th. Now, I wasn't able to reach the witness before the
31st of May. I took the statement on the 1st of June. All the business
(25)with respect to getting visas and everything else we needed, we didn't
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, would you like to add anything at this point? No? MR. CAYLEY: Very briefly, to make things absolutely clear, Your (15)Honour. This is a statement which they took on the 1st of June. So they took this statement, this is the statement of Perunicic, the man who is not here. They took it on the 1st of June, for whatever reason. So they were aware of this fact which is in dispute, which is the subject of this hearing today when they took this statement on the 1st of June. (20)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. Very well. Just a
moment. The Judges will confer.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] The Chamber is of the opinion
that you, Mr. Visnjic, may ask questions of this witness, may put your
(25)questions to this witness with respect to the facts, the facts that
(15) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Thank you, Mr. President. • Q.: General, the driver who took you to the army building, the Yugoslav army club in Valjevo, did he stay to wait for you in front of that building?
• A.: The car was parked in front of the building. When I went into the
(20)building, he stayed there. Whether he was there throughout the time I was
in the building, I cannot say, but when we left the building, when we came
out of the building, the car was parked in front. Now, whether the driver
had moved away in the meantime and come back, I can't say. I didn't
consider that to be important, so I didn't pay attention to details of
(25)that kind.
• A.: Well, it's very close by. Valjevo isn't a big town. Even if it (5)was right the other side of town, it wouldn't have been too far away. • Q.: General, did you perhaps go to some other place in between those two locations. From the point you left the army club building to the restaurant for lunch, did you go anywhere else in the meantime? • A.: No, sir. We went to the restaurant directly. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further questions on that area. • Q.: General, may we now move on to another area? The Defence considers this area to be a key one with respect to the decision in this document. (15)The document that we're discussing is titled "Information on the Handover of Duty," and it is dated the 13th of July, 1995, signed by Lieutenant Colonel Radenko Jovicic. Did the Defence ask you to present your views on this document, General, which the -- General Zivanovic handed to the Prosecution? (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Just a minute, General, please. Mr. Visnjic, the document has a number, and that number is 905, just to identify it. I apologise for interrupting you, General. • A.: May I continue? (25)
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.]
• A.: Yes, the Defence did provide me with the document for me to study and to comment on it and that is what I did in written form. I did so in writing. My appraisal of the document, I handed it to you and I assume (5)you have it as one of your documents, as a piece of evidence. • Q.: General, is that your statement of the 26th of May, 2001? • A.: Yes, it is. • Q.: General, is this document which has been marked Prosecution Exhibit 905, can that document be relevant as to determining the date when (10)General Krstic took over the command of the Drina Corps? What is your opinion on that point? • A.: My opinion is that this document cannot be relevant in order to establish the date when General Krstic took over his duties as Commander of the Drina Corps. (15) • Q.: What would an official document look like on the handover and takeover of duty at the level of corps command, General? That is my question to you. And I should also at the same time like to ask you when --
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] That is to say, I would like to ask
(20)the usher to place on the ELMO a document which represents Exhibit 1,
within the framework of the statement of Professor Radinovic, and that has
been marked as Exhibit 181.
Mr. President, may I just give a technical explanation. The
Defence took General Radinovic's statement, and it has been presented as
(25)one sole exhibit, with several parts to it, so that when I present and
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I was going to ask you the reasons for this. Would you like to go into private session to explain? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, briefly, please.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Let us move into
(10)private session for a brief moment.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are in open session. Please continue, Mr. Visnjic. (25)
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.]
• A.: I have an example of an official record on the transfer of duty in the army of Republika Srpska, between the representatives of the Main (5)Staff of the VRS and the chief of the General Staff, which was compiled on the 24th of December, 1996. In that document -- the document, in fact, describes what takes place during the transfer of duty, which proceeds on the basis of a plan, plan on the transfer of duty, which is compiled and which contains the basic elements, the participants, and the deadlines of (10)this process which is referred to as the transfer of duty. So there are different points which describe the different activities involved in the transfer of duty, and it stipulates the activities which have not been implemented and the reasons for which they have not been implemented. At the end of the document we have the signatures of the person handing over (15)duty, the person taking over duty, and the person who has appointed the individual and who states and verifies that the transfer of duty has in fact taken place. So this is an example of the official document, and its official title is "Official Record of the Transfer of Duty," and all transfers of duty must be conducted in that fashion. (20) • Q.: In that sense, what is the 13th of July document lacking?
• A.: The 13th of July document is not an official record on the
transfer of duty, which would be the sole relevant document to establish
the date when the transfer of duty took place between General Krstic and
General Zivanovic. That document is only an information. It is
(25)information about the fact that the transfer of duty had allegedly taken
• Q.: General, when we take a look at the first paragraph of the 13th of July document, Exhibit 905, we see that mention is made of the decree of (10)the president of Republika Srpska. How can you comment? What are your comments to that? • A.: My comments are as follows: The person who processed the document endeavoured to refer to the decree and say "pursuant to the decree," which it was in official force, attempted to base it on the relevant document. (15) • Q.: General, was there indeed a decree of the president of Republika Srpska? Did it exist on the appointment of General Krstic, Radoslav, on the 13th of July, 1995?
• A.: As is common knowledge and has been ascertained during this trial,
the document on the appointment of General Krstic to the post of Drina
(20)Corps Commander and the document on relieving of duty, General Zivanovic
as Commander of the Drina Corps, on the 13th of July, when the document
was processed, the document we're discussing did not exist. The decree of
the president of Republika Srpska, on the appointment of Krstic and the
relieving of duty of Zivanovic, was compiled on the 14th of July, and it
(25)came into force on the 15th of July. That is to say, at the time when
• Q.: General, General Zivanovic told the investigator of the OTP that he possessed this document because on the basis of that document, certain (5)rights are derived. • A.: That was my understanding. • Q.: My first question is: Which are the rights that can be obtained upon the transfer of duty? What rights does that transfer effect? • A.: A transfer of duty entails various rights and obligations. Those (10)are the disciplinary rights of control and command over certain units and institutions, then also the right to deploy units in combat, that is, command in combat operations, and certain material and financial rights and entitlements that accompany a certain position, and certain personal financial entitlements, various allowances that are attached to various (15)positions. • Q.: General, on the basis of a document of this kind, is it possible to realise any such rights? I am referring to OTP Exhibit 905. For instance, is it possible on the basis of this document to realise a salary? (20) • A.: No. On the basis of such a document, it is not possible to realise any material or financial rights, because there is a certain form that has to be filled in by the person taking over duty and which has to be certified by his superior officer, and that document is called a report on the takeover of duty. (25)
• Q.: General, on the basis of this document, is it possible to obtain
• A.: No. That document cannot be a basis for any of those rights. • Q.: And finally, General, on the basis of such a document, is it possible to acquire the right of disciplinary command over units? (5) • A.: No. That right cannot be realised on the basis of this document either. • Q.: Thank you. General, how would you explain the fact that General Zivanovic has -- had in his possession the original document in April 2001 in relation to the rules and regulations governing the handling (10)of documents? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher to place on the ELMO Defence Exhibit 181 -- from D181, Exhibit 2. • Q.: General, how is the handling of documents regulated?
• A.: It is clearly regulated how documents should be handled. The
(15)first thing we need to know is that combat documents which came into being
in wartime are not destroyed. They are permanently stored because they're
part of history. Secondly, combat documents, after being archived, cannot
be issued in original form for use outside the archive's premises. Only
upon permission may a photocopy be issued or a certified copy. And these
(20)things are regulated clearly by the rules.
So in view of that, the fact that General Zivanovic had the
document in his possession shows that the archives were not handled as
they should have been handled in accordance with the rules. So
unauthorised use was made of the archives.
(25)And a second conclusion that one could make is that this document
• Q.: Is that regulated by Rule 34 of the rules on the protection and use of archived material? (5) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher to place on the ELMO article 34, please. • Q.: General, do you know whether copies of this document were found in units of the Drina Corps? • A.: In my preparations for this testimony, I studied the letter, the (10)response of the Commander of the 5th Corps of the army of Republika Srpska, which is the legal successor of the Drina Corps, and at the request of the Defence team, for these documents that we are discussing today, and in this letter of response, the Commander of the 5th Corps informs the Defence team that in the archives of the Drina Corps, that is (15)the 5th Corps today, and its subordinated units, no such document was found. • Q.: General, is it customary for such notification or information to be sent to commands of subordinate units? • A.: No, sir, it is not customary for subordinate commands to be sent (20)such a piece of information. • Q.: Why?
• A.: Because according to the rules of service, it is clearly regulated
how a transfer of duty is carried out at the level of operative
formations. And a corps is an operative formation, and it is prescribed
(25)that the transfer duty has to be attended by the immediately subordinate
MR. PETRUSIC: [Int.] Could I ask the usher, in the (5)meantime to place on the ELMO Exhibit 4 from D181. It is Article 609 of the Rules of Service of the army of Yugoslavia, regulating the transfer of duty. • Q.: General, Article 609 of the Rules of Service of the army of Yugoslavia is identical to Article 555 of the Rules of Service of the army (10)of Yugoslavia at the time of the events in Srebrenica, which was taken over by the army of Republika Srpska at the time. Am I right? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Could you comment on Article 609 as it applies to the specific situation we are discussing? (15)
• A.: In Article 609, as I have already said, it is clearly stipulated
that the person organising and carry out the transfer of duty from the
call level upwards, that the immediately subordinated units, commanders,
and institutions have to be present at that event, and this is a fact of
exception, importance for this discussion.
