1 Friday, 10 October 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.23 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-02-60-T, Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
10 I'm sorry that we started late this morning, and we may stay here
11 longer to make up the time we lost. But we have to finish this witness
13 Ms. Sinatra, you have 30 minutes.
14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I will do my best to complete it
15 during that time.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 WITNESS: DRAGAN OBRENOVIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examined by Ms. Sinatra: [Continued]
20 Q. Dobro jutro, Mr. Obrenovic.
21 A. Good morning, Ms. Sinatra.
22 Q. I'm going to start with a couple of questions that are random.
23 They're not put in any context like I try to do. Just clarify for the
24 record, Mr. Obrenovic: You were not present at any time in the Zvornik
25 Brigade headquarters on the 14th of July, 1995?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And Mr. Obrenovic, you -- there could be evidence that you were in
3 the -- in Bratunac on the evening of the 13th of July, between 2000 and
4 2400 hours; right? Nobody saw you -- I'm sorry.
5 A. I don't know what you are referring to. I know where I was on the
6 13th, in the evening, as I've already said. I was in the headquarters of
7 the Zvornik Brigade. Thereafter, I made two telephone calls, one to the
8 corps command, and then, together with my units, I went to Snagovo, and
9 that's where I was.
10 Q. Thank you. Did the Zvornik Brigade have its 9th Battalion at
12 A. If my memory serves me well, we did not have a 9th Battalion in
13 July 1995. The Zvornik Infantry Brigade had ten battalions, ten infantry
14 battalions, but that was up to September 1993. In 1993, this was reduced
15 by -- to six and then to eight, and this was done on the order of the
16 commander. As I said, at that time it did not have a 9th Battalion.
17 Q. When a 9th Battalion was formed, was Milenko K-a-j-t-a-z [sic],
18 was he the commander of the 9th Battalion? I'm sorry. I don't know how
19 to pronounce it.
20 A. Captain Milenko Kajtez was commander of the battalion in Memici,
21 and if my memory serves me well, because things changed very fast, so when
22 he was in Staro Selo in Memici, when he was the commander of the battalion
23 there, his battalion was the 6th Battalion. Later on he was the commander
24 of -- I don't know whether it was the 7th Battalion, but it was the same
25 battalion that was later on the 4th Battalion in Kitovnica. That was its
1 designation. In July, I believe that Kajtez was the chief of
2 anti-aircraft defence, but he was not in Zvornik, because he was either
3 somewhere else or he was on sick leave. He was not in Zvornik.
4 Q. So who was present at Misici [sic] in July of 1995 from the
5 Zvornik Brigade?
6 A. In Misici? Nisici. All right. Nisici -- this is a geographical
7 term for the area that is in the zone of the Sarajevo Romanija corps,
8 south of Sarajevo. We had a unit there. It was a company. I don't know
9 who was there. The Zvornik Brigade had locations in five or six positions
10 outside of its area of responsibility. One of those locations was Nisici,
11 and I don't know who was there. You can probably find it in the
13 Q. Now, your driver that you had with you on July 14th, 1995 was
14 always present with you between 1300 hours and 1400 hours, wasn't he, and
15 his name was Ljubisa Danojlovic?
16 A. Ljubisa Danojlovic. He used to drive me wherever I went. If I
17 didn't have to go anywhere, if I was in the headquarters of the brigade,
18 he would either be there with me, or sometimes, since we didn't have
19 enough vehicles, he would be sent to carry out another task. If I had to
20 go somewhere, it would be Ljubisa who would take me there.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm going into a group of questions
23 regarding the intercepts from his June 4th, 2003 statement, and just for
24 assistance and to make this go quicker, I would ask the usher to please
25 put these pages on the ELMO instead of having the Court trying to find
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
3 MS. SINATRA: -- As we go through. Thank you. And we're
4 providing Mr. Obrenovic a copy of his statement in B/C/S.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Obrenovic, the main communications system was located on
6 the top of Mount Gucevo, which is on the Bosnia-Serbian border, isn't it?
7 A. If you are referring to the radio relay connection, that is
8 correct. Gucevo is on the Serbian side of the mountain, and the station,
9 the radio station, was there.
10 Q. I'd like to refer you to page 85 in the English version of your
11 June 4th, 2003 statement, which is the B/C/S page 62. We discussed our
12 not being able to get custody of any of the VRS intercepts. I believe you
13 testified that you had seen some of the VRS intercepts. On page 85, in
14 the English version, line 31, Mr. McCloskey asks: "Did you have a chance
15 to look at VRS intercepts, either tactical or corps level, after you were
16 aware that there was an investigation?" Answer: "No, I didn't. I
17 couldn't come to that, couldn't reach them." And then Peter McCloskey
18 says: "Were they keeping those records in 1988 through 1999?" Your
19 answer: "So, what was done seriously with the recording, that was in the
20 radio reconnaissance platoons, and they sent those reports to the
21 intelligence departments in the corps. Unfortunately, I couldn't reach
22 that, and I was looking for them myself."
23 Is that what you remember stating to the Prosecutor on June 3rd?
24 Thank you.
25 A. Yes. I also told you yesterday almost the same thing. I told you
1 that I had seen not the list of those conversations but what was delivered
2 to us through their intelligence organ. These are the things that Captain
3 Vukotic showed me. Some of these things are here in this file. Not the
4 conversations themselves. We could not reach the conversations. But the
5 radio reconnaissance platoon would deliver their data to the corps
6 command. They would extract what was relevant for us, for the Zvornik
7 Brigade, and deliver that to the intelligence men of the Zvornik Brigade.
8 We also received a lot of telegrams, and we were given those telegrams by
9 the Prosecutor. The same refers to the radio reconnaissance platoon from
10 Majevica, who followed the same procedure. I was looking for them, but I
11 didn't find them for the intercepts.
12 Q. You don't have in your possession any VRS intercepts, do you?
13 A. A few telegrams, not transcripts, that I had, I handed over.
14 Q. All right. I'm going to go to page 119 in the English version,
15 and I still am not sure what the B/C/S version --
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MS. SINATRA:
18 Q. But it starts with July 12th, 1640 intercept. It's page 94 in
19 your version. Thank you. And at the bottom, line 31, I believe that you
20 stated -- Mr. McCloskey said: "All right. Let's go to the next
21 conversation, the 12th of July, at 1640 hours." And then, since it's
22 still talking about the 12th, then, I'm going to skip over now to page
23 122, where you're still talking about the 12th, which would be two pages
24 over from where you are now. Sorry. And you said -- and Peter McCloskey
25 said: "Sorry. Who are you talking to now? Who is X?" And you answered:
1 The duty officer at corps command, our operations officer, Colonel Jokic."
2 And then the next intercept down the page at line 27 goes to: "Okay.
3 Let's go to the next intercept, the 13th. You know that on the 12th --"
4 A. I apologise. I can't find this. Oh, well -- in this part it says
5 "Colonel Jotic." It's a mistake. At that time I said Colonel Jocic they
6 probably didn't understand me. I don't know why. I did not think at the
7 time that this was so important so I didn't ask for any corrections. It
8 should be Jocic, not Jokic, and here it is spelled Jotic. I don't know
9 why. I noticed this immediately when I started reading this transcript.
10 Jocic, Predrag, he is an old colonel who was an operations man in the
11 corps command. I can't remember his first name exactly. That's why I
12 didn't mention it.
13 Q. And so that's another mistake in the intercept recordings; right?
14 A. Not in the intercept. When my interview was being recorded, when
15 I was being interviewed by Mr. McCloskey, that may be the origin of this
16 mistake. In the intercept, it says X - I - X Obrenovic, if my memory
17 serves me well, and I remember that I had spoken with Jocic. This is not
18 a mistake in the intercept, but when my interview was being typed from the
19 cassette, I believe that during the interview I mentioned the name of
20 Colonel Jocic. I don't know why there is a "T" here instead of a C." I
21 don't know anybody called Jotic.
22 Q. Because also you know Mr. Jokic was not duty officer on the 12th;
24 A. Absolutely. I never claimed that he was.
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Excuse me, Your Honour. Perhaps we could just try
1 to fix the -- what appears to be the mistake in the transcript at this
2 point. It appears from the testimony of Mr. Obrenovic that his B/C/S
3 transcript has a Jotic, J-o-t-i-c. Our English transcript has a Jokic.
4 And as he says, the intercept doesn't have anybody. It's got Mr. X. Just
5 so that's clear.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
7 MS. SINATRA: All right. Thank you for clearing that up,
8 Mr. Obrenovic and Mr. McCloskey.
9 Q. I'd like to go forward now to page 130 of the -- of your interview
10 from 2003, and it refers to a document marked P125 -- no, 123.
11 A. I apologise. What page is that on in my version?
12 Q. 102. I'm sorry. And Mr. McCloskey asks you, on line 11 in our
13 version: "So let's go to the 14th at 9.10 hours. Appears to be Major
14 Jokic and Major Milenko Zivanovic. And then I'd like to skip over to the
15 next page, where Mr. McCloskey asks you: "Then Jokic says near the end
16 that the chief of staff, Obrenovic, is coming now. So we'll take some
17 steps immediately." It's your assertion today in court that Mr. Jokic was
18 incorrect, that you were not present at headquarters that day; right?
19 A. Yes, absolutely.
20 Q. And now I'd like to go to page 132, which is B/C/S version 104. I
21 don't want to read the whole transcript into the record, but basically,
22 you're describing to the Prosecutor how much traffic there is at the duty
23 officer's headquarters and how it's obvious from this conversation that
24 he's speaking on two phones at one time; is that right?
25 A. If my memory serves me well, when you say "traffic," you probably
1 mean radio communications. I was talking about how crowded it was on the
2 radio waves. And whenever there is combat or whenever there is something
3 going on there are a lot of messages, a lot of calls, and you can tell by
4 this that Mr. Jokic was indeed speaking on two telephones at the same
5 time, and he -- and those who were listening in to those conversations
6 managed to actually listen and hear what he was saying on -- even on the
7 local line, which cannot be intercepted normally.
8 Q. And also on -- in this -- the middle of this intercept, they have
9 the wrong name down. Instead of Duric, it's really Ostoja Djuric; right?
10 A. Here in the Serbian version it says Ostoja was -- is probably a
11 logistics man in the logistics company. That's what it says here. I
12 don't know what you have in the English version. And this refers to
13 Ostoja Djuric, not Duric but Djuric.
14 Q. Thank you for clarifying that mistake. And in the same intercept,
15 they refer to someone named Vojanovic don't they, and it's really
17 A. Yes. It is probably Ljubo Bojanovic. Maybe the person who was
18 listening in made a mistake.