(20)And if the transfer of duty is carried out as claimed by
General Zivanovic or as this document of the 13th of July wishes to impose
as a conclusion, then there is absolutely no need for the personnel body
of the corps to inform subordinate units that a transfer of duty had taken
place, because they necessarily would have attended that transfer of duty,
(25)so that there is no such obligation to inform them about it.
• A.: The logical thing would be that such an information or such a notification would be sent to those who may be interested but who were not present, and they would be adjacent corps or those operational units of (5)the army of Republika Srpska which acted together with the Drina Corps. And such a notification would also be sent to the person who appointed the new commander and relieved the old commander of his duty. And the most natural thing would be for the Superior Command, that is the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska, to be informed about it in a daily combat (10)report, because this is a fact of very great importance. • Q.: General, do you know whether anywhere -- in any archives of any of the corps of the president of the republic or of the Main Staff, was such a document found in any of those archives? Or to be more specific and clearer, is there any evidence that this document exists anywhere else (15)except in the hands of General Zivanovic? • A.: I personally have not managed to trace this document. You, as the Defence team, have not given it to me, so I assume that you did not have it in your possession. The Prosecution, during the time I was working on my expert report, also failed to provide me with it. And on the basis of (20)all that, it is my conclusion that in no archives does that document exist. Therefore, solely in the possession of General Zivanovic. • Q.: General, the OTP Exhibit 905 says that the hitherto commander, Major General Milenko Zivanovic, has been appointed to new duties in the army of Yugoslavia. That is Republika Srpska army. (25)
• A.: Yes, there is such a statement there.
• A.: Yes. I can confirm that there is a major discrepancy between those two statements, but why the person who processed the document decided to say that General Zivanovic had been appointed to a new duty (10)rather than as stated in the decree that he was being placed at the disposal of the army, I don't know why he did it. I just know that he falsified the facts regarding appointment. General Zivanovic, in the decree of the president, is being placed at the disposal of the army and is not being appointed to any new duty in the army of Republika Srpska and (15)still less so in the army of Yugoslavia. • Q.: Also in the third paragraph of this document, OTP 905, it says that Colonel Svetozar Andric was appointed chief of the staff of the corps. General, did Colonel Andric take over duty on the 13th of July? (20)1995?
• A.: In the document, that is, this piece of information on
notification, the processor makes a distinction and says that General
Krstic took over the post of Corps Commander and that Colonel Andric was
nominated or appointed. These two words are identical in our language.
(25)So General Krstic, as the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps,
MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I will have another maybe 15 minutes or so for the examination, so I don't know whether the (15)Chamber is inclined to have a break now, or should we continue? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think perhaps it would be preferable to have a break now for lunch. So we'll now have our 50-minute break. --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m. (20) --- On resuming at 1.47 p.m.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Visnjic, let us continue and
hopefully finish. Oh, yes. I see. We're always prompted by the wish to
finish our work.
Mr. Visnjic, I think that now you will not be working in a
(25)vacuum. You can really continue your examination.
• Q.: Please will you look at OTP Exhibit 905, the document dated the 13th of July. General, in your statement of the 26th of May, 2000, you have referred to the stamp, the registration stamp of the corps' dispatch (5)service to be found on this document. Could you briefly comment on this stamp. • A.: This stamp indicates the date and signature of the person who received the document and the time when it was processed. However, the column headed "delivered" has not been filled in, and this does rouse some (10)suspicion as to the reliability of this document. In view of the fact that it was not found in any of the archives, as can be seen from the letter sent to the Defence counsel by the Commander of the 5th Corps VRS of the Bosnian Serb army, one must doubt whether it was sent to subordinate units, and that would explain why this column is empty. This (15)need not necessarily be so, but one can doubt -- have doubts along those lines. • Q.: General, there are two time indications: One is 2000 hours and the other is 2035. This second figure, 2035, can it be the time when all units to whom this document was sent confirmed that they had received it? (20) • A.: No, it can't be that at all. It does not indicate the time that the units confirmed they received it. It is simply the time when it was forwarded.
• Q.: General, I should now like to ask the usher to give to the Trial
Chamber Exhibit 181, section Exhibit 5, and could it be placed on the
(25)ELMO, please. The English version, please.
• Q.: General, how do you explain the relationship between the document of the 17th of July given to you by the Defence and the document of the 13th of July, OTP Exhibit 905? (10)
• A.: I have already commented at length on the document of the 13th of
July, and on the basis of those comments, it is possible to infer what
probative value I attach to this document in view of the crucial fact that
we are seeking to establish, and that is when General Krstic took over the
duties of Drina Corps Commander.
(15)As for this document dated the 17th of July, I should like to
comment on several of its aspects.
First of all, it is underlined in the document that the General
Staff plans to give a send-off to the Commander of the Drina Corps.
Secondly, and this is particularly important, the document is actually
(20)signed by General Zivanovic. According to the rules on official
correspondence, Article 65 on page 43, there is an explicit provision
saying that documents issued by a command have to be signed by the
commander of that command.
The document with the heading "Drina Corps Headquarters," number
(25)so-and-so, confidential number so-and-so, date 17 July, and a brief
• Q.: General, you said that the transfer of duty is a formal ceremony. • A.: Yes. (5) • Q.: Is that regulated by any rules? • A.: Yes. It is regulated by the rules of service. • Q.: The rules of service? • A.: Yes, and a provision headed "Military Ceremonies." One of those military ceremonies is the transfer of duty. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the Defence has no further questions for this witness. • Q.: General, thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. (15)Mr. Cayley, your witness for the cross-examination. MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. • CROSS-EXAMINED by Mr. Cayley: • Q.: Good afternoon, Mr. Radinovic. • A.: Good afternoon, Mr. Prosecutor. (20) MR. CAYLEY: Could you move the ELMO so that I can see the witness. Just move it forward a little bit.
• Q.: Mr. Radinovic, I want to take you back to December of last year
and to the evidence that you first gave to this Court, your first expert
opinion, and I just want to quote to you something that you said, and you
(25)can just confirm whether or not you said it. It's on page 7793 of the
• A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: So I'm right in saying that you have never commanded a brigade? • A.: Yes, you're right. • Q.: And you've never commanded a division? • A.: Yes. • Q.: And you've never commanded a corps, an army corps? (15) • A.: That's right. • Q.: Your command experience is limited to the battalion level; is that correct? • A.: Yes, practical experience, but for three years I worked in the operational group of the General Staff where the army's organised, and I (20)was -- led a project for the build-up and the construction of the army and the command system within it, and the public is well aware of that fact in Yugoslavia, and all the officers know that too, those who are at top posts in the army.
• Q.: General, how many handover/takeover ceremonies have you attended
(25)yourself for a corps, a division, or a brigade? The handover/takeover
• A.: I attended many transfers of duty from -- of the same rank, because the same way at the command of the operative level, duty is (5)transferred as it is in the General Staff, in the centres of the higher schools of learning and so on. The procedure is identical. • Q.: [Previous translation continues].. that's not the question I asked you. How many handover/takeover ceremonies at the corps, divisional or brigade level, have you attended? Forget the General Staff. Corps, (10)division, brigade; how many have you attended of those handover/takeover ceremonies? • A.: I did not attend any of the ceremonies of the transfer of duty of Corps Commanders, but I did -- I was present at many occasions of persons of the same rank. And the methodology is identical in which the transfer (15)of duty takes place, and I myself took over and handed over a number of duties in that same way. MR. CAYLEY: Can we have Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 made available? • Q.: Do you have your report in front of you, General? • A.: You mean the latest one? (20) • Q.: Yes. • A.: Yes. • Q.: Can you turn to paragraph 13 of that report? MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President and Your Honours, do you have this report in front -- you do. (25)
• Q.: Now, I'm not going to paraphrase your conclusion, because I'm sure
• A.: Could I please not read it out, because my throat is not in the (5)best condition. So unless I have to read it out loud, I would rather not. • Q.: It's important that you read it out. Let's not play games with each other. Let's just read out paragraph 13. This cross-examination is going to be relatively short and then I'll ask you a few questions. Please read paragraph 13. (10) • A.: [As read] "I also note that in the section 'incoming stamp,' while the subsection is indicating that the letter of the 13th of July, 1995 had been processed as well when it had been received, have been completed. The subsection of the form labelled 'submitted' is not filled in. In my opinion, this indicates that the document had never been forwarded from (15)the Drina Corps signal department. One could conclude from this fact either that the document was created by General Zivanovic at the time for some unofficial purpose or was created after the fact." MR. CAYLEY: Could you put 905 on the ELMO. • Q.: General, if you could just point to the box where there is this (20)omission so that Their Honours can see the box that you're referring to. MR. CAYLEY: Put the B/C/S, because he'll understand that.
• Q.: Can you point to the missing line, General, which
supports -- okay. So it's the third line on that document. And
essentially, because that line is missing, you conclude that this document
(25)was created by General Zivanovic for an unofficial purpose or was created
• A.: On various occasions I looked at various documents. For this concrete subject, I just looked at this document and came to the conclusion that one can conclude; not that it was 100 per cent certain, (10)but that one may conclude that. But that does not mean an assertion. A "maybe" is not a definite certainty. MR. CAYLEY: If Prosecutor's Exhibit 431 could be placed in front of the General, and you can put the English version of this on the ELMO. Ms. Krystal, it would be helpful, actually, if the Judges could (15)be -- do they have copies of these documents, because ... No. Okay. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, we understand your preoccupations and thank you very much, but if we place the document on the ELMO, we would be able to follow, unless there is some detail which you have the intention of demonstrating. (20) MR. CAYLEY: I think in a sense it's actually also important to see the document in the original language, because even though you can't read it, you'll be able to see specifically what I'm speaking about. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I think that we can see it on the ELMO. (25)
MR. CAYLEY:
• A.: I claim that there is that omission in this document too, that the provision I spoke about does not exist here and that that is irregular too. Because if there is a column "delivered," then it should be filled in. I found the same situation in many other documents where this (10)omission exists, and I am just pointing out this degree of irregularity that exists. • Q.: General, you stated in your report that that omission indicated that the document was created for some unofficial purpose or after the fact. This is a document dated 8th of July, signed by General Zivanovic, (15)concerning events in and around Srebrenica on the 8th of July. Are you stating that this particular document, based on your reasoning, was also created for some unofficial purpose or after the fact? Is that what you're suggesting? • A.: No, that is not what I'm suggesting, because the document has all (20)the other features making it a relevant document for the events it refers to, whereas the 13th of July one indicates the facts, and many of its contents -- many of the contents can be challenged, and that is just one more reason for me to contest that document and to challenge it.