19 Q. And in this intercept, 125, General Miletic is the same Miletic
20 that you met in Mali Zvornik, isn't he?
21 A. Yes. Several years later.
22 Q. And the reference on page 134, which I think is 106/107 in your
23 version, line 30 in ours, that there were big problems "well, with the
24 people, I mean, parcels." You go on and he keeps asking you whether they
25 were guarding the prisoners, and you state that the prisoners he's
1 referring to were probably prisoners taken from the combat front who were
2 being brought back for interrogation; is that right?
3 A. I apologise. I still haven't found this. You said page 107,
4 didn't you? What page did you mention? What page number?
5 Q. Well, Mr. McCloskey mentions from the intercept the word "packets"
6 or parcels, on page 106 or 107. I'm not sure which one it is in your
7 version. And you state that I assume he's talking to the -- referring to
8 the Muslim prisoners, but the entire conversation with Mr. Jokic involves
9 the combat activities, doesn't it?
10 A. If we have in mind the same thing, and what I'm seeing on page 106
11 and 107, this is a conversation between Mr. Jokic and the headquarters on
12 Badem. He spoke with Colonel Beara. While he was waiting to be put
13 through to Colonel Beara, he spoke on his phone to the engineers company.
14 So we're talking about two different conversations. When he's talking
15 about -- with Beara, he's talking about prisoners who were brought by
16 buses. When he's talking to his engineers men, Ostoja, Brka, and the
17 others, then he is describing the combat situation. So in my mind, these
18 are two entirely different things, two entirely different conversations.
19 Q. Okay. I would like to jump forward to your testimony on page 137,
20 involving this same discussion. And Peter McCloskey says: "This packet
21 has done most to ruin us." But this packet you answer saying: I think
22 that he is saying two things, first about the combat and then, which is to
23 say about the prisoners, the parcel which refers to the prisoners." Then
24 I go down to line 28. Mr. McCloskey says: "And then the general says:
25 Okay. Don't talk to me about that. What do you think Jokic was talking
1 about? We've been reporting on the number of people." And then you
2 respond: "Personally, I think that when Jokic was talking about a number
3 of people, that he was referring to the indications that we had about the
4 column. Since there was an order not to report and not to talk."
5 Isn't that what you said in your statement on page 137?
6 A. Yes, I did, and I just repeated the same thing.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Obrenovic testified to that very same thing on
9 direct, and so this is not impeachment, it's not refreshing a
10 recollection. I don't know what it is, but I...
11 JUDGE LIU: I don't know. Maybe there is a follow-up question by
12 Ms. Sinatra.
13 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, will you give me like a five-minute
14 warning when I'm getting close to the 30?
15 JUDGE LIU: Now I'm going to issue the five-minute warning.
16 MS. SINATRA: Okay. Well then at this point I'm going to be
17 forced to move forward from the intercept line of questioning, and I want
18 to go directly to:
19 Q. In your transcript of October 2nd, testifying here in court, I'd
20 like to refer to page 2444, and the question was: "Can you describe your
21 professional relationship post-war with Mr. Jokic?" And you went on to
22 talk about some friction between the two of you. There was a problem that
23 cropped up with respect to some explosive device for SFOR, and then at one
24 point Mr. Jokic accused me of perhaps working for SFOR."
25 Now, the truth is, that really isn't correct, is it? That's not
1 what happened during that investigation?
2 A. No, you are not correct. This altercation, if I can call it like
3 that, happened after our explosive was found at Drinjaca after they
4 arrested this man. I think his name was Cvijetin Micic. And when an
5 investigation was organised about this, they set up some sort of
6 commission to investigate all these events, and this happened in that
8 Q. In fact, you're aware that pursuant to annex 1 of the Dayton Peace
9 Agreement, that the VRS was obliged to itemise and reveal for SFOR all of
10 its weapons, ammunition, and military equipment, wasn't it?
11 A. Yes, you're absolutely right.
12 Q. As commander of the Zvornik Brigade, you ordered that a storage of
13 ammunition not be reported and remain hidden, didn't you?
14 A. No, that's not the way it happened. And this requires more
15 detailed explanation. But what I can say is that when, in 1996, I became
16 deputy commander in the Zvornik Brigade, tonnes of weapons and ammunition
17 were hidden from the SFOR, literally tonnes, six tanks, for instance, to
18 illustrate my point. And then in early -- in late 1996 and early 1997, we
19 reported all this. But some 60 kilogrammes, or 80 - I'm not sure exactly
20 how many - remained behind, and Major Jokic reported to me. He told me
21 that this existed. I had forgotten about it. And he suggested that this
22 be taken to Serbia. I knew, however, that if we were discovered, we would
23 be arrested, and that's exactly what happened. So I didn't allow him to
24 take this to Serbia, but ordered him to have this put in a warehouse with
25 Cvijetin Micic, who was the man in charge of the warehouse, and he was
1 dissatisfied, and then I ordered that this be reported and legalised in
2 three or four batches, so that 15 or 20 kilogrammes be reported at any
3 single time. This was not done, however. I went on annual leave and the
4 SFOR discovered the explosive, and that's when this event happened. It's
5 true that this was hidden from SFOR. You're completely right about that.
6 Q. And there was an investigation into your participation in
7 secreting these ammunitions; right?
8 A. There was an investigation into the entire matter, how it came
9 about, and each individual's responsibility was to be established. And
10 it's through in this context I was also interviewed, as were all the other
11 participants. And I was the then commander. I think this was in early
12 1998. I can't remember the exact year, but thereabouts.
13 Q. And in fact, you, as the commander, General Momir Talic from
14 Main Staff signed an order to have you removed as brigade commander,
15 didn't he?
16 A. No, he didn't have an order for me to be removed, but he proposed
17 to the Corps Commander that if I was found to be responsible, in that case
18 I should be dismissed.
19 Q. But Mr. Jokic was interviewed during this investigation also,
20 wasn't he?
21 A. Probably. The commission didn't talk to all of us together. They
22 talked to me individually, and they didn't tell me what any of the other
23 participants had told them. They interviewed me, and I assume that they
24 also interviewed Jokic, but they didn't tell me what they talked about
25 with Jokic.
1 Q. You always believed that Mr. Jokic is the one who pointed the
2 finger at you in this investigation, didn't you?
3 A. No. Maybe even before the corps investigation began, we talked,
4 and I was angry with him because the whole matter had come about, because
5 he hadn't obeyed my orders, and that's why this had happened. He did
6 things on his own initiative, and I considered that this entire thing had
7 happened because he hadn't obeyed my orders. I said that some cases
8 should be thrown out, that he should do this himself, and he didn't obey
9 this order of mine. That's why I was angry. And at one point while we
10 were talking about this, Major Jokic said: Well, maybe you're working for
11 SFOR. I was at the centre of the investigation because I was the
12 commander, both the SFOR investigation and their own investigation.
13 You're right about that. So put yourself in my situation. Everybody's
14 investigating you and your subordinates have not obeyed your orders. And
15 then some of those who failed to carry out my orders accused me of working
16 for SFOR. That's what I was trying to explain here. Maybe in the
17 archives that were seized by the OTP, there are maybe some documents about
19 Q. During this investigation, General Andric stepped in and
20 intervened in your behalf, didn't he?
21 A. No. Mr. Jokic asked for a report to General Andric. He asked to
22 be received by him. And General Andric came to the command of the Zvornik
23 Brigade and called Major Jokic. At the time he was actually a lieutenant.
24 And Lieutenant Colonel, as was I. But General Andric asked me to stay,
25 and all three of us were sitting around the table, and he asked that we
1 explain what this was all about.
2 Q. And in fact, because you said that one of us has to go from the
3 Zvornik Brigade, General Andric had Mr. Jokic transferred to Sokolac, and
4 then to road construction at Sekovici; isn't that right?
5 A. What actually happened was that when Mr. Jokic told the general
6 his version of events, I told the general something along the lines that
7 I've just said to you, referring to details and particulars that I have
8 not mentioned now, in order to save time. But the gist was the same. And
9 I said: Mr. General, as you can see, the two of us can no longer
10 cooperate. He considers me to be a traitor. So how can I work with him?
11 Find another place either for him or for me. And that's what happened.
12 It's true that perhaps after that General Andric said he would think about
13 it, and then he talked to Jokic again, but not in my presence. And he
14 suggested, because he could not order move [as interpreted], but he
15 suggested that General Jokic be moved to the command of the 5th Corps.
16 But what you're mentioning didn't happened then; it happened
17 before, the road construction, I mean. He was at the road construction
18 Sekovici six months before, or a year before. On paper, he was with us,
19 but in fact he was building something in Sekovici with the engineers,
20 either a road or a barracks; I'm not sure. But before he was moved, he
21 came to see me, and he asked for two months' leave. But this was not
22 according to the rules, so I asked General Andric, and he received
23 approval to use all of his days, and then he was moved. That's how it
25 Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Jokic's sister worked in the Zvornik
1 Brigade headquarters in record-keeping, didn't she?
2 A. Yes, for a time, at the beginning. She worked in the Territorial
3 Defence headquarters in Mali Zvornik. But when the war broke out, they
4 came to us, and for a while she worked in our command. Whether it was in
5 the archives or in the staff office dealing with paperwork, I'm not sure.
6 But this lady I think left the command in 1993, perhaps, and she didn't
7 turn up again. I think it may have been in 1994, at the latest, but most
8 probably it was in 1993. I'm sure it's somewhere in the documents. I may
9 be wrong about the year. But after the war, she wasn't with us any more.
10 Q. She left for maternity leave and you didn't allow her to come
11 back; right?
12 A. No, absolutely not. You have to know that however chaotic things
13 may have appeared - I agree they did appear to be chaotic - there were
14 certain rules in place, and the rules prescribed exactly who could do
15 what. This is the first time I'm hearing that I was able to prevent
16 someone from coming back. If you are employed by someone who can stop you
17 from coming to work. There are courts, there are superior officers, and
18 when she was due back, I wasn't even the brigade commander. I began
19 acting as the deputy commander on the 1st of May, 1996, but the Army of
20 Republika Srpska, when it became professional and when the civilians were
21 employed, this happened only in 1997, when General Milovanovic was the
22 minister. So that's not what actually happened. That's not how it was.
23 Q. Well, of course there are people that differ on your account, but
24 I would also like to clear up something: You said that in 1992, Mr. Jokic
25 was chief of staff of the Zvornik Brigade; right?
1 A. Whether he was appointed or whether he was acting or deputy, I
2 don't know, but he was, yes, because I took over my duties from him.
3 Q. And then you replaced him as chief of staff; is that right?
4 A. Yes, of course.
5 Q. So Mr. Jokic had much more experience, and he was much more -- he
6 was at the position where he should have been chief of staff, and you were
7 on the fast track of advancement in the VRS army, weren't you?
8 A. You know what things were like in our army. This may not be the
9 best way, but I didn't invent this. It was not my choice that I should be
10 chief of staff. You couldn't come to someone and say: I want to be chief
11 of staff. I may have had such aspirations, but what I'm trying to say
12 that is that at that time, in 1992, who would be appointed chief of staff
13 in the Zvornik Brigade was something that the brigade commander suggested,
14 but he didn't have the last word. Then it was the Corps Commander who
15 nominated someone and it was General Mladic who made the appointment. Why
16 they made this decision, I don't know. I have an opinion about it, but it
17 isn't important.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well --
19 A. I agreed that Jokic is a very experienced commanding officer, and
20 he's older than me. We performed similar duties, and he's a qualified
21 commanding officer. You're right about that. I'm not more able to do
22 that than he is, nor was I then.
23 MS. SINATRA:
24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Between the two of you after
25 this happened, weren't there?
1 A. As for me, no. He may have been hurt by this, but I never showed
2 any hard feelings, and I was very correct. 1992 was almost over, but in
3 1993/1994/1995, Major Pandurevic, who later became lieutenant colonel, was
4 there, and he was very energetic commanding officer. You couldn't do
5 anything like that under his command. And had I exerted any pressure, he
6 could have applied to Pandurevic or Zivanovic, with whom he was on good
7 terms. Andric, Zivanovic, anyone. This was a small army. And I say
8 again: I didn't have anything against Jokic, either then or now.
9 JUDGE LIU: Ms. Sinatra, you're ten minutes past the time.
10 MS. SINATRA: Okay, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE LIU: How many questions left have you?
12 MS. SINATRA: If the Court will allow me just to introduce some
13 documents and make -- and verify some items, I could move forward, I
14 believe. I have probably another 30 minutes' worth of questions, but I
15 would -- if the Court won't allow me to ask them, I will just put some
16 things on the record, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think at this stage, you still want to
18 introduce some documents; right?
19 MS. SINATRA: It's an article that was written by Mr. Obrenovic in
20 the Drinski magazine, and I had maybe three questions from it, supporting
21 his bias towards Mr. Jokic. And I can just introduce it into evidence, if
22 there are no objections from the Prosecution, and make reference to the
23 page numbers and items.
24 JUDGE LIU: Are there any objections, Mr. McCloskey?
25 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, this article is part of
1 Mr. Butler's report and cited and as part of all of that, as well as most
2 of the other military documents that have been discussed. So I would
3 prefer that these documents come in once they're properly given a
4 foundation, as opposed to the Defence just offering them in. But -- and
5 we intend to offer all of Mr. Butler's reports and all these materials.
6 But we're getting into an odd situation where our materials are coming in
7 through the Defence unauthenticated because we haven't gotten to the point
8 where we can authenticate them yet. And that may be confusing. If Your
9 Honours don't mind if there's a D on it or a P on it, it's not a real
10 problem for me, but this is creating an odd situation. I would prefer
11 they come in once they had proper foundations on them.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
13 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, this was provided by the Prosecution,
14 and if he doesn't think that there's a foundation for it at another time,
15 we still have the right to use it for cross-examination purposes. And if
16 he wanted to introduce it later through Mr. Butler, I would still like the
17 article to be introduced now as D14/ -- 15/3. And I probably have two
18 questions from it.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may introduce that document and ask your two
20 questions. Then we'll finish.
21 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.
22 Mr. Djukic, could you please give Mr. Obrenovic a copy in B/C/S.
23 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, do you recognise this document?
24 A. Yes, I do. This is a copy of the paper issued by the Zvornik
25 infantry Brigade, the commander ordered that such a paper or bulletin be
1 published, and I think it was issued once a month.
2 Q. And you were interviewed by this Drinski magazine, and this
3 reflects your accurate responses -- accurately your responses during the
4 interview; is that right?
5 A. Probably.
6 Q. And you gave this interview what year? 1994?
7 A. I don't remember, but if the paper is from 1994, then it was
8 probably about a fortnight before the paper was published that they
9 interviewed me. So it was probably 10 or 15 days before it was issued.
10 Q. And this was after the year that you replaced Mr. Jokic as chief
11 of staff of the Zvornik Brigade?
12 A. Yes. As I said, I replaced Mr. Jokic on the 1st of December, and
13 if this interview was in 1994, as you say, then it was more than a year
15 Q. Can we go to page 5 in the English version? I'm not sure in the
16 B/C/S version, but it's -- the question is: What is your opinion of the
17 contribution of active-duty and reserve senior officers so far in the war?
18 Have they justified their ranks and positions?" Do you see the question?
19 A. Just a moment, please, until -- let me find it. Yes, I've found
20 it now.
21 Q. And you answer by saying: Not all of them have justified their
22 ranks and positions. By this very act, they have not justified their
23 profession, ranks, or positions. A number of people who remained,
24 fortunately not many, were engaged in something else during the war rather
25 than what they had been educated for and what they have been doing --
1 should have been doing. They have not justified their ranks either."
2 And in fact, in 1994, that's the way you felt about Dragan Jokic,
3 isn't it?
4 A. No, absolutely not. As can be seen from the first part here, I
5 was talking about two things. First is active-duty commanding officer and
6 the second is reserve officers. The part that referred to active-duty
7 officers can again be subdivided into two parts. First I say that it's
8 not all right that part of the professional offices did not come back from
9 Serbia, although there was war going on in Bosnia, and the second part is
10 that some of them were engaged in other things. And we all used to say -
11 Jokic also at the time - that many officers managed to get involved in the
12 rear or in communications, in various other jobs that weren't directly in
13 combat. And this doesn't apply to Jokic. Jokic was in a combat unit all
14 the time. Even had he wanted to engage in other things, he wouldn't have
15 had time. So it's absurd to say I was referring to Jokic here. In the
16 Zvornik Brigade, there are some 20 active-duty officers. Half of them
17 were non-commissioned officers. You can count us all on the fingers of
18 one hand. It is evident I wasn't referring to Jokic. If you read this
19 article you can see that no reference to him can be found here.
20 Q. The very last paragraph of the article you stated: "This war is
21 very specific, bloody, unusual, and falls outside of any military or
22 tactical pattern." Isn't that what you said?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In 1995, July, you continued to practice acting outside of the
25 military or tactical pattern, didn't you?
1 A. No. This -- you're interpreting this in a different way from what
2 I meant to say. What it says here about the military pattern: When I was
3 being questioned by Mr. Karnavas, the front was supposed to be 12 or 15
4 kilometres long. It was about 40 kilometres long. In the reserve we had
5 just a company of military police. Defence was organised according to a
6 cordon principle and not in depth. That's what I was referring to. You
7 can interpret it any way you like, but I have said exactly what I said in
8 July of 1995 that wasn't according to the rules. If need be, I can repeat
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Obrenovic.
11 MS. SINATRA: Your Honours, because we're not going into
12 questioning on a few areas, I would just like the record to reflect that
13 we want to adopt the OTP's arguments in their motions regarding witness
14 tampering and their responses to Mr. Obrenovic's request for provisional
15 release. So I don't have to ask those questions; we adopt the OTP's
16 arguments. And also, we would like to offer that Mr. Stojanovic and the
17 Defence team here never meant to insinuate or infer that the counsels for
18 Mr. Obrenovic had operated unethically in their duties, and we have high
19 esteem and high regard for them. And I will pass the witness at this
20 moment, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
22 Any redirect? We could sit until a quarter to 11.00.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I have a few questions. It
24 shouldn't take too long. And if we could -- I know it's of interest to
25 have Mr. Obrenovic mark, as clearly as he can, the zone of responsibility
1 for the Zvornik Brigade, and perhaps if he could do that at the break, we
2 might save some time.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I do object to the use of zone of
5 responsibility. I believe Mr. Obrenovic was quite clear that there was no
6 zone of responsibility for the brigade. There's a zone of operation and
7 there are other such zones. So I would appreciate if we could use the
8 correct terminology. Because that's going to become an issue when
9 Mr. Butler shows up. So I think it has a subliminal effect if we continue
10 to use "zone of responsibility."
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the word "zone of responsibility" was
12 brought up many, many times. I think the Judges themselves have some
13 questions on that. But no matter, we use the terminology of "zone of
14 responsibility" or some other words, there must be a clear line to
15 separate the responsibilities of the two brigades in a military or
16 geographic sense. So in this sense I think it's quite necessary for the
17 witness to draw on a map roughly where is the separation line.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 If I could -- we have a new exhibit which is an intercept, number
22 P139. It's from the 15 July at 0818 hours in the morning.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, generally speaking, the redirect
24 should be within the scope of the cross-examination. There's no chance to
25 introduce new documents if you want to bring up a new subject here.
1 Because that will give the way for the Defence to cross-examine the
2 witness on that new piece of evidence, which there's no end of this
4 If you want to impeach, using this document to impeach the case
5 presented by the Defence, we could consider, but you have to tell us
6 what's the purpose of using that piece of document.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I fully agree with Your Honour. I do not want to
8 bring up any new subjects. This is an intercept that I believe starts out
9 with the point that -- on the morning of 15 July, that Chief Obrenovic is
10 in the field. This is an issue that was a major issue of Ms. Sinatra, and
11 so this is just a quick intercept showing that he's in the field, in
12 response to theirs, and then off we go to another subject.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, we'll see how far we could go. Yes.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: If you could put the English on the ELMO, the
15 beginning of it.
16 Re-examined by Mr. McCloskey:
17 Q. If you could just briefly take a look at this intercept.
18 A. I've read it.
19 Q. Where were you at the time, at 15 July, at 0818 hours in the
21 A. Mr. McCloskey, on the 15th of July, at 0818, it is very hard for
22 me to say where I was at 0818, but I was in the general area of Snagovo.
23 I believe that we were advancing from the crossroads from the villages
24 towards Crni Vrh. We were scouring the terrain and we were engaged in
25 combat with the Muslim forces and their flanks.
1 Q. Okay. In the middle of that intercept, apparently Zlatar, duty
2 officer, is looking for you, and C says: "Okay. He's up there in the
3 field. He's up there positioning the troops." Is that true?
4 A. I just said: It's very hard for me to say where I was. I was not
5 positioning the troops. We were engaged in combat. And the first thing I
6 did on that morning was that we -- I deployed the troops and went up to
7 join our troops on Crni Vrh. Yes, you may say that I was positioning my
8 troops, but also we were engaged in combat.