MR. CAYLEY: If we could have Prosecutor's Exhibit 462. And
(25)again, Mr. Usher, the final page in English of that document with the
• Q.: General, this is a document dated the 13th of July of 1995, again signed by General Zivanovic, and again you can see the final line of the signals department stamp has not been completed. And again, I ask you the (5)same question: Can you conclude from this fact - and I'm quoting directly from your report - do you conclude from this fact that this particular order was created by General Zivanovic at the time for some unofficial purpose or was created after the fact? And this is a document to which you've already referred, and you never stated anything in your evidence at (10)the time about that particular stamp, just to remind you of your previous evidence. • A.: In answer to your previous question, Mr. Prosecutor, I already said that there are quite a number of documents which I personally came across where this column, "delivered," was empty, so I'm sure you would be (15)able to find a lot more documents if we were to delve into them. But what I said was that many elements of the 13th of July document are such that they indicate that it is an irregular document, and this is just one more reason which points to that fact. This document, the one you've just mentioned and shown, does not have all those additional other elements, (20)and so that column was not sufficient reason for me to reject it as irrelevant. But there is a certain degree of irregularity, the fact that this column was not been filled in. That stands.
• Q.: If we could now move to Prosecutor's Exhibit 830. Now, General,
this is an order dated the 11th of July of 1995, again signed by Major
(25)General Zivanovic, and it's another conclusion that you reached which
• A.: You needn't read it. I remember very well what I said. I just said that this particular fact, when it is borne in mind, and the fact that the document was not uncovered in any of the archives either of subordinate or superior units of the Drina Corps, then we can conclude or (10)one can have suspicions that this was sent out at all. One can doubt whether this was sent out at all. So what I stated, I stated within the context of the letter, the response of the Commander of the VRS, 5th Corps, at the request of the Defence. (15) MR. CAYLEY: Can we just go into closed session for a moment, please, Mr. President. I want to refer to the evidence of a witness, and if I say what I'm going to say, it will identify him, so ...
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. Let us move into private
session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, we're in open session. Please proceed. MR. CAYLEY: If the witness can be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit (5)463. Could you move it up, please, a bit, Mr. Usher. No, sorry, up so the writing at the bottom of the order can be seen. That's the important part. Your Honours, just for a reference point, this is the first order from General Krstic of the 13th of July, 1995. It's the first one that we (10)know about. • Q.: Now, General, at the bottom of that document you will see -- although the stamp is illegible, you will see the marks of the signals encryptor from the Drina Corps signals department, and again, you can see that the third line of that particular stamp is missing, the delivery (15)line. Now, General Krstic -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, I do apologise, but may we have the B/C/S placed on the ELMO for us to be able to have a look at that too? (20)
MR. CAYLEY: And if you -- Your Honours, it's actually, I know,
quite hard to orient yourself here, but if you were to have a document
with a stamp, which had a stamp on it where you could see the stamp marks,
you will see that this actually accords exactly. It's just a stamp -- the
ink from the stamp is not legible because we only ever received this
(25)document as a photographic copy.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, I see you rising. (5)Are you on your feet? Do you wish to make an objection? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, Your Honour, Mr. President. If this is Exhibit 463, so far we have not received this. Any of the copies of the document with a stamp. Now, it is up to us to imagine whether that is a stamp or there isn't, but I'm quite sure that the copies that we (10)received and the copies that are in the court files do not have a stamp. So the question is: Are we to imagine that the stamp was placed on the document at one point? But I'm quite sure what we received as the Defence team, that none of our copies have a visible stamp. This looks as if there might be a stamp, but what we received contains absolutely no (15)visible stamp. Otherwise, we did examine this document. I don't want to challenge something that Mr. Cayley is saying, but I just want to make matters clear. On none of the copies that we have in our possession, that we received, do we have a visible stamp, is the stamp visible. (20)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, but I think that was what
Mr. Cayley was saying, that they had a copy and not the original and that
we can imagine the ink of the stamp being there, because they received a
copy. But there are always these three lines - received, processed, and
delivered - with the three columns. And as the photocopy lost the ink
(25)part of the stamp, we only see the lines, the two lines. I think that
MR. CAYLEY: That's exactly ... I'm sorry, I've obviously created some confusion. We received this document in its current state. We have never seen this document with visible stamp lines on it, and exactly as (5)you said, I was asking the Court to imagine that at some stage there was a stamp around it, because the lines on here are identical to the lines of script writing that you see in stamps on other documents. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So, Mr. Visnjic, is that what you wish to remark for the record, Mr. Visnjic? (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Yes, Mr. President. I know that there is no copy with a visible stamp. It is up to us to imagine it. I'm just saying that we don't have any such copy. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, then. Mr. Cayley, you may proceed. (15) MR. CAYLEY: • Q.: Now, General, you can see from this document that the third line, the delivery section, is missing. And before I ask you a question, I just want to tell you what General Krstic said about this document. He was asked the following question: (20) • Q.: If we could go to Exhibit 463. This is an order dated 13 July, time stamped 2030 hours by Major General Radoslav Krstic, commander, entitled Command of the Drina Corps. General, where -- first of all, is this a genuine order that you signed? (25)
• A.: Yes.
(5) • A.: You can go on for three days asking me the same question, but there are several elements. • Q.: General, I'm asking you: In respect of this document, based on your reasoning, are you saying that this document that General Krstic has said is genuine was never sent out from the Drina Corps? It's your (10)reasoning, sir. • A.: All the other elements of this document, except for the omission of the third column, speak in favour of its authenticity, and there's no reason to doubt it, the more so as this document was found in the archives of the Drina Corps, the subordinate and superior units. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Cayley, I'm sorry for interrupting you. General Radinovic, was there a rule saying that the three lines of the stamp - that is, received, processed, and delivered - needed to be filled, filled in? (20)
• A.: In the rules on official correspondence, it says that all the
columns have to be filled in, if not on the telegram, then in the delivery
book, and probably for telegrams in which the third column was not filled
in. In the delivery book there must be a record of when it was
delivered. This is an indication that doesn't have great specific weight,
(25)but it does lead me to doubt the authenticity of the document, but
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, but General, do you see any difference between the established rules, the rules in the regulations, (5)and the practice that you are witnessing? Take an example: You say that in general, according to the rules, all three lines have to be filled in, but you are just about to observe that there are many documents in which all the lines were not filled in. What does this difference mean for you? First of all, is there a difference between what should have been (10)done and what was done; and if so, then what does this mean for you? What does it signify? • A.: Obviously there is a difference. Both of us can see that, Mr. President. But I cannot be happy because of these irregularities in official correspondence. It is my duty to draw attention to those (15)irregularities. How important these are in each individual case, it is up to our judgement, but this is one of the elements that prompted me to say that I had certain doubts regarding the authenticity of the document, as it is not possible to find it in any of the archives of the Drina Corps or any other units. (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes, General. You said that you are not satisfied in seeing that all the columns were not filled, but you're not satisfied as a professor. Would it be right to put it that way? Yes or no. • A.: Not quite, but yes, as a professor as well. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] As you can see, General
• A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Can we agree, then, that there is always a discrepancy between theory and practice, or between the law, the rule, and the application of the law? (10) • A.: Not always, but there is a difference. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] It's possible to have such a difference? • A.: Yes, quite possible, but that difference should always -- one should always seek to eliminate it, to make practice correspond to theory (15)as much as possible. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much for your assistance, Professor and General. Continue, Mr. Cayley, please. MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on from this direction. (20) THE INTERPRETER: Mike, please.
MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on from this missing portion of the stamp
now, Mr. President. I think I've probably exhausted the point. But there
is one more question I want to ask you about the stamps, and if the
witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit 910.
(25)Prosecutor's Exhibit 910, Mr. President, Your Honours, are two
• Q.: General, do you have the Serbian version of this in front of you? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, General, what I want you to concentrate on on this document (10)are the stamps at the bottom. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Usher, could you move the document across. If we could have -- if you could pan the camera out, technical booth, please, so that both documents can be seen by the public, so that essentially both stamps are in view. That's perfect, perfect. Thank (15)you.
• Q.: Now, General, we have had these two documents forensically
examined and the handwriting expert has concluded that the manuscript
writing in the two stamps is possibly written by the same person. That's
Prosecutor's Exhibit 909. The only reason that they came to the
(20)conclusion of possible is because document 463 is a photographic copy and
it's very difficult to carry out forensic examination on a photographic
copy as opposed to an original. But they did, within the body of their
results, state that one of the conclusions that could be reached was that
the relevant entries and signatures on both documents have been written by
(25)the same person.
• A.: Yes. At 2000 hours on the 13th of July. (5) • Q.: Can you tell me what time the document on the right was received by the communication centre, if you can read it? It's very faint. • A.: I think it is the same. I think it is the same time, 2000 hours. • Q.: So Krstic's first order was received by the communication centre at 2000 hours on the 13th of July. And I won't make you read this, but (10)the document on the left, the Jovicic document, was processed at 2035 hours and the Krstic order was processed at 2030 hours. Now, General, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that it's entirely logical that the document notifying the command of Zivanovic's retirement and Krstic's first order as the Corps Commander would be (15)received at the same time in the Drina Corps signals department, wouldn't it? • A.: I don't see any absolute complementarity between these two documents, the more so as this is done by the personnel officer; and this one to the right is signed by the deputy commander, or rather the Chief of (20)Staff of the Drina Corps at the time. So I see no link why the two should complement one another, except for the fact that they arrived at the same time. • Q.: Can you read out to the Judges the signature box on Prosecutor's Exhibit 463, what it says? Can you read from "commandant" downwards? (25)
• A.: "Commander, Major General Radoslav Krstic."
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Before moving on, I have a question. General Radinovic, you see on the right this order from General Krstic which has a stamp without a stamp. On your left you have the same (5)stamp, which has been filled in. Would it be possible for you to imagine what was written in hand and forget the lines of the stamp for a moment; and if so, what would be the result? Imagine if there were no lines on the stamp on the left-hand document. • A.: I did not understand the question, Mr. President. On the (10)left-hand side we have a document -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I'm sure it must be my fault. I'll be more direct. If you were to delete the lines of the stamp on the left-hand document, would what you obtain be the same, more or less the same, or quite different from what you see on the right-hand document, (15)where you have elements that were filled in, framed, that we don't see? Do you understand now? • A.: Yes, I understand. If the lines were to be deleted and if we were to compare the two, perhaps they would be more or less identical, but all the other elements of these two documents are quite different. The (20)elements of the left-hand document point to very serious irrelevance, and on the right-hand side there's no reason to have such doubts.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. But if we reason in
that way, to say that it is quite possible to imagine on the right the
lines of a stamp which were deleted, could it be said that yes, indeed,
(25)there was a stamp that was deleted through repeated photocopying or
• A.: I'm not an expert for that kind of an opinion, but -- so I can't be very precise in my answer. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] But nevertheless, it is quite (5)possible to see this with our own eyes. • A.: Yes. The signatures are the same on the right- and left-hand document, so as far as that is concerned, one could indeed say what you are saying. But something else is also possible. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you very much (10)for your clarification. Mr. Cayley, please continue. MR. CAYLEY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move on. • Q.: General, paragraph 6 of your report, which I'll read out to the Court -- (15) • A.: I'm afraid I'm not hearing very well. I didn't hear the beginning of your question. • Q.: Do you hear me now? • A.: Yes.
• Q.: Paragraph 6 of your report, where you state:
(20)"The fact that General Zivanovic had the original document rather
than a verified transcript or photocopy indicates, at best, that the
document was handled in an irregular manner, and, at worst, that the
document may have been created at or after the fact for an unofficial
purpose."
(25)Now, General, what I'm particularly interested in is the second
• A.: I cannot answer that question. All I said here was in the context (5)of the handover and takeover of duty and the takeover of duties as Corps Commander. For that purpose, this document cannot be considered relevant. So it may have been prepared for some other purpose. Now, for what purpose, that is something I really cannot tell you. But that document cannot be used for this purpose, because in my prior testimony, I (10)have given the reasons for this assertion, and I can repeat them if you wish. • Q.: General, might that unofficial purpose be for Zivanovic to exclude himself from criminal responsibility for the acts that are the subject of the indictment in this case? (15) • A.: I cannot answer that question. I'm sorry, I really can't. • Q.: General, look at it from the point of view of common sense. Just look at it logically. Would it be logical to assert that Zivanovic, by stating -- by saying that he was relieved of command on the 11th, and this document was produced on the 13th, was attempting to state that he was not (20)in command when all of these criminal acts took place? Would that be logical? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. MR. CAYLEY: • Q.: Is that an unofficial purpose that you're referring to? (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Cayley.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In any event, we're going to hear Mr. Visnjic's objection and then you can continue. Mr. Visnjic. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Do not forget that we have an expert witness here. So testimony about hypotheses is quite possible. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Absolutely so, Mr. President. But I think the witness was quite clear. If it was not for an official purpose, (15)it was for an unofficial purpose. We are now entering into speculation, which the Prosecutor could lead questions to if someone else was being tried. But I would not like this case or this examination to seek out something else that might be used in another case or another trial. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In any event, the General is (20)going to answer the question. Mr. Cayley, continue, please. Perhaps you could remind the witness of your question. MR. CAYLEY:
• Q.: The unofficial purpose to which you refer in your report, that
(25)could be essentially Zivanovic producing this document to exculpate
• A.: I cannot judge that. I just don't know that. • Q.: General, are you aware that there were a significant number of (5)murders in this case which took place on both the 12th and the 13th of July of 1995? • A.: Yes. • Q.: So you'd agree with me that even if Zivanovic had created this document to exculpate himself from criminal events, he would not have (10)prevented himself from being responsible for what happened on the 12th and up until the 13th when he was relieved of command, would he? JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, the same question and the same objection. (15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The same ruling of the Chamber, but let me say something else. Mr. Visnjic, I am quite content now, because you will always have the opportunity to make some additional questions. So please continue, Mr. Cayley. (20) MR. CAYLEY:
• Q.: General, let me repeat the question. If the unofficial purpose
for which this document was created was to relieve himself of criminal
responsibility for events that are the subject of this indictment, by
virtue of this document, Zivanovic would not have exculpated himself from
(25)events that happened on the 12th and on the 13th, up until when he was
• A.: If it is not possible to establish on the basis of this document when he handed over duty, then your submission would be correct, but clearly it cannot be established on the basis of this document. (5) • Q.: You'd agree with me, Mr. Radinovic, that if Mr. Zivanovic had any sense at all, he would have dated this document -- • A.: I can't hear the translation. I'm sorry, I can't hear the translation. • Q.: General, you'd agree with me that if General Zivanovic had any (10)sense at all, he would have dated this document the 10th or 11th of July, 1995, if indeed this document is contrived, as you suggest? • A.: First of all, I did not say that the document was contrived or falsified, but I said that there were certain grounds to suspect its authenticity, but I did not allege -- (15) • Q.: General -- • A.: -- that it was a forgery because that is not something I cannot claim. • Q.: General, you state that this document may have been created at or after the fact for an unofficial purpose. That is what you said. (20)
• A.: Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is a falsification. If it was
compiled for an unofficial purpose, it doesn't mean that it is a
falsification that -- for which somebody is liable. It could have been
compiled for many unofficial purposes and those could be many more than
those that you have mentioned, but it is not up to me to say why it was
(25)done.
• A.: Simply that would be impossible, because on the 11th he entered Srebrenica together with the other officers of the Main Staff and the Drina Corps, and such an allegation would have been nonsense. • Q.: You're not answering the question, General, and -- (10) • A.: I cannot answer a question that implies an erroneous answer. Your question is simply leading me to give the wrong answer. • Q.: General, you have stated that this document potentially was created for an unofficial purpose, have you not? • A.: Possibly. I said possibly. I didn't say it was. I said it may (15)have been. • Q.: And you'd agree with me that one of those unofficial purposes could be for Zivanovic to exculpate himself from criminal responsibility? • A.: I simply would not agree with you, because this document doesn't have that probative value to be able to relieve him of responsibility. So (20)I don't believe that he had that motive in mind. • Q.: Let's move on, General, to paragraph 7.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Cayley, before you go on to
your next question:
General, when you say that this document could have been created
(25)for official purposes, when you wrote that down for -- when you said it
(5) • A.: An unofficial purpose can be many. Possibly he wanted to show -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Excuse me, General. I'm not asking you whether it's possible. I'm asking you, when you wrote this expression, when you wrote this down, did you have any content in your mind, or not, as an example of an unofficial purpose? And if you had such (10)an example in mind, what was it? • A.: No. No. There was no assumption or suspicion as to a certain type of unofficial purpose. The point is that the intention of the document was to show how the handover of duty was carried out for official purposes. And whoever created it knows that it cannot play that role. It (15)can only be used for an unofficial purpose. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] In any event, in your -- according to you, this expression "unofficial purposes" -- so you have absolutely no example -- you had no example in mind when you wrote that down? It's an empty expression? (20) • A.: It's simply the opposite to what the aspiration was. The intention of the document was to show how a transfer of duty was carried out, and the document in its present form cannot be used for that official purpose. So the opposite to that is an unofficial purpose, and I didn't enter into any further deliberation as to that unofficial purpose. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Mr. Cayley, please
MR. CAYLEY: I'll move on, Mr. President. • Q.: Paragraph 7 of your report. Do you hear me, General? Do you hear me, General? (5) • A.: Yes. Yes, I hear you. • Q.: And that particular conclusion which raises questions about the document is that copies of the document could not be located in the archives of the Drina Corps or any of the 12 inferior commands to which it was allegedly sent. (10) MR. CAYLEY: And if we could place, please, I think it's Defence Exhibit 181/3 -- it's part of Mr. Radinovic's report. If you wish, in order to save time ... Does the witness have a copy in front of him? Because I'd like this to be on the ELMO, if possible. It's attachment 3. I think (15)Prosecutor's -- Defence Exhibit 181/3. Mr. Visnjic is going to assist me. Thank you. • A.: I found it, yes. MR. CAYLEY: Could the documents be placed on the ELMO so that the Judges can see it. (20)This, Your Honours, is the letter from the successor corps to the Drina Corps, indicating that they couldn't find Prosecutor's Exhibit 905 in the archive. • Q.: General, who is this letter signed by?
• A.: I'm not an expert, but it says "Svetozar Andric, General Major,"
(25)and the signature.