9 Q. All right. And who do you think, if you know, who "C" is in this
11 A. I believe that this was the switchboard. It is our switchboard.
12 And it is the person on duty by the switchboard on the second floor, on
13 the right.
14 Q. Okay. Thank you.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't need that any more.
16 Q. You testified that when Drago Nikolic spoke to you and informed
17 you of this operation to kill the prisoners, that it's at about that time
18 you decided to support that operation; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So at that time, did you take responsibility for the Muslim
21 prisoners that were stored and detained in the Zvornik Brigade area, in
22 the schools?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And were you responsible for their care, their feeding, their
25 medical help?
1 A. I was the chief of staff, or the deputy commander, and I was in
2 command of that part of the Zvornik Brigade unit in Zvornik. The answer
3 to that, in practical terms, is yes.
4 Q. As the commander, you were responsible for the prisoners in your
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may lodge an objection.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: They're not in his custody and it's never been
9 established that they were in his custody. I think the gentleman was
10 quite clear that he was informed that prisoners would be brought into his
11 area where he was -- where the -- into Zvornik, or the Zvornik area. As
12 to whether they were his prisoners or they were Beara's prisoners or
13 Popovic's prisoners, that is Main Staff, or corps prisoners, that's an
14 issue that needs to be clarified, and I don't believe that this gentleman
15 at this point is competent to make that assertion. And that's something
16 that was not raised on direct, and so it's going to invite a
17 counter-offensive on my part. So if we're going to allow this
18 questioning, which now we're going into a different area, I'm going to ask
19 the Trial Chamber to give me leeway to do re-cross-examination.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, may I respond to that? That's the
21 most absurd argument I have ever heard.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, to save time, to save time, maybe the word
23 "custody" has got special meanings. I believe the parties will argue for
24 the meaning of this word for many, many hours. Let's change to another
25 word. Yes.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY:
2 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, you have acknowledged that those prisoners in those
3 schools were your responsibility; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. In the command sense of the whole matter.
5 Q. In the command sense, as you've described, how important in
6 operations of the military is the command sense, the commander's
7 responsibility? Is there anything more important than that?
8 A. No, there isn't. This is one of the basic principles, the
9 foundation of the army. That's the principle of command.
10 Q. And as we have seen today through a document, or yesterday, the
11 prisoners at the Orahovac school were guarded by soldiers from the Zvornik
12 Brigade military police, were they not?
13 A. Not only by them, but they were also involved.
14 Q. Does Mr. Beara's and Mr. Popovic's involvement in this operation
15 negate your responsibility for these prisoners or take away your
16 responsibility for these prisoners?
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 A. No, it doesn't.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I think we need to lay some foundation
20 here. Perhaps if the gentleman was shown the order that was prepared with
21 respect to Krivaja 95, in the order itself it demonstrates -- it shows who
22 is responsible for the prisoners. I understand the gentleman here today
23 wishes to take full credit for killing everybody in the Zvornik area.
24 He's entitled to do that. But now we're getting into some legal issues
25 and I think we need to go to the order itself, because the order
1 designates who is responsible for the prisoners. Laying that foundation
2 then, if Mr. McCloskey wants to get to where he's going, perhaps I won't
3 be objecting. But without that foundational or those predicate questions
4 being answered, I do object at this point.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, generally speaking, the redirect
6 examination is based on the questions raised in the cross-examination. I
7 believe those questions were raised during the cross-examinations. So
8 there's no need for him to lay the foundations for that.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll accept the Court's -- I respectfully disagree
10 in how far those issues were delved into on cross-examination, but I'll
11 accept the Court's response to my objection.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
13 You may proceed, Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY:
15 Q. Thank you. I apologise, Mr. Obrenovic, for having to ask you this
16 question again. I know you answered it, but I'm not sure it was heard.
17 Does Mr. Popovic's and Mr. Beara's involvement in this operation
18 take away your responsibility for these prisoners?
19 A. No, it doesn't.
20 Q. Do they in some way share responsibility with you?
21 A. In the command sense -- I was the commander of the Zvornik
22 Brigade, as a deputy, at the time, so I believe the answer is clear.
23 Q. They were not commanders, Popovic and Beara, but you were at that
24 time; correct?
25 A. I was deputy commander. Beara was the chief of security of the
1 Main Staff. Popovic was the chief of security of the Drina Corps. Nikolic
2 was the chief of security in the Zvornik Brigade. These are the duties
3 that these people discharged, and I discharged the duties that I've
4 described, that I've mentioned.
5 Q. In the villages of Orahovac and Rocevic, Pilica and Petkovci, were
6 the civilian police responsible for civilian policing duties?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Does their responsibility for civilian policing duties negate or
9 take away the responsibility that you had for the prisoners in those
10 schools while you were deputy commander?
11 A. No, it doesn't.
12 Q. If Drago Nikolic had chosen to store prisoners in schools in
13 Zvornik, would you have still been responsible for those prisoners?
14 A. I would, yes. I was deputy commander, and I was Drago Nikolic's
16 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, thank you very much.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have nothing further.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas --
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE LIU: Do you want to --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I need to ask a couple of questions based on that.
22 JUDGE LIU: But you should be very strictly within the scope.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Like a laser beam, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE LIU: The main purpose is to clarify certain points rather
25 than break up a new ground.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I fully agree with you, Your Honour. I fully agree
2 with you.
3 JUDGE LIU: I hope so.
4 Yes, you may proceed.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
6 Further cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
7 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, Drago Nikolic informed you that the prisoners were
8 on their way; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And based on that, you agreed that Drago Nikolic should be
11 involved in this killing operation?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And based on that, you ordered your military police to be engaged
14 in actually killing the prisoners?
15 A. At his request, I put at his disposal a group of military
16 policemen. He asked for a whole company. I couldn't provide for that. I
17 gave him Jasikovac and a few police officers.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: This is beyond the scope. We were talking about
20 command responsibility issues. Now he's going into facts that the --
21 Mr. Obrenovic has clearly already testified, he's even made up facts.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, well, well, Mr. Karnavas.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond to this.
24 JUDGE LIU: No, no, no.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I have one last question.
1 JUDGE LIU: There shouldn't be any argument between the two
2 counsels in this courtroom. You have to understand that.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm not arguing, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, put your question in a very
5 straightforward manner, and we don't need to lay foundations on your
6 questions at this moment, at this stage. Do you understand?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour. I understand.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may try again.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
10 Q. And when you ordered the military police to be at Drago Nikolic's
11 disposal, you knew that Drago Nikolic, with your approval, would be
12 ordering your military police to participate in the killing of the
14 A. Yes, I knew. I wasn't actually sure whether they would just be
15 guarding the position or whether they would actually be shooting. I gave
16 them to him, and he could use them any way he wanted to use them.
17 Q. You had agreed to this killing operation, you had personally
18 agreed to this killing operation?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. No response?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, Your Honour, I'm all through for a while, a
23 long while, I hope.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
25 Ms. Sinatra?
1 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I don't believe that Mr. McCloskey
2 treaded on anything that has to do with Mr. Jokic in his redirect, so we
3 have know request for recross.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. It's time for a break. We'll
5 break now and resume at 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey. Did the witness draw some marks
9 on that map?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Unfortunately, they got away before we could get
11 him the map, and since it's been a long period, we were hoping we could do
12 it shortly thereafter. I'm sorry, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Maybe we could ask the witness to do that right
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's a rather detailed task, and to do it under
16 the lights of everybody watching him. If we could take a break, that
17 might not be so bad, but -- and I apologise. I should have asked him to
18 do it prior to the testimony. I just did not remember everything.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
21 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to remind the Trial
22 Chamber and the witness too, we provided him a copy of the model to mark
23 the rooms, and we've never received that back. It needs to be introduced
24 as an exhibit in the case.
25 JUDGE LIU: I see. Does it have a number on it?
1 MS. SINATRA: It doesn't yet. When he returns it to us, we'll
2 mark it.
3 JUDGE LIU: Okay. Thank you.
4 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, would you please provide the map
6 to this witness and ask him to draw more or less the rough lines. Because
7 the Judges have some questions concerning this map.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. If I can -- I'll get that map
9 over, and if we could just give him five minutes, maybe, to look at it,
10 five or ten minutes. My guess is he could do a pretty good job. I know
11 every minute counts, but he's -- I think he knows this pretty well and he
12 might not want to draw just a rough idea. He can point to it right now
13 and draw it later if you would like.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, yes, and I would agree with the Prosecutor
16 here, for a change. I would not want a rough idea, because, as far as --
17 it's going to be very critical on the issue of whether the Zvornik town is
18 part of his zone of responsibility. That's a critical issue. That's what
19 the suggestion that were being made, in fact, through the redirect. And
20 so -- and he -- and I understand that Mr. Obrenovic said that he had
21 received at some point -- not he personally, but the Zvornik Brigade -
22 some directive from the Drina Corps which expanded, in a sense, the
23 traditional zone of operation of the Zvornik Brigade, and I'm going to
24 need to -- we're going to need to look at that.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, well --
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- Time, but --
2 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, there's no need for you to give some
3 indications to this witness how to draw this map.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm not. I'm not, Your Honour. That's not the
6 JUDGE LIU: Let us break for five minutes.
7 --- Break taken at 11.06 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.27 a.m.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Obrenovic, thank you very much for drawing
10 up the lines on this map. And I would like to ask you: In drawing up
11 these lines, did you do it independently, I mean by yourself, without any
12 instructions from anybody?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I did it
14 according to the best of my memory, according to the best of my
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 The Judges might have some questions.
18 Questioned by the Court:
19 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Gospodin, Mr. Obrenovic. May I ask you about
20 the units of Zvornik Brigade which participated in the killing operation.
21 From your testimony and the testimony of Momir Nikolic, I understand that
22 military police unit, then engineering unit, and Drina Wolves unit
23 participated in the killing operation. I'm right?
24 A. Your Honour, as far as I know, regarding the units of the Zvornik
25 Brigade which participated in the killing, I can tell you that part of the
1 Zvornik Brigade police participated in providing security and guarded the
2 inmates in the school in Orahovac, on the 13th, in the evening, on the
3 14th, and later on a group remained in the school building in Orahovac on
4 the 15th. I don't know whether any of them participated in the killing of
5 people in Orahovac. I only know that Lieutenant Drago Nikolic personally
6 participated in that killing. As for the school in Pilica, a group of
7 soldiers from the 1st Battalion guarded the inmates there, but did not
8 participate in the killings, as far as I know. It is also true that a few
9 machines of the company, of the Zvornik Brigade, together with people who
10 manned those machines, participated. I personally approved for Milanovic
11 and Mitrovic to go there on the 13th to get involved in that. I am not
12 familiar with the fact that the Drina Wolves participated in the killing.