• A.: He was appointed afterwards but by decree of the 14th of July. The letter just informs that he has been assigned to the post, nominated. Colonel Svetozar Andric was now General Major of the 5th Corps of the army of Republika Srpska. (10) • Q.: So the man who was allegedly - I use the word "allegedly." It's your word - was appointed chief of staff of the Drina Corps on the 13th of July, 1995, was the same man who was responsible for the search for this document in the Drina Corps and 5th Corps archives? • A.: Yes. (15) • Q.: We can move on now to paragraph 15 of your report. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, what time do you wish to go on until today, because I haven't -- JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We would like to finish today, get through it today. Now, how much more time do you need? (20) MR. CAYLEY: I'm looking at the Judges and trying to read the situation. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] If necessary, we'll take a break.
MR. CAYLEY: I think I have awhile longer yet. I'm not going to
(25)draw this out too long, but I think there are a number of questions that I
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. As you can see that regardless of their ages, the Judges are very fresh. So we're going to (5)take a break, and it is our proposal that we complete the testimony today. We are going to undertake to organise our work in that fashion. Mr. Visnjic, do you have any idea at this point in time how much more time you will need for your additional questions? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] A very short space of time. I'll do (10)my best to reduce it to a minimum. Five to ten minutes at the most. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Can I then ask you to ask General Krstic how he feels about continuing after a break, a half-hour break, and then to resume the hearing for another one hour at the latest? (15) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] I think the General agrees, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. I think that we can draw the conclusion that if we finish today, we won't be back tomorrow. So there is always compensation. There's a good side to everything. (20)So let us take a half-hour break, and we'll try and organise our work, to be efficient and effective, and if necessary, we'll go on for an hour and a half, but we will try and finish within the space of one hour. Having said that, we adjourn for 30 minutes. --- Recess taken at 3.08 p.m. (25)
--- On resuming at 3.40 p.m.
MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Usher, if the witness could be given 181/5. • Q.: Now, General, you recall this is the announcement of the send-off (5)ceremony for the Corps Commander, and I'll read to you paragraph 15 of your report, where you state: "I find it significant that in the letter of 17 July 1995, General Zivanovic refers to himself as the Corps Commander, not the former or ex-Corps Commander. In addition, the fact he authored this letter rather (10)than General Krstic further indicates that as of 17 July 1995, he remained the Commander of the Drina Corps. Otherwise one would not be announcing one's own send-off party. Such an announcement would be made by the new commander." Now, General, I'd just like you to read on this document from (15)where it says, "Thank you for coming" until where it says "Zivanovic." Could you just read that to the Judges, please. • A.: I've lost it. Just give me a moment to find it again. • Q.: Could you read it from where it says, "Thank you for coming," ending "Zivanovic," three lines, three very short lines. (20) • A.: "Thank you for coming, General Major Milenko Zivanovic."
MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown D96. If that
exhibit could just be briefly placed on the ELMO.
Your Honours, this is a teletype order, so it's an order that had
actually been encrypted in the signals room, and I just want you to see
(25)that order. And you can see the three lines where it says, "Hvala na
(5) • Q.: Now, General, I've chosen this particular order - it's the Defence Exhibit - because again it's a teletype order. And do you see that this order says within it -- it's an order from Zivanovic. Does this particular order state explicitly, "I hereby order"? • A.: Yes. (10) • Q.: And could you read out the last three lines from "commander" onwards. • A.: "Commander Major General Milenko Zivanovic." MR. CAYLEY: And very briefly, if Their Honours could be shown the format of that order, the original version, on the ELMO, the last three (15)lines. If you could bring it down a bit. Yes. That's fine. If we could now move on to the next exhibit in this series, which is 831. • Q.: Now, General, does this particular document explicitly state the word "order" within it? (20) • A.: Yes. MR. CAYLEY: And if, perhaps, Mr. Usher, you could move it up. We see the word there. And if we go over to the next page. • Q.: And what is the form of the signature of Milenko Zivanovic? How does he describe himself in this order? (25)
• A.: "Commander, Major General Milenko Zivanovic."
MR. CAYLEY: Do we have 1815? Put my version on the ELMO if it's been mislaid. As long as the General has the original version. Yes. (5) • Q.: General, how does Zivanovic describe himself in this document? What does it say after "Thank you for coming"? • A.: "General Major Milenko Zivanovic." • Q.: It doesn't say "commander," does it, General? • A.: But I commented previously on this document, and there are many (10)elements which testify to the fact that he was still the commander. • Q.: This is a telegraph order in exactly the same form as the two previous documents you've looked at. In this document, does Zivanovic describe himself as the Commander of the Drina Corps? Does he sign off on this document as the commander? (15) • A.: Here he wishes to leave the impression that he's not Commander of the Drina Corps. That's his intention, to leave this impression, whereas he uses all the prerogatives as Corps Commander in order to communicate in the chain of command. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to communicate. (20) • Q.: General, this order was typed out in the communication centre of the Drina Corps. Don't you think that the signalman who typed this out knew at the time who the Commander of the Drina Corps was? • A.: The signalman perhaps did not know, but his chief had to know who the Commander of the Drina Corps was. He must have known. (25)
• Q.: General, do you see the word "Order" in this document as you've
• A.: A large number of combat documents do not have the word "order," written with the word "order," just the combat directives for combat action. (5) • Q.: General, do you see that this order says, "Thank you for coming"? Do you see that? • A.: Yes. Yes, I see it. • Q.: You're a military man. You're an expert. Are you suggesting to this courtroom that a military order, an order given by a general thanks (10)people for coming? Is that what you're suggesting to the Court? • A.: He's expressing his thanks for coming, because that's what he says explicitly. "Thank you for coming." That is the term used, the phrase used. • Q.: General, can you show me any other order which Zivanovic signed, (15)any order, where he thanked the people to whom the order was addressed, where he thanked them for carrying out an order in a written combat order? Can you show me anywhere in any other document where General Zivanovic has offered thanks to a particular unit for carrying out an order in this fashion? (20) • A.: There are no such documents, and with this document, he wishes to leave the impression of not being the commander. Why, I don't know. And everything that goes before that testifies to the fact that he is the commander on the 17th. • Q.: Read the first line of this document underneath "July 17, 1995." (25)
• A.: "Command of the Main Staff of VRS plans to send off General
• Q.: Let me read out the English version, General: "The Bosnian Serb army General Staff plans to give a send-off to (5)the hitherto Corps Commander Major General Milenko Zivanovic at noon on July 20, 1995, in motel 'Jela' located in Han Kram." This, General, is an announcement for a party, isn't it? That's what this document is. It's not an order, it's not an instruction, it's an invitation, isn't it, General? (10) • A.: No, this is not an invitation, because the transfer of duty is a military ceremony, a military ceremony, an official ceremony, therefore, at which the handover and takeover of duty between two commanders is conducted, and this is an invitation to that ceremony. And it is signed in such a way as to gain the impression that it is a mere send-off. (15)In military correspondence, this form of communication does not exist with the use of a stamp, a heading, the command corps. Only the Commander of the corps is entitled to use that, nobody else. If Zivanovic were not commander at that time, then the person who was the commander would have signed it. (20) MR. CAYLEY: Bearing in mind the time, Mr. President, I'm going to move on quickly. • Q.: General, have you reviewed any of the oral testimony that has taken place in this courtroom since you were last here? Have you reviewed any of it? (25)
• A.: Since my last testimony, no. Since April. I was here on the 2nd
• Q.: Now, General, you're aware, are you not, that General Krstic has already stated that on the 13th of July of 1995, in the afternoon, early evening, he went to the Vlasenica command post? And let me very briefly (5)read to you what he said about that particular meeting. And these are questions I believe were put by Mr. Petrusic. It's at 6225. • Q.: Who do you find there at the Vlasenica command post? And this is on the 13th of July. (10) • A.: At the Vlasenica command post, like on the previous day, I found the duty officers, the operations duty officer, a number of other officers, and a number of civilians who were there as part of their military obligation. After awhile, General Mladic (15)arrived together with General Zivanovic from the direction of Bratunac and Milici, and upon their arrival, General Mladic orders that all of the officers and civilian employees who were there should assemble. The people who were there in the (20)corridor of the Corps Command. Do you recall reading that testimony, General? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Do you know who Major Pavle Golic is, General? • A.: I do. (25)
• Q.: Who is he?
• Q.: General, this is what he said about that meeting on the 13th or 14th of July: (5)"General Mladic, he assembled all people present at the Drina Corps headquarters in Vlasenica in a sort of conference hall, and there he announced that from that day, General Krstic was the Commander of the Drina Corps and General Zivanovic was to retire. He also appointed Colonel Andric as the Chief of Staff." (10)Now, this is a man who was a officer in the JNA, an officer in the VRS. He was an eyewitness to these events. Do you not think that he would know better than you when General Krstic became Commander of the Drina Corps and when General Zivanovic retired?
• A.: Mr. Prosecutor, even a squad leader knows that the Commander of
(15)the Main Staff of Republika Srpska cannot change the degree -- the decree
of the President of Republika Srpska as a Supreme Commander. And we need
nobody's testimony. That is inadmissible. And General Mladic would
certainly not have done that, and he did not do that.
General Mladic lined up part of the staff, only that part which
(20)was located at the command post at Vlasenica. As General Krstic went to
command the Operative Group at Zepa, he told them that he -- he intimated
that he would be the future commander, but neither Mladic nor anybody else
has the right to change the decree by the president of the republic.