13 I also know that one of the soldiers from the 4th Battalion of our
14 brigade volunteered to go there. Later on he explained to me -- I was
15 explained by Mr. Ristic that it was soldier Gojko Simic. And this is all
16 I know, Your Honour, about the people who either guarded those people or
17 participated in the killings.
18 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: [Previous interpretation continues] ... the
19 details which characterised the participation of engineering unit in the
20 burial and reburial operation?
21 A. Your Honour, regarding the participation of the engineering unit
22 in the burial immediately after the execution which took place in July,
23 what I learnt immediately was that the two men had left Snagovo. I have
24 just mentioned their names. Only later on, that is, after the 19th, I
25 learned some more details about the participation of heavy machinery in
1 the burials of the bodies. When the excavation was carried out, I learnt
2 that when bodies were being loaded onto lorries from the primary graves,
3 and that is according to Drago Nikolic, two or three men participated in
4 the loading of those bodies. Other machinery and other troops were
5 brought by Colonels Popovic and Beara from somewhere else.
6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Could you clarify the difference between the
7 commander of engineering company, namely, Dragan Jevtic, and the chief of
8 engineering, Dragan Jokic, in terms of function and hierarchy.
9 A. I'll try, Your Honour. The commander of the engineering company,
10 in July 1995, was Dragan Jevtic. He had all the rights and all the
11 authorities arising from the then prevailing rules. He could command the
12 engineering company. He could issue orders. He could delegate tasks, to
13 put it simply.
14 The chief of engineering at that time, in July 1995, was Major
15 Dragan Jokic. His position in the branch was not a command position. He
16 was more of a professional and advisory body, so to speak. And looking
17 from this perspective, he was not in the position to issue orders or
18 delegate tasks. He could only provide professional advice. However, on
19 the order of Lieutenant Colonel Pandurevic, preceding this time, because
20 of the complexity of the tasks that had to be carried out by the
21 engineering company, and since the commanders of that company were not
22 experts in the field, the commander ordered the chief of engineering to
23 command the engineering company, which he did at particular moments.
24 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: But who was subordinated to whom? Who was
25 superior: Dragan Jokic or Dragan Jevtic?
1 A. Major Jokic, in practical terms, on the order of his superior, was
2 superior to Jevtic.
3 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Was Dragan Jokic directly subordinated to you,
4 as chief of staff, or he was subordinated to the commander of the brigade?
5 A. Your Honour, according to the establishment, the chief of
6 engineering was directly subordinated to the chief of staff. He was a
7 member of the staff, as the chief of engineering. However, if the
8 commander was to order him to be in direct command of the engineering
9 company for a certain period of time or for a very specific task, then he
10 would be subordinated to the commander, be it Pandurevic or me, as his
12 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Did Dragan Jokic command the company in the
13 crucial time, crucial period of time, from 4th until 15th July, 1995?
14 A. Your Honour, during that period of time, the engineering company
15 had its commander. It was Dragan Jevtic. On the 13th, in the afternoon,
16 I ordered him to take some 15 soldiers and go to Snagovo, and that's where
17 he was. He returned, I believe, on the 17th, in the afternoon.
18 During that period of time, his duties were discharged by his
19 deputy, Slavko Bogicevic. But as I've said a little while ago, Slavko
20 Bogicevic would certainly have consulted Mr. Jokic on all matters.
21 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And when and who tasked Dragan Jokic with the
22 burial operation? When Dragan Jokic was aware that he is tasked, that he
23 had to participate and organise the burial operation?
24 A. I can't give you a precise answer, Your Honour, because I was in
25 the field, as I've already told you. So I really wouldn't be in the
1 position to give you a precise answer on that. I can't tell you whether
2 he became aware and when he became aware of that.
3 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: You testified that in extraordinary
4 circumstances, duty officers can issue orders. Could you be more precise
5 on this? Could you tell us examples. And to whom the duty officer can
6 issue orders in such extraordinary circumstances.
7 A. Your Honour, this authority is not very wide. When I testified, I
8 believe that I said that a duty officer can act on behalf of the commander
9 and has the right to issue orders, or also he can do that on behalf of the
10 duty operations officer of the Drina Corps. These are assumed
11 possibilities in case the commander or his deputies are not there and the
12 situation calls for an immediate order to be issued. And then he is
13 obliged to inform either one or the other, or both of his superiors, as
14 soon as possible, about such an order having been issued. So he has to
15 inform either his commander or the duty officer in the Drina Corps,
16 depending on whom he replaced at the time.
17 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Was this communication between duty officers
18 and commander recorded?
19 A. Your Honour, if you are referring to the intercepts, some of the
20 communication between the duty operations officer and myself, who was
21 discharging those duties on the 14th of July, was recorded. The
22 communication between myself and the radio centre was recorded. The
23 communication between me and Mr. Jokic could not have been recorded
24 because we did not have such technical capabilities at the time. Some of
25 these conversations were recorded, and those were conversations between
1 myself and the radio centre, and also there are some conversations which
2 were recorded between the duty operations officer of the Zvornik Brigade
3 and the duty operations officer of the Drina Corps. I believe that we saw
4 one of those conversations earlier on this morning.
5 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Do you know if Dragan Jokic issued any order
6 while being duty officer?
7 A. It was customary for the duty operations officer to issue some
8 orders. I cannot say anything more specific than that. I can't give you
9 any more precise answer.
10 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: What was your relationship with Drago Nikolic
11 at that time?
12 A. Your Honour, are you referring to our communications by way of
13 radio, or are you referring to our personal relationship?
14 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Both. And not only personal relationship, but
15 also duty relationship.
16 A. I was not on any particular friendly terms with him. He was the
17 assistant commander for security. I was the chief of staff. And our
18 relation was similar to the one that I had with Jokic, or any other
19 officers in the command. Later on, there were some tensions, so that when
20 he was to be retired, he said to me that my biggest mistake was that I did
21 not have a good relationship with security officers. We were both
22 appointed to our respective duties, and that was that. We were not
23 friends, if that's what you were referring to. But we also were not
24 hostile towards each other. There was no hostility between the two of us.
25 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: How often did he contact you during the killing
2 A. Your Honour, only that evening, when he called me, and this was in
3 the evening of the 13th. After that, we didn't see each other or
4 communicate until I returned from the terrain, from the fighting that I
5 told you about.
6 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: My last question: Do you know about any
7 contacts between Drago Nikolic and Momir Nikolic from Bratunac Brigade,
8 security officer from Bratunac Brigade?
9 A. Your Honour, I read about this when the Office of the Prosecutor
10 showed me Momir Nikolic's statement, but I didn't know that, really.
11 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you. I have no more questions.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Vassylenko. I have some questions
13 concerning this map.
14 Mr. Obrenovic, would you please show us on the map the separation
15 line between the two areas of the responsibility, that is, between the
16 Bratunac Brigade and the Zvornik Brigade.
17 A. Your Honour, as far as I can remember, on this part here, the area
18 of responsibility of our brigade started at the front line in the village
19 of Markovici, and then it went to Donji Saparde [phoen]. After that, to
20 the facility called Plek [phoen], and then Gromilica, and then the Kozjak
21 feature. Then to Kuslat. Everything I've listed so far was the boundary
22 between the Zvornik and Birac Brigades.
23 Then there's the Kuslat feature, where our border with the
24 Bratunac Brigade begins, and that was your question. Then it went to the
25 Milovan feature, Drenjak, and this way, to the south of the village of
1 Zelinja, in Zelinjsko Polje. There was an elevation, I've forgotten
2 exactly which one it was, but then it went straight on to the river Drina.
3 So let me repeat: With the Bratunac Brigade, the boundary went Kuslat,
4 Milovan, Drenjak, and south-east along the Zelinjsko Polje plain.
5 JUDGE LIU: And where is the headquarters of the 6th Battalion of
6 the Zvornik Brigade during that time?
7 A. Your Honour, the headquarters of the 6th Infantry Battalion of the
8 Zvornik Brigade was in the village of Pilica, in the old school, in the
9 very centre of the village.
10 JUDGE LIU: I see. And how close was the headquarters from --
11 yes, yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't know if it was a translation or not, but
13 that -- there's been a mistake in the village.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe so. Maybe, Mr. Obrenovic, would you
15 please repeat your answer.
16 A. Your Honour, the command of the 6th Infantry Battalion was in the
17 village of Petkovci, in the old school in the village, in the centre of
18 the village.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. And how close was the headquarters from
20 the school and the dam?
21 A. Your Honour, between the old school, where the command was, and
22 the new school, the distance was approximately 800 metres, or 1 kilometre,
23 roughly speaking. So let's say a kilometre. And the dam was a bit
24 further away, two or three kilometres, perhaps, from the new school. So
25 all together it was about three kilometres from the headquarters to the
1 dam. But this is a rough estimate. I don't remember this precisely.
2 JUDGE LIU: In your testimony, you told us that the 10th
3 detachment took part in the killing of the detained prisoners in the
4 school. From whom did you learn this information?
5 A. Your Honour, after these events, in the second half of June - no,
6 July - there were rumours going around. On one occasion I was talking to
7 Nikolic, and he just hinted at it. So, well, I can say I heard it from
9 JUDGE LIU: You mean Drago Nikolic?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE LIU: And anybody else who took part in that killing? Do
12 you know, so far as to your knowledge?
13 A. Your Honour, according to my knowledge, this was this unit from
14 the 10th Detachment.
15 JUDGE LIU: I want to ask you some questions about the Srebrenica
16 operation. In your testimony, you said plans for the Srebrenica operation
17 began intensively on the 2nd of July, 1995. My question is: Do you know
18 whether there's any meetings for the commanders of those brigade units
19 which would be involved in the operation by the Main Staff of Drina Corps
20 at that time?
21 A. According to my knowledge, Your Honour, Lieutenant Colonel
22 Pandurevic was at a meeting on the 2nd. I don't remember exactly where
23 the meeting was, but I think it was in the headquarters of the Drina
24 Corps. And he came back in the late afternoon and called us together
25 right away, in order to carry out the preparatory order. As I was absent
1 just before that, I don't know whether they had had any meetings
2 previously. But on the 2nd, I think it was in Vlasenica. Most probably
3 in Vlasenica.
4 JUDGE LIU: So you mean that the specific rules of the various
5 brigades were outlined during that meeting? Am I right?