Mladic could not have said, "He is the commander as of today," as the
(25)decree had not been published. And we have already become convinced
• Q.: So when you say that Mladic intimated that Krstic would be the (5)future commander, you acknowledged that in fact the announcement that Krstic was the new Drina Corps Commander was made at that meeting in Vlasenica on the 13th of July, 1995? • A.: Yes, so this was known even before that, that personnel changes at such a high level are made according to plan. These are not things that (10)are done overnight. There is no dispute over that. General Krstic, as a Chief of Staff, was a candidate for the commander position. He was successful in his work and it was quite logical for him to be the future Corps Commander. • Q.: General, I want to now talk to you a little bit about some facts (15)which you address, and not your expert opinion; simply factual evidence concerning your visit to Zivanovic. Now, you recall that you stated that when you went to see General Zivanovic, you went with General Miletic, and at the time there was snow on the ground. Do you recall stating that? • A.: Yes. (20) • Q.: And just for your information, that accords exactly with what General Zivanovic told us. Now, can you tell the Court once again the town where you met with General Zivanovic in February of the year 2000? • A.: In Valjevo.
• Q.: Are you aware that officers from the Office of the Prosecutor met
(25)with General Zivanovic in exactly the same location in Valjevo?
• Q.: Now, General, you stated to this courtroom today that you had (5)counted on more contacts with General Zivanovic, contacts that never took place, for reasons that were unknown to you. Do you recall saying that today? • A.: Yes. • Q.: Now, if Zivanovic was in Valjevo in February of 2000 and he's (10)still in Valjevo, a small town, as you describe it now, how is it possible that you were unable to contact him after that initial contact in February 2001? • A.: I did not have any direct contact with him. I contacted him through General Miletic, and General Zivanovic did not show any interest (15)in seeing me again. I did not insist on further encounters, because I left it up to him, his own free will. He didn't want to have any contact with me. Now, why, I really don't know, because there was absolutely no reason for it. I wasn't inflexible about anything talking to him; I just asked him to explain to me everything linked to Srebrenica and his (20)understanding of it. Unfortunately, most of the job was left undone. • Q.: But, General, that's not what you said to the President of this Court in December of last year, is it, about why you hadn't contacted General Zivanovic? Let me read to you, and this was a question from His Honour, Judge Rodrigues: (25)
• Q.: General, and having learnt that the record was
• A.: No. I lost contact with General Zivanovic. Where I (5)used to contact him, he is no longer there. I really don't know where he is. He may not be in Yugoslavia any more. • A.: I don't know in what way what I just said differs from that that you have read. I did not explain how I contacted him. I just said that I (10)could no longer contact him at the same location at which we had met. He simply did not wish to have any further contact with me. • Q.: Through whom did you make efforts to contact General Zivanovic after February 2000? • A.: Through General Miletic. (15) • Q.: On how many occasions did you make attempts to speak to General Zivanovic? • A.: I personally did not try to talk to General Zivanovic. I asked General Miletic to arrange a contact. General Miletic told me that he didn't wish to have any contact with me, so I gave up. (20) • Q.: So General Miletic and General Zivanovic refused to have any more contact with you; is that what you're saying?
• A.: No. It must be an erroneous translation. I didn't say that
General Miletic refused contact with me. General Miletic, as a go-between
between me and Zivanovic, informed me that General Zivanovic did not wish
(25)to have any contact with me.
• A.: I don't know whether that is of any significance for this testimony, but I can explain. (5) • Q.: It is significant, General, and if you could explain to Their Honours the position he occupied. • A.: General Miletic was the chief of the operations body in the Main Staff of the army of Republika Srpska. • Q.: And this is the same General Miletic that is referred to in (10)Mr. Richard Butler's report, isn't it? This is the same General Miletic who Mr. Butler believed was in an intercept, an intercepted conversation. Do you recall reading that in Mr. Butler's report? • A.: I really do not recall that detail. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic. (15) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, maybe I don't see far enough ahead as the Prosecutor, but I am rather losing touch with what the Prosecutor is asking the witness and what his purpose is, so perhaps we could ask where this is leading to. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President -- (20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Yes. Yes, Mr. Cayley.
MR. CAYLEY: Here we have the expert witness running around the
Serbian countryside with the chief of operations of the Bosnian Serb army,
the chief of operations on Mladic's staff. He occupied that position at
the time of Srebrenica and I believe that may be of some interest to Your
(25)Honours.
MR. CAYLEY: (5) • Q.: Now, General, I'm not going to go into detail, but it's page 52 of Mr. Butler's report and it is an intercept which, although there's some confusion about the name of General Miletic, shows that General Miletic was in direct communication with the Zvornik Brigade at the time of these activities, talking about prisoners. Did you have any discussions with (10)General Miletic about the execution of Muslim prisoners in Srebrenica and Zvornik in July of 1995? • A.: With General Miletic, no, because my thoughts about the intercepts were presented here on two occasions. For me, this is not evidence with appropriate probative value, for the reasons that I have explained here. (15)We're not processing the responsibility of General Miletic. It is General Krstic that is on trial here, and I don't see why I should question General Miletic about those things. • Q.: Here you have before you the most senior operations officer in the Bosnian Serb army in July of 1995, and you don't ask him any questions (20)whatsoever about the allegations presented in the indictment against General Krstic. Is that what you're saying to this Court?
• A.: No. I'm just saying that I did not consider General Miletic the
person to be asked about this. The operations organ in the command of the
Main Staff does not have that type of information. It plans, rather than
(25)controls, the behaviour of units on the battlefield.
• A.: This is a staff function. • Q.: What is the superior organ in the military chain of command directly above the Drina Corps? (5) • A.: The Commander of the Main Staff of the VRS. • Q.: And who does the Commander of the Main Staff command? • A.: General Mladic. • Q.: And underneath General Mladic was the Main Staff, was it not, General? (10) • A.: Yes. • Q.: And General Miletic was the chief of operations within the Main Staff, was he not? • A.: Yes. But General Miletic had his own superior, that is, the deputy of the Commander of the Main Staff, General Milovanovic, so there (15)was no direct link between him and Mladic. • Q.: General, do you recall saying to this Court the following, and it was a question from me in April of this year: • Q.: Do you agree with me that the date upon which General Zivanovic ceased to be the Commander of the (20)Drina Corps is an important fact in this entire case? Do you agree with that? • A.: Yes, I agree. • A.: Yes.
• Q.: And do you also agree with me, General, that the date upon which
(25)General Zivanovic ceased to be the commander is a fact that is almost
• A.: Yes. • Q.: Referring to the document that we have -- that's been in dispute in this hearing today, 905, don't you think logic absolutely cries out (5)that the moment that you arrived in front of General Zivanovic, that he would have been waving that document at you to say, "Look, I wasn't the commander any more after the 13th of July"? • A.: But General Zivanovic didn't wave that document in front of your investigator either. Your investigator talked to him. So I'm wondering (10)why he didn't ask for that key document, that is, the report on the handover/takeover of duties. So we are turning around in a circle, discussing a document that does not have that weight. General Zivanovic must have that document, because it was on the basis of that particular document we would know when he actually handed over duty and when it was (15)taken over by Krstic. MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I've completed. General, I won't say goodbye; I'll say au revoir, because it's likely we'll see each other again at some stage. Thank you very much indeed for answering my questions. (20)Thank you, Mr. President. THE WITNESS: [Int.] It will be my pleasure to see you again.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Mr. Visnjic, your witness for
re-examination, and even the questions that you objected to, that you had
(25)objections about.
• RE-EXAMINED by Mr. Visnjic: • Q.: General, let me follow up with a question related to the one put to you by Mr. Cayley. Let me ask you a question that is linked to common (5)sense. General, if you were the Prosecutor and you had the possibility to get in touch with General Zivanovic; and if, on the 4th of May, you received a Defence submission; and again, on the 28th of May, again a Defence filing saying that the basic document, the fundamental document confirming the transfer of duty is the report on the handover/takeover of (10)duty, would you then have asked General Zivanovic whether he has that document in his possession, or some other document linked to that event? This is a theoretical question. • A.: Of course I would have asked him that. It is the key to the whole case. (15) • Q.: General, the fact that in Exhibit 905, the document dated the 13th of July, mention is made of a decree that was issued only on the 14th, does that fact show that Exhibit 905 was compiled on the 13th of July?
• A.: In the preamble of the document of the 13th of July, reference is
made to the decree of the president of the republic. This may point to
(20)two things. Either he referred to this decree without any authority to do
so, not knowing about it but just on the assumption that it would be
issued but without the authority to do so, as he doesn't have the decree,
or it is a document that was compiled after the decree arrived and then it
was antedated. But this is a suspicion that I'm personally unable to
(25)prove.
• A.: No. (5) • Q.: General, the fact that the document as not found in any archives, including the archives which are in the possession of the Prosecution, does that indicate that Exhibit 905 was compiled and delivered to units on the 13th of July? • A.: No. (10) • Q.: General, the fact that a copy of the document was not found in any of the archives of the VRS corps, including the archives in the possession of the Prosecution, a document sent by the Drina Corps to another corps was not found, does that prove that this document was compiled on the 13th of July and sent to other units? (15) • A.: No. • Q.: General, does the conclusion that according to this document General Krstic was simultaneously the Commander and his own Chief of Staff point to the possibility of General Krstic taking over the duty of command on the 13th of July, 1995? (20) • A.: It does not.
• Q.: General, let us go back for a moment to the document of the 17th
of July. My learned friend Mr. Cayley asked you about a certain tone and
style in which there is no mention of an order but, rather, an
invitation. In view of the fact that in addition to representatives of
(25)units of the Drina Corps, that an invitation is addressed also to
(5) • A.: No. • Q.: In your opinion, would one of the ways for him to do so without it being an order be by adding the words, "Thank you for coming"? Would that be one of the ways? • A.: Yes. (10) MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] Mr. President, I have no further questions for the General. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. Judge Fouad Riad, please. (15) • QUESTIONED by the Court:
JUDGE RIAD: Good afternoon, General or Professor. I prefer
Professor, as I told you before, because Professor, it never ends. People
will still learn what you have being saying in centuries, I hope.