6 A. Your Honour, I didn't attend that meeting, but, as I have already
7 said, when the commander came back in the early evening, he gave out tasks
8 right away as to what was to be prepared, and he issued orders that our
9 own preparatory order be issued. So I think that over there they were
10 given tasks in this connection, orally, and at the same time the written
11 preparatory order arrived.
12 JUDGE LIU: Do you know what specific tasks assigned to your
13 brigade and to the Bratunac Brigade?
14 A. I didn't know that at the time, Your Honour. Later on I read
15 about this in the various documents that I was shown. And also,
16 Lieutenant Colonel Pandurevic, when things quietened down on the 24th, and
17 later, said something to me about it.
18 JUDGE LIU: Are they just a military task, or any task, any other
20 A. What Lieutenant Colonel Pandurevic said on those days related to
21 military tasks for the attack on Srebrenica.
22 JUDGE LIU: During your testimony, you said that Zvornik Brigade
23 came into contact with Bratunac Brigade, 4th Battalion, at one stage. And
24 you spoke with the duty officer of the 4th Battalion, Mr. Radika Petrovic;
25 is that right?
1 A. Your Honour, I didn't speak personally with Radika Petrovic. He
2 was the commander of that battalion. But I did talk to his duty officer,
3 or someone from the command there, on the morning of the 12th.
4 JUDGE LIU: Were you also in contact with other officials, either
5 Mr. Blagojevic or Momir Nikolic, at that point?
6 A. No, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: And on the 12th of July, did you have any contact with
8 Mr. Blagojevic, or any persons from Bratunac Brigade, for updates?
9 A. On the 12th, Your Honour, I didn't have contacts with anyone from
10 the Bratunac Brigade.
11 JUDGE LIU: So you only got your information from Drina Corps?
12 A. Your Honour, I received information from the Drina Corps from Mane
13 Djuric, of the MUP. And what my intelligence officer, Captain Vukotic,
14 gathered from our group on Gucevo listening in to radio communications,
15 and that was all.
16 JUDGE LIU: And could brigades have direct contact, or they have
17 to go through their superior commander structures?
18 A. It was possible, Your Honour, for brigades to communicate
19 directly, as neighbours in combat, but there was also the possibility of
20 their communicating through the corps. All tasks had to go through the
21 corps command.
22 JUDGE LIU: Do you know if Mr. Dragan Jokic took part in the
23 burial and reburial operations?
24 A. Your Honour, in the reburial operations, I have no knowledge about
25 Dragan Jokic participating. I don't know about that. My personal opinion
1 is that he didn't. But as regards the original burials, when I was asked
2 to let those two men go, I checked through the communications line, and
3 they said that the message had come from the operative on duty, and that
4 was him. So it was probably he who gave the order, or rather, asked for
5 those two persons.
6 JUDGE LIU: As for the Orahovac execution, could you clarify it?
7 Who from the Zvornik Brigade took part in the executions? On whose order?
8 A. Your Honour, what I learned, as early as the 15th, when I came to
9 the command of the 4th Battalion in Baljkovica, was that Drago Nikolic
10 participated personally in the shootings, our security officer, that is,
11 as did Gojko Simic of the 4th Battalion, whom we've mentioned. Drago
12 Nikolic asked for volunteers for this. And the shooting started under
13 orders from Lieutenant Colonel Popovic.
14 JUDGE LIU: You testified that Lazo Ristic, deputy commander of
15 the 4th Battalion of the Zvornik Brigade, sent eight soldiers to Orahovac
16 to help secure the prisoners in the school. Did he get your approval?
17 A. No, he didn't get my approval, Your Honour. I learned about this
18 through contacts with him by radio on the 14th, after he had done this.
19 And he explained this to me on the 15th, in the afternoon, in the command,
20 when I asked him about it. He explained that he had received a phone call
21 from Orahovac, from Captain Milorad Trbic, who was Drago Nikolic's deputy
22 and who said: Lazo, help us. The Turks are going to break through. He
23 asked him to get together a group of men, seven or eight men, and send
24 them there. And Ristic, as he said, sent seven or eight men to help in
25 securing the prisoners.
1 So in the early evening of the 14th, I learned that Ristic had
2 sent that group, without their being detailed, and on the afternoon of the
3 15th he explained things to me, as I've just described.
4 JUDGE LIU: As for the burial of the killed prisoners of war, are
5 there any plans for that? Because it involves a lot of coordinations of
6 various departments and using a lot of heavy machines. I want to ask you
7 whether there was a plan to bury those killed people.
8 A. Your Honour, I am not aware of any plan. What I know is that
9 practically on the 14th, this order was issued in haste. And on the 14th,
10 preparations began. Machines were driven off to the locations where they
11 were to operate and they did that then, afterwards.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
13 Any questions out of Judges' questions? Mr. McCloskey?
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
16 Mr. Karnavas?
17 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
19 Ms. Sinatra?
20 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour, I do have some questions.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
22 MS. SINATRA: Thank you. And most of these questions are in
23 response to questioning by Judge Vassylenko.
24 Further cross-examination by Ms. Sinatra:
25 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, you said that in order for the chief of engineering
1 to participate or issue orders, there had to be -- he had to have
2 permission or an order from his commander, Pandurevic, or at that time it
3 would be you, or the Drina Corps; isn't that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And you testified that Commander Pandurevic had signed an order
6 giving him authority to command the engineering company, didn't you?
7 A. Ms. Sinatra, I didn't say that the commander signed an order, but
8 that previously the commander had issued an oral order because the chief
9 of engineers was not qualified and because of what they were doing, or
10 rather, Jokic was not qualified to deal with the engineers.
11 Q. But there is no written order or any intercepted conversation that
12 verifies that your commander, Pandurevic, had issued any such order, is
14 A. No. No.
15 Q. And --
16 A. Or at least I didn't see it.
17 Q. And I believe that you testified that on the 13th, 14th, and 15th
18 of July, no such order had been given to authorise the chief of
19 engineering to command the engineering company?
20 A. No. On the 13th and 14th, no.
21 Q. And you did testify that according to the regular chain of
22 command, when Commander Jevtic was absent from the engineering company,
23 that his deputy, Slavko Bogicevic - did I say it correctly - became acting
24 commander of the unit; is that right?
25 A. He did, yes.
1 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, if I could just have one second. I
2 can't read my own handwriting, unfortunately.
3 JUDGE LIU: It happens sometimes.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, just for the record. I believe the
5 record said that Mr. Jokic was not qualified to deal with the engineers,
6 and I just wanted to make sure that's what the witness said, or whether or
7 not he meant -- or he said Jevtic. These names are close, and it seems to
8 be different than what I've been hearing.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra. You may repeat your question in
10 this respect.
11 MS. SINATRA: Oh, did I say that? Okay. I didn't say -- that was
12 his answer that he dealt with. I'm really not quite sure what
13 Mr. McCloskey is talking about, except that Mr. Obrenovic:
14 Q. Mr. Jokic is a trained engineer, and that's why he is an advisor
15 and part of the chief of staff; is that right?
16 A. Yes. He was the most qualified of all of us, as far as the
17 engineers were concerned.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we just ask him -- the paragraph that I
19 thought might have been a mistake has now disappeared. Did he mean when
20 he said someone was not qualified, did he mean Jevtic or Jokic?
21 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm sorry. I believe Mr. McCloskey has
22 the right to address this when he's able to question the witness.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think he just passed his turn at this moment.
24 I think this issue is brought up during the answering of this witness to
25 your question. So you may just ask a simple question, whether he said Mr.
1 Jokic or somebody else is qualified to deal with the engineers. It's very
3 MS. SINATRA:
4 Q. Was Mr. Jevtic an engineer in the civilian sector before he became
5 a reservist?
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: I surrender, Your Honour.
7 MS. SINATRA: Well, it may clear it up if Mr. Jevtic is an
8 engineer, then maybe he meant what he was saying.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, why not ask a direct question, just direct.
10 MS. SINATRA: I wish I had the question in front of me, Your
12 Q. Was -- were you claiming that Mr. Jokic had or did not have
13 qualifications to deal with the issues in the engineering company?
14 A. Ms. Sinatra, what I said was that Jokic was qualified for
15 engineering matters. The most qualified of all of us who were in the
16 command. And in relation to Mr. Jevtic, who was the leader of the
17 engineers company, and his deputy, Brko, that is, Slavko Bogicevic, and
18 the other commanders there. Mr. Jokic was of course the most qualified.
19 This is quite logical.
20 Q. But it doesn't mean that Mr. Jevtic was not qualified to handle
21 the engineering company, does it?
22 A. Jevtic was a private. He had no rank. And he was a civil
23 engineer. Of course, he was better educated than someone who was maybe a
24 mason, but in relation to a commanding officer who had graduated from the
25 academy, like me, his military expertise could not be compared. That's
1 what I meant when I was speaking about Jevtic's qualifications. He was
2 appointed at the proposal of Mr. Jokic, as an engineers man. He selected
3 him, so he probably believed that he met certain elementary requirements,
4 at least some of them.
5 Q. I'm not quite sure what Judge Vassylenko's question was regarding
6 tasking Mr. Jokic for the burial operations on the 14th, but as far as
7 you've testified, the record in this case so far, there has been no
8 evidence that Mr. Jokic was tasked, on the 14th, while he was duty
9 officer, to participate in the burials, is there?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: It's really improper for this witness to have to
13 try to testify in the evidence of -- that's been presented at this trial.
14 I think there's probably a proper question in there, but that's not it.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 Ms. Sinatra, would you please look into the transcript to see what
17 kind of question Judge Vassylenko asked to this witness.
18 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I can't go back from here to find it.
19 All I have is on my screen. Actually, these questions are really
20 important, and the issues that Judge Vassylenko has raised regarding
21 Mr. Jokic are of such monumental importance to the case. I wish that we
22 could have -- I'm asking the Court for a five- or ten-minute recess so
23 that I can print the questions out and digest and be able to ask the
24 appropriate questions for my client.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, to save time, I'll ask Judge Vassylenko to
1 repeat his question.
2 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: My question was: When and who tasked Mr.
3 Dragan Jokic to organise and participate in burial operation. And then
4 the next question was when Mr. Jokic was aware, became aware that a burial
5 operation will be on the agenda.
6 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, in order to respond properly, is there
7 some location in the transcript where Mr. Obrenovic had testified that
8 somebody had tasked Mr. Jokic to participate in the burial operation?
9 Because I don't know how to respond to that question.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm just trying to help, Your Honour. I don't
12 believe there's anything in the record about that. I do recall that
13 Mr. Obrenovic did testify about what Mr. Jokic told him had been going on
14 in the brigade while he was away, and that there were some names
15 mentioned. But that's the only evidence that I can recall. And there
16 really hasn't been any evidence yet that Mr. Jokic has made orders or
17 tasked people specifically, if I can save time by there. And I think this
18 witness has been very clear about his knowledge of those matters.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MS. SINATRA: And I want to express my appreciation to the
21 Prosecution for helping me clear that up, because I was very confused
22 about this at the moment.
23 So I will go on to what I think might be Judge Vassylenko's next
25 Q. I think Judge Vassylenko asked you about whether the duty officer
1 can issue orders, and I'd just like to refer to what was marked as D11/3.
2 And you've seen it, and you have been provided a copy of it again. If
3 you'd like to look at it, it is the internal service organs of the command
4 post, and it is for the work of commands and staffs. It's the rule about
5 what duty officers are authorised to do and not to do. And under internal
6 service organs, number 3, going to number 66 --
7 MS. SINATRA: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm sorry.
8 I'm at paragraph 66 now, Mr. Obrenovic.
9 Q. Paragraph 66. Do you see it, Mr. Obrenovic?
10 MS. SINATRA: Okay. I'm not sure why we have a different set.
11 Q. But does this, the operations duty officer has the following
12 duties: Is that what it says?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the duties of the duty officer are to monitor the course of
15 combat operations and to enter the changes in subordinate and adjacent
16 units, and to charts and staff operation maps? Is that number 1?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the next one is to inform the commander or chief of staff
19 about any major changes or orders issued by a superior which require a
20 decision of the commander. Is that number 2?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And to be familiar with the disposition of elements of the command
23 post, the location of the commander, the chief of staff, and assistants to
24 the commander. Is that number 3?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And number 4 is to control and --
2 JUDGE LIU: Ms. Sinatra, there's no disputes about that.
3 MS. SINATRA: Okay. I just --
4 JUDGE LIU: Can I remind you of the answer of this witness. Judge
5 Vassylenko asked that question: You testified in extraordinary
6 circumstances, duty officers can issue orders. Could you be more precise
7 on this? Could you tell us examples, and to whom the duty officer can
8 issue orders in such extraordinary circumstances?" The answer is: "Your
9 Honour, this authority is not very wide. When I testified, I believe that
10 I said a duty officer can act on behalf of the commander and has the right
11 to issue orders, or also he can do that on behalf of the duty operations
12 officer of the Drina Corps. These are assumed possibilities in case the
13 commander or his deputies are not there and the situation calls for an
14 immediate order to be issued. And then he is obliged to inform either one
15 or the other, or both of his superiors, as soon as possible, about such an
16 order having been issued. So he has to inform either his commander or the
17 duty officer in the Drina Corps, depending on whom he replaced at the
19 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I think I already questioned on that
20 issue, then, and I will not go further into that at the moment. May I
21 just ask lead counsel one question, please? It takes me one second.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MS. SINATRA: I just want to lean over.
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
2 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. We have no further questions.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Now it's time for a break.
4 We'll be back at 10 to 1.00. And after the recess, if we have time, I
5 would like to spend about 10 or 15 minutes about the 92 bis witnesses. I
6 believe that the Prosecution proposed some, four or five, 92 bis
7 witnesses. If we have to go into the private session, then we'll do that.
8 Mr. Karnavas?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. First of all, I am
10 prepared to make argument on all of those. We could refer to them by
11 their numbers, but it might expedite matters if we just went into private
12 session and then we can sort of just machine-gun through all of those
13 issues and just be done for the day.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We'll resume at 10 to 1.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that at this stage there are a lot of
18 documents that have to be tendered by the parties. Shall I begin from the
19 Prosecution. Mr. McCloskey.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. The first document, P115, is
21 the plea agreement materials. The next would be P116, which is this big
22 map that we now, for the record, should state that Mr. Obrenovic -- that's
23 P116, and we will have -- the marked by Obrenovic version is P116 bis. So
24 we will have another copy of this unmarked, Your Honour, and then the one
25 that Mr. Obrenovic has marked is, as I said. Then the various intercepts
1 and documents and other material, we would just wait until we get our
2 authentication materials together. P132 is a list of the first batch of
3 documents released by the Obrenovic Defence team. And then there's P133,
4 which is the Zvornik Brigade duty officer workbook that we showed the
5 original of, that we would be offering into evidence, though we don't want
6 to offer the original into evidence, just for safety keeping. P134 is the
7 barracks book, and P135 is the war journal, and P137 is the operations
8 duty officer logbook. And P138 was a small map showing the movement of
9 the - sorry - the big map, the big, simple blue map of the movement of the
10 Muslim column. And just to correct the record, the intercept dated 15
11 July, at 0818 that I talked about this morning should be P140, not P139.
12 And the small map that Mr. Obrenovic marked based on his more precise
13 markings would be P141. And that is all of our material, as we are aware
14 of it, that we're ready for at this time.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes. There's one question about the P140 you just
16 mentioned. Are you going to tender that intercept into evidence now or at
17 a later stage?
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: We thought we would tender all the intercepts at a
19 later stage, Your Honour. And though on that point, as we're aware,
20 there's a continuing objection. However, it would be very helpful for the
21 Prosecution if we had some sort of a legal basis or grounds for their
22 objection. That way, we would have something to respond to and provide
23 the Court with as we go forward in this process of authenticating the
24 intercepts, both, of course, factually and legally.
25 JUDGE LIU: So at this moment you are not going to tender P140,
1 the last one?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes. No intercepts yet. We want to give you all
3 that intercept background information so you can make your decision on
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
6 Any objections? Mr. Karnavas.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. By and large, I don't have
8 any objections. However, with respect to the one logbook, it indicated --
9 I believe the Prosecutor said that a copy, as opposed to the original, for
10 safety purposes. Now, I cannot think of a safer place than with the Trial
11 Chamber versus the Prosecution's office, so I don't understand why they
12 get to retain a piece of evidence because for safety purposes. So I'm a
13 little concerned about that.
14 Secondly, with respect to P141, which is the small map that
15 Mr. Obrenovic marked, I did see him mark it, but I don't believe any
16 questions were elicited from Mr. Obrenovic. Maybe I missed that part, but
17 I don't believe it was covered at all in order to get it into evidence.
18 And as far -- and I just briefly want to remark -- make a remark with
19 respect to Mr. McCloskey's remarks concerning intercepts. It is not our
20 burden to point to him what our objections are. It's his burden to lay
21 the foundation.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: That's absolutely incorrect, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE LIU:
24 MR. KARNAVAS: If he doesn't lay the foundation --
25 JUDGE LIU: Let Mr. Karnavas finish.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but --
2 JUDGE LIU: Let him finish.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Once he tenders them and offers them, if he doesn't
4 lay a proper foundation, at that point, the burden shifts to us, and then
5 we point out what flaws may exist, and then the Court will make a
6 decision. But for us to telegraph in advance what we think might be the
7 problems before he lays a foundation I think is putting the cart before
8 the horse, if I might put it in that crude fashion. Thank you.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, yes, Mr. McCloskey.
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could briefly respond. Mr. President,
11 perhaps Mr. Karnavas misunderstood what I was saying and I know that he
12 knows in his legal tradition there is what is called a motion to suppress
13 evidence, which is done in -- all throughout the States and the federal
14 government, where the -- on legal grounds the defence can bring a motion
15 to clear up issues so you know what you're going to be talking about in
16 court, so you don't have to take the trial time to do it. I'm not
17 suggesting any factual issues or any problems or any strategies they have
18 to undercut the credibility of that material, no. That's something that
19 they're absolutely free to do, of course. But legally, if they have legal
20 grounds, which perhaps they don't and it's just reliable that's fine. If
21 they can state they have no legal grounds, that's fine. But Your Honours
22 may be aware there has been a major case on intercepts that has just come
23 down, I think Brdjanin and Talic. I haven't had a chance to read it
24 carefully, but it appeared to be a well-reasoned opinion. So I don't
25 think we have a real disagreement here. I don't want him to give up his
1 ability to challenge these things. But it would be very helpful to get
2 the legal issues dealt with before we go any further.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. I guess I did misunderstand the Prosecutor,
5 because had there been any legal grounds for me to file a motion to
6 suppress, I would have done that long before we started the trial. So my
7 comment was with respect to foundational purposes. So that's the only
8 thing that I wanted to point out. And as far as all the other - his - the
9 documents that he wishes to tender, we have no objections other than the
10 qualifying points that I made.
11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
12 Ms. Sinatra.
13 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you. I would just like the
14 record to reflect that we support the argument of Mr. Karnavas as far as
15 the intercepts are considered, and it would be best to -- if there is a
16 motion to suppress that needs to be filed, it would be best after the
17 Prosecution has put the intercept witnesses on the stand and we've
18 determined the evidence that they intend to elicit from these witnesses.
19 And then if the Court so wishes and I'm sure on a motion of the Defence we
20 will file our own motion to suppress at the appropriate time. But also,
21 we agree to P115, P116, P116 bis. And I'm not quite sure: Did the
22 Prosecution offer P133 bis and 137 bis? I don't believe they were offered
23 into evidence. We object to that, because they did not elicit any
24 evidence from the witness regarding P133 bis and P137 bis.
25 And as for the remainder --
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just to clarify: We didn't -- so far everybody is
2 agreeing on everything. No issue.
3 MS. SINATRA: Thank you very much, Mr. McCloskey.
4 We do object to the admissibility of P132, P133, P134, P135, and
5 P137. We do not object to P138. The reason we object to the ones that I
6 just referred to, Your Honour, is that we are making an oral motion to
7 suppress the documents provided by Mr. Obrenovic, and we're basing that
8 objection upon Article 20(1), Article 21(4)(b) and Rule 89(D) and (E) and
9 Rules 95. Based on the evidence solicited from the witness during his
10 testimony in the last few days, the reliability, the admissibility of the
11 documents that have been in the possession of the witness, who was a
12 co-accused at one time, lacks reliability, cannot be proven that it hasn't
13 been tampered with, and I would just like to refer to my Rule just for a
14 second. Under Rule 95, of course the Court knows that any evidence that
15 there has been cast substantial doubt on its reliability or its admission
16 is antithetical and would be -- would seriously damage the integrity of
17 the proceedings. I believe because the witness has admitted that he
18 tampered with the evidence, there are missing pages that are most relevant
19 to the case, the chain of custody of the document is very suspect, that we
20 move to suppress all the documents obtained from Mr. Obrenovic after they
21 were in his possession for four years.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour. It's a misstatement.