One of the things which I would like to understand more is that
(20)when you went to meet the General Zivanovic, as you mentioned, because you
wanted him to explain to you everything linked to Srebrenica, and you
didn't apparently care to ask him -- even to ask him verbally when he
finished his -- his duty as a commander of the Drina Corps. Did he even
care to tell you this important point in the whole issue concerning him?
(25)Do you remember? Do you recall anything? Not waving a document
• A.: Your Honour, I wanted to learn from the Corps Commander, that is,
the person who is best informed, in other words, to hear from the horse's
(5)mouth the whole story about Srebrenica.
When I went to that meeting, at the time a prior hypothesis which
had not been verified was that he had been the Corps Commander on the 20th
of the July. This is something I had no doubt in my mind about from the
testimony of General Krstic and talking to people who attended that formal
(10)ceremony. I heard and learned that this had happened on the 20th of
July. And in that stage, I had no dilemmas as to when he handed over his
duty as Corps Commander.
In that stage of my research, I did not consider it indispensable
to check out that fact. I felt that there would be other occasions for me
(15)to verify that. And the most effective way to verify it is to look at the
document called the report on the handover/takeover of duty. I was quite
confident that such a report was in the possession of General Krstic, of
General Zivanovic, the Main Staff, that is, the archive of the Main Staff
of the VRS, the archive of the president of Republika Srpska. And I was
(20)quite convinced that this was a document that the Prosecution had in its
possession, and that in accordance with the regulations and rules of this
Tribunal, it would disclose it to the Defence.
Unfortunately, now this appears to be a major methodological and
professional error, but it was quite an innocent one at the time. It
(25)never occurred to me to check out that fact. That is the main reason.
• A.: Yes. (5) JUDGE RIAD: Now, it was sort of a preconceived idea -- talking to a Professor. You started your research with a preconceived idea? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RIAD: Now, it was mentioned that there could be some kind of contradiction between the OTP document 905, which mentioned, I think, (10)that Zivanovic was appointed to new duties in the Yugoslav army, and document 469 which says that Zivanovic was at the disposal of the Main Staff of Republika Srpska. Is there really a contradiction? I mean being appointed to new duties in the army at large and saying that he's at the disposal of the (15)army, do you, as a military man, think that's contradictory or they are more or less in the same spirit, just a difference of language?
• A.: It is a very major contradiction, because appointment to a new
post means giving new command authority at a different post, and to place
someone at the disposal means that for as long as that status continues,
(20)that person has absolutely no command authority. He only has personal
responsibility. He can organise only what he himself is doing while he
has this status of being at the disposal. But once he is appointed to a
new post, he's given new command responsibilities and competencies. And
the difference is, therefore, considerable, and that is why I considered
(25)this to be extremely relevant.
• A.: Your Honour, if we have in mind who processed this document of the 13th of July and who signed it, and that is the chief of the personnel (10)service, so the person who is authorised to make records and perform technical administrative duties in personnel affairs, and there's a very major difference between appointment to a new duty and placement at the disposal, because for as long as this latter status lasts, one has no function at all. (15) JUDGE RIAD: I do not perceive that, because when you say "new duties," it is also no function. • A.: It is a function, a duty. A chief of administration, a commander, a deputy, a head of an educational centre. These are posts which -- to which a -- certain command responsibilities are attached. Without one (20)having an appointment to a new post, a person who has this status of being at the disposal has no function. In order to undertake a new function, he must have a document of appointment to that new post, and that is the decree of the president of the republic who alone has the competence to appoint generals to posts. (25)
JUDGE RIAD: My last query, and it was this: Before when they say
• A.: "Hitherto commander" means that he is commander until the handover of duty, the actual act of the handover. From the moment of the handover/takeover, he becomes the former. And the takeover/handover, from all the documents that I had at my disposal, took place on the 20th of (10)July. JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much, Professor. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad Riad. Madam Judge Wald. (15) JUDGE WALD: Thank you. Professor, during your three- or four-hour meeting with General Zivanovic, did you find him overall - this is an overall question - did you find him overall to be a consistent, credible narrator of the events that you asked him about? I mean were you impressed with his consistency and his credibility when you talked to him (20)about events leading up to Srebrenica and, as you just testified, military -- military events?
• A.: I of course approached the conversation with a great deal of a
priori confidence in the expertise and professionalism of General
Zivanovic as Corps Commander. And in my testimony, I said that I did not
(25)know him personally, but I knew about him and I knew he was the
JUDGE WALD: And there was no -- nothing that occurred during (5)the three- or four-hour discussion on that one interview that disabused you of your prior impression; is that right? • A.: That's right. No, there wasn't. JUDGE WALD: Okay. You said that you were particularly interested in the military, some kind of history of the military events, both leading (10)up to Srebrenica. Now, my question to you would be: If you are able to recall, what would you say was the last event or the last military event or the last incident in the whole history of Srebrenica chronologically that you discussed with General Zivanovic? In other words, your discussions took (15)you up to what point in the Srebrenica saga or events? How far along in the whole history of Srebrenica did you get in your discussions with General Zivanovic that day?
• A.: I have already said that our conversation was divided into two
sections. I asked him to talk about the operation, what led up to it, the
(20)manoeuvreing, the grouping of troops, the course of action, combat action,
the intensity, the operational plan, all that kind of thing, and his
concepts and his understanding of all that. But he thought it was more
important to expound on the -- a short history of the conflict in
Podrinje. And according to his -- his story went further in-depth into
(25)history, especially the post-war period, from 1945 to 1992, with the
JUDGE WALD: I understand. But could you tell me whether or not any of your discussion with General Zivanovic involved events that (5)happened after the military takeover of Srebrenica? Once Srebrenica was actually militarily captured, did you and General Zivanovic discuss anything that happened subsequent to that? • A.: Unfortunately, during that first meeting of ours, he just managed to start on the topic of the operational plan for Srebrenica or Krivaja (10)95. He just touched upon it, was just starting to go into it. So the bulk of the conversation focused on events that went before. So there was no occasion for us to discuss that. We didn't have enough time to discuss that.
JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, in terms of military rules or even, if
(15)you are familiar with it, possibly the Criminal Code of the former
Yugoslavia or the Republika Srpska, if a military officer created a
document which had false information in the document - I say "if." This
is a hypothetical - if a military officer created a document which
falsified information about events happening in the army and then used
(20)that for whatever purposes, whether it was official or unofficial, but
disseminated that document, would that be a grave offence of military
regulations and/or an actual crime against the general code of the
country? If he created a document which said things happened which did
not happen, of some material consequence, and then used it for any
(25)purpose - I mean, just showing it to people, et cetera - would that be a
• A.: Your Honour, I'm not a legal man, but I assume that it would represent a serious breach of the law, because it is the falsification of information. (5) JUDGE WALD: So leave the civilian part out. You're a military man. Would you think that that would be the basis for disciplinary court martial? • A.: Yes, it would. JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, in terms of the document of the 17th, (10)whatever it is, the invitation, order, dealing with the ceremony, the upcoming ceremony of the 20th, do you see any significance in the fact that General Zivanovic, who is the author of both documents -- well, no. I should not say it's the -- no, I understand. But let's just say that the earlier document, he's not the author, but it certainly concerns him. (15)Would you say that there was any significance in the fact that the document of the 13th refers to, straight out, to the word which you considered to be so vital and important, "handover" - it talks about the handover of duties - whereas the document of the 17th, which deals with the upcoming ceremony, never uses the word "handover"; it uses only the (20)word "send-off"? If it in fact was an order -- or telling people that there was going to be a handover ceremony, why would it use a much more social word, "send-off"?
• A.: The word is based on the rules of service. It has not been
erroneously used, because in the rules of service, the handover/takeover
(25)is defined as a military ceremony. Of course, it would have been more
JUDGE WALD: All right. My last question: Again back to the July (5)13th document. Now, assume for the moment that the reports of the Prosecution on the authenticity of the stamp and the authenticity of the signature of Lieutenant Colonel Jovicic, assume for the moment, hypothetically, that they are valid, I mean, that they have not been forged, that those were an actual stamp and there was an actual document (10)and there was ... could anybody have been able, in your opinion, to create such a document with those authentic stamps and authentic signatures of the personnel affairs? Could anybody have been able to bring about the creation of that document except the Commander of the Corps? • A.: No. (15) JUDGE WALD: Thank you. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Madam Judge Wald. General Radinovic, I don't know if you have the two documents in front of you, and I am referring to the document, that is to say, OTP Exhibit 905 and Defence Exhibit 181/5. Do you have those two documents (20)before you, General? • A.: I have one. I've found one.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] You know that the document of
the 17th of July, at least in its translation - and I'm looking at the
English translation, not the French translation - the translation of
(25)document 17 says "classified document"
[In English] 05/2-
[Int.]
• A.: No. According to the rules of service, it says which documents have which degree of confidentiality. There is the highest degree, which is a state secret, and then strictly confidential; then we have confidential, for internal use, official use, and an ordinary document (10)without any of these. And these documents and the substance they deal with belongs to that degree of confidentiality. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you, Professor. I apologise, but it's probably my fault. I don't think I made myself understood. I am looking at the July 17th document and the July 13th (15)document, and I have remarked on the difference. On the July 17th document, the term "classified document" is used. On the 13th of July document, the term "confidential number" is used. My question to you is: Is there a difference between these two designations, "classified document" and "confidential number," or is this an error in the (20)translation? Does it mean one and the same thing or not? • A.: I apologise. I'll have to look at the original document, Mr. President, in my language, and then I'll be able to answer your question.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes. I already admitted the
(25)hypothesis that the documents in the B/C/S version, I think -- I don't
(5) • A.: In the original versions it is identical. The term used in B/C/S is identical. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We can therefore conclude that there is an error in translation in the documents; is that right? Very well. Thank you. (10) • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] That is what I wanted to know. As you see, General, the system of numbering for the two documents is quite similar; it coincides. Now, my question is: Is it possible, if we admit the hypothesis of falsification of a document, forgery of a (15)document, is it possible to look at the number and the sequence in the numbering and to guess? Is it possible to guess in advance the sequence of numbering? • A.: I didn't understand the question. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] The two documents, the 17th of (20)July and 13th of July, have a system of numbering, a numbering system. Are you following me, General? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] There is a series of numbers. If you look at the July 17th number, it is 303, and the other one is 293. (25)
• A.: Yes.
(5) • A.: Well, if we're talking about somebody working in the cadre service, he might have known. A commander would not have known. He wouldn't have paid attention to that. But an employee might. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. Another question for you, General. Do you have an idea - I seem to have an idea (10)like that - that the subordinate units which received a document, on the receiving end of a document, after a certain number of times, would have to destroy the document because it was not possible to have them in all the archives, and only the unit sending the document would retain it, would keep it, store it? Do you know anything about this system, and what (15)are your comments? How did this work?
• A.: Combat documents and documents for command which were compiled
during the war are stored for all time. They are not destroyed. They are
permanently stored. So no subordinate command of the Drina Corps, or the
Command of the Drina Corps itself, or the Superior Command of the Drina
(20)Corps, was allowed to destroy a document, because it is a document which
belongs to the group of documents respective to command, and they are kept
for all times.
For other types of documents, ones that are not of value for all
times, are stored in the command issuing it for three years and then they
(25)are archived, sent to the archives for storage, and the archives have
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, General. Thank you. So the document dated the 13th of July, what category of documents does (10)that one belong to, the category of documents you mentioned? • A.: This would be saved for all times, permanently stored. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Imagine that the subordinate units, General, made a mistake and thought that the document was one that could be destroyed and it was destroyed. Let us suppose (15)that. And let us suppose that the only original document in the Drina Corps was the document that General Zivanovic had in his possession. Have you got a comment to make about that? Would that be possible? Is that a possibility? • A.: That is quite impossible, because nobody from the Drina Corps (20)would issue an original document to General Zivanovic, because that is expressly forbidden on the basis of the law. You can only issue a copy or a recopied, certified copy.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, but let us suppose,
Professor, let us imagine the following: That unofficially, General
(25)Zivanovic, for unofficial purposes, General Zivanovic obtained the
• A.: Well, only if General Zivanovic were to come into contact with the archive itself and to take out the document without informing anybody of (5)that, but that kind of solution, that kind of assumption, seems to be quite impossible. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. And now another question, Professor. You said that you contacted General Zivanovic through General Miletic. Did I understand you correctly to say (10)that? • A.: Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Why did you do this through the mediation of General Miletic and not contact him directly? Why? What was the reason for going about it in a roundabout manner? (15) • A.: General Miletic is a comrade in arms of General Zivanovic, a wartime comrade, and the two of them are artillery men. They belong to the same branch of the army and were educated and trained in the same artillery centre in Zadar, so they have been friends many years back. I did not know the man myself, and I thought that I would be able to get (20)into contact with him more easily through somebody whom he had confidence in, who was a combatant, a co-fighter, rather than doing it myself directly, and that is why I went through the mediation of General Miletic. And General Miletic, for a time, was an officer who was subordinate to me at one time. (25)
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Yes, but did you think that if
• A.: I assume that for that type of contact, you would have to have trust and confidence, a certain degree of trust and confidence, and as I (5)didn't know the man himself, I didn't know his temperament, what kind of person he was, I was a little afraid of his refusing and then that would be the end of it. I couldn't ask again. So this seemed to me to be a better way of going about it, and I thought I'd have less problems like that. (10) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] So the way in which you contacted him was on the basis of your own initiative and not because of any difficulties raised by General Zivanovic himself; is that right? • A.: Yes, at my own initiative. Yes. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Okay. Very well. When General (15)Miletic informed you that Zivanovic did not wish to have any more contacts with you, what was your reaction, if I can put it in general terms? A general question. What were your reactions when you were told that by General Miletic? • A.: Well, of course I didn't like it, but I accepted it as a fact and (20)didn't insist upon the contact. I probably caused some form of mistrust, but that is a personal thing, and I didn't want to go into it any further.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. So you didn't like it.
Now, did you ask General Miletic why General Zivanovic did not wish to
(25)continue to have any more contact with you?
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Why not? Why didn't you ask him? • A.: Well, I thought it was his own personal affair. It was up to him (5)whether he wanted to see me again or not. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] But you felt at ease with General Miletic, and you felt at ease to ask him the question; is that right? You could have asked General Miletic? • A.: Yes, I could have, but I just didn't. You would have to know me (10)better as a person myself to understand my answer. If somebody seems a little mistrustful, then I don't like to take it further. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well, but Professor Radinovic, when you started your work, in your own mind was it important for you or not to have this contact with General Zivanovic in (15)order to do your work, to accomplish your task? • A.: Of course it was important. Otherwise, I would not have taken steps to contact him.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Okay. So when you were told
what you were told by General Miletic, that he didn't want to have
(20)anything -- didn't want to see you again, you left behind that initial
idea you had that you thought was important. So it would have been
logical for you to see the reasons, to surmount that problem and to find
another alternative, to try and contact General Zivanovic in another way.
So the idea of the importance of this that you had at the beginning, did
(25)it change as time went by? Did your idea of it being important change?
(5) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Professor Radinovic, I don't think I have any more questions for you. We have been asking you many questions. Perhaps I'll end like I began. I don't wish to say goodbye to you at this point, adieu, and as Mr. Cayley said, we may never know. Perhaps we should just say au revoir. We might meet again. I hope (10)not, because this -- if not, then it would mean that we have not come to the end of our deliberations. But thank you for coming again, and I hope that we don't see each other again for the reasons that I have stated. But anyway, thank you for contributing and for throwing more light on all these issues. We wish you every success in your work in future, in your (15)research work and your investigations. Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
[Int.] Thank you very much as well. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, are there any documents to be tendered into evidence? (20)
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the Defence would
first of all like to tender Exhibit D181, which consists of
General Radinovic's statement of the 26th of May this year and to which
five other documents are attached, and we would like to tender them as a
whole as Defence Exhibit 181. Could we, Mr. President, go into private
(25)session very briefly in connection with some other suggestions that I
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Mr. Visnjic, to organise our time, the other subjects you wish to address in private session have nothing to do with the documents or can we deal with this question first (5)and then go into private session? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] They are -- it is related to the documents.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well then. Let's go into
private session.
MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, you've just actually stated that you (10)have admitted it into evidence. So can we please move back into private session? I'm sorry.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] I'm sorry. We'll have to go
back into private session.
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] We are in public session now to rule with respect to document 181. The Chamber rules to admit into (10)evidence this exhibit with its five appendixes, and the registrar will deal with that document appropriately. I think that we yet have to decide on document 905, I believe. I see Mr. Harmon on his feet, or Mr. Cayley, whichever.
MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President, Your
(15)Honours, and counsel. We would like to tender two documents into
evidence: Prosecutor's Exhibit 910 that was offered by my colleague,
Mr. Cayley, during the cross-examination of General Radinovic, and we
would like to renew our application for admission of Prosecutor's Exhibit
905.
(20)In respect of Prosecutor's Exhibit 905, as Mr. Visnjic said, there
is no contest in respect of whether this document was signed by Radenko
Jovicic, who was the Drina Corps chief of personnel and legal affairs.
The Defence is not contesting that Exhibit 905 bears a Drina Corps stamp,
that it was typed by a Drina Corps typewriter, and that the signature of
(25)the person who was the encryptor and the signature that is on another
(20) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] And from the Defence, do you have a different position or do you accept the objection?
MR. VISNJIC:
[Int.] Mr. President, the Prosecution
offered a document to us which I would paraphrase as follows: A document
on which it says that it is snowing today, though we know it is sunny
(25)outside. Why somebody wrote that it was snowing, in our opinion, there
(15) JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Thank you very much, Mr. Visnjic. Mr. Harmon, do you have anything to add, as your right to respond, or do you have nothing to add? MR. HARMON: I have nothing to add, Mr. President and Your (20)Honours.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] Very well. Thank you. Just a
moment, please.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] So the Chamber renders the
(25)following decision: The Prosecution requested the admission into evidence
JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] I was talking about document (10)905, but we also have to address document 910. The Chamber decides also to admit that document too, to admit it into evidence. So I think that is all now. I saw Mr. Harmon about to get up. I don't know whether there were any other reasons or whether it was simply because I omitted to mention 910. (15) MR. HARMON: I was going to address 910, Mr. President. JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Int.] Very well. Thank you. Mr. Visnjic, there are no other matters to address today? MR. VISNJIC: [Int.] No, Mr. President, we have none.
JUDGE RODRIGUES:
[Int.] In that case, I think we have
(20)completed our work for today. I think there is a schedule that the
parties are familiar with and which we will observe. I do not have here
with me the schedule, so I can't tell you offhand the date, but you know
the date, and it is on that date that we will meet again in this courtroom
to continue our work and to complete it. So until that date, success in
(25)your work, and we will meet again here then. The hearing is adjourned.
|