23 Mr. Obrenovic never said he tampered with the evidence.
24 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, the evidence speaks for itself.
25 Mr. Obrenovic talked about writing in the logbooks, adding names to
1 documents, and I think that the record will stand on its own. We ask that
2 the Court suppress all of these documents that have been turned over by
3 Mr. Obrenovic.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Just briefly. I didn't quite understand if she is
6 filing a written motion to that effect. If she is, then I would object.
7 It's untimely. And if -- I just naturally object to her and would contest
8 her version of events and would simply state -- well, as she did. I think
9 the record for the authenticity of this speaks for itself and I think it's
10 well within the purview of your discretion to allow this into evidence.
11 In addition, there's -- Ms. Stewart reminds me that we have
12 another exhibit, P133 bis, that we provided to counsel some time ago, and
13 I believe it would be helpful for the Court, because in this,
14 Mr. Obrenovic was able to specifically put little arrows on the places
15 that he marked for the dates and when he was doing his analysis. And so
16 that because the photocopies don't show up very well and it's very
17 difficult to figure out what little marks he might have done, this
18 particular exhibit will -- should solve that problem and perhaps meet some
19 of the concerns of Ms. Sinatra, and that's P133 bis and P137 bis, which is
20 for one of the other logbooks.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Mr. Karnavas.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I think it is helpful that
23 Mr. Obrenovic has done this. However, I hate to be a stickler. There's
24 no testimony, nothing on the record, that he's done this, and so we need
25 to lay a foundation that these were in fact put on by him. Unless, you
1 know, these little stickers and he pointed them out, so at least that we
2 know. Because I don't want to get in the habit later on down the road
3 that stuff like this comes in and the Trial Chamber will say: Well,
4 Mr. Karnavas. You didn't object last time so why are you objecting this
6 JUDGE LIU: I think that one occasion Mr. Obrenovic pointed out
7 clearly that, you know, certain words, especially Mr. Jokic's name, was
8 written by him.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree. But now we have yellow stickies. And
10 this is being tendered as an exhibit. I think just one question would
11 solve the problem. Mr. Obrenovic, did you in fact, you know, put the
12 yellow stickies where you marked? At least so we have a concrete record
13 that he did that and then we can all rest assured. That's all I'm
14 suggesting. I don't have any objections other than that.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe, Mr. McCloskey, you could open that
16 document and ask Mr. Obrenovic the questions on those arrows.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. If we could start with 133 bis from
18 the workbook.
19 Further examination by Mr. McCloskey:
20 Q. Mr. Obrenovic, if you could just take a moment to go through that
21 to see if you recognise what that is.
22 A. I recognise this.
23 Q. And does that -- do those little yellow marks reflect your work
24 product of identifying for us specifically where you made notations in
25 that notebook, that workbook?
1 A. Mr. McCloskey, about 10 or 15 days ago - I don't exactly
2 remember - you and two or three other people, in the presence of my
3 defence lawyers, brought originals to the Detention Unit and gave me
4 Post-it stickers, yellow stickers, gave me time to look at the originals
5 one by one, and wherever I found something written by myself, either in my
6 handwriting, or dates that I put there, I marked by sticking yellow
7 stickers on the originals. These are the copies of what we did at that
9 Q. Okay. Is the same thing true of the other book, 137 bis?
10 A. Yes. First I made notations in the work book of the duty officer.
11 Then you gave me the logbook of the duty officer. Then you gave me other
12 work books for me to produce and see whether I had put any dates in them.
13 What I have in front of me now are copies of the originals that I marked
14 by yellow stickers.
15 Q. Thank you. And I guess while we're at it: This big map behind,
16 which has now been marked 116 bis, were you able to mark on that your
17 recollection of the border between your brigade and the other brigades?
18 A. Yes, Mr. McCloskey. I remember some of the key points that we
19 used for orientation. I marked those points and then I connected them
20 with dotted lines.
21 Q. Okay. I'm showing you this smaller map, which is P141. What did
22 you do with that? Just briefly.
23 A. In the northern part, I drew this line. And then, on the
24 south-east, I drew this line that I'm showing now. This map that we are
25 looking at here, I tried to transfer the things from this topographic map
1 onto the small map. And this small map, it was very difficult for me to
2 be very precise when I was marking this map. This bigger map, however,
3 was much easier to use and everything was marked much more correctly here
4 on the bigger map.
5 Q. So, for the record, you were able to take your more precise
6 markings on map 116 bis that you've marked in red, and did your best job
7 to reproduce those on this rougher-scale map, which is 141?
8 A. That's correct.
9 JUDGE LIU: Any questions concerning these three documents?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour. I believe the record is complete
12 JUDGE LIU: What is the views from the Jokic Defence concerning
13 P133 bis and P137 bis?
14 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, one of our objections would be that
15 during the direct testimony of this witness, or the redirect, that the
16 Prosecution never elicited any testimony from him except that he wrote the
17 name in. And now we're being provided with a document which has been
18 prepared just immediately prior to testifying. Because this is not the
19 original document, the Court cannot be properly informed about the change
20 in pen, handwriting colours, and pencil, and all of the other delineations
21 that are within the original document. I don't believe that it can
22 accurately reflect to the Trial Chamber what the documents represent,
23 although this is the -- supposedly Mr. Obrenovic claims that these are his
24 writings, and nothing further -- or his handwriting. Also we feel that
25 the best evidence about the handwriting samples will be the expert
1 witnesses that will come testify about the handwriting, not the testimony
2 of the witness who has had these improperly seized documents in his
3 possession for a number of years and has admittedly altered them.
4 I would like for the Court, if the Court would like to accept this
5 as instructive, not to admit it into evidence until further time, when the
6 handwriting specialists are allowed to come testify. Which also brings to
7 mind the books that Mr. McCloskey has referred to. He wants to keep the
8 original in the possession of the OTP. If he really intends to introduce
9 these into evidence, although we believe they are totally inadmissible,
10 that the originals have to come into the possession of the Trial Chamber
11 and the Registry so that Defence counsel will have the opportunity to have
12 them analysed at a future date too. The originals should be introduced
13 into the record of the Registry at this point. But we still maintain the
14 objections that Mr. Obrenovic's documents should not be allowed in. And
15 this is part and parcel of the Obrenovic documents that he's trying to
16 admit into evidence at this point. I don't --
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I could just briefly respond, Your Honour. The
19 little few notations that Mr. Obrenovic has made in the book, as you
20 rightly pointed out, some of them were discussed on direct examination.
21 Those books were certainly here, they were available, the witness was
22 available. Counsel never chose to cross-examine on those points. Counsel
23 has had these two exhibits, 137 bis and 133 bis, since 25 September. It's
24 really not -- should never made an issue of it. And therefore I think she
25 has waived any right to challenge this evidence at this point.
1 And regarding the original documents and keeping them in the
2 possession of the Prosecutor, these materials have always been available
3 to the Defence at any time, and they know that. We've sat with them any
4 number of times and gone over them, and we've made materials available and
5 working with their experts and we'll continue to do that. In fact, the
6 Office of the Prosecutor is in a much better situation to be able to do
7 that than the Registry or the Court. As you're aware, the Court and the
8 Registry really isn't set up to be keeping documents such as this. And
9 when I say safety, I mean we have an evidence room, it has all the indicia
10 of reliability of an evidence room, and this material is helpful in
11 ongoing investigations, and yet it's always available for the Defence if
12 they need it. And while the Registry does keep exhibits from other
13 courtrooms, it is -- it's really not the kind of thing that they're really
14 set up to be able to do. And these days of declining budgets, it's
16 In fact, we've been going on this trial for months now, and all
17 the documents that we have, the military documents, many of which we have
18 originals for, with inked signatures, and it's common practice in this
19 trial, as in many other trials, to use photocopies, unlike, you know, some
20 of our domestic institutions. But this is the first we've heard of any
21 concern about original documents, and if the concern is their access to
22 them, which is I gather, they know they have access to them. So I would
23 just request that we be able to keep the originals so that we will have
24 the burden of looking after them and keeping them and working with the
25 Defence so that they can use them when need be.
1 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
3 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I just have a few more comments
4 to make on that, if I may respond to Mr. McCloskey.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Keep it as short as possible.
6 MS. SINATRA: And I know the OTP doesn't have a declining budget,
7 but the Registry is the best vehicle to maintain these documents. First
8 of all, the Trial Chamber should have the original document available to
9 them to review, because the handwriting is something that is at issue in
10 this case, the colours of the pens and the pencils cannot be
11 differentiated on these copies, and I think it would be best if the Trial
12 Chamber has the opportunity, if they are admitted. First of all, we think
13 they're inadmissible.
14 Second of all, the Prosecutor has alleged that I have not raised
15 any objections, or the Defence, prior to this time, and we only filed an
16 oral motion to suppress right now. The truth is that our oral motion to
17 suppress would have been untimely until Mr. Obrenovic had testified as to
18 the chain of custody of those documents and therefore we could not have
19 filed a motion to suppress in writing before the testimony elicited from
20 Mr. Obrenovic.
21 And I have other issues to talk about, but as far as the
22 admissibility of these two bis documents, I believe that they are
23 derivative of other documents that are inadmissible, they're illegible,
24 bad copies, and it will not be of any use to the Trial Chamber -- or any
25 assistance to the Trial Chamber by looking at these copies.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. As for the intercept documents, I think
2 the Bench agrees with Ms. Sinatra's view that we'll wait until we have the
3 further information about the reliability of those documents. And later
4 on, this Bench will invite the parties to submit any views concerning the
5 intercept documents on this particular issue. We are not going to decide
6 on whether those documents are admissible or not at this stage.
7 Secondly, as for the custody of the documents, we quite understand
8 that in most of the jurisdictions, the original document should be in the
9 custody of the Registry or Chamber. This is the most common practice in
10 the world. However, in the situation of this Tribunal, and especially in
11 this case, we believe that we have already got the copies of those
12 original documents. If in the future there's any changes or any remarks
13 or pencilling-ins of this document, I believe that the Chamber and the
14 Registrar could compare the two notes to find whether there's any
15 irregularity in those documents.
16 And Mr. McCloskey has already promised that there will be full
17 access by the Defence team to those documents. So we decided that if
18 those original documents are admitted, they will be at the custody of the
20 The third matter is about those Obrenovic documents, so-called
21 Obrenovic documents. We believe that before this trial, the Defence team
22 of Mr. Jokic submitted a motion asking to delay the trial because of the
23 doubts concerning those documents. After several days of debate, first,
24 we believe that all the parties referred to these documents, and its
25 probability has been established. Secondly, we believe those documents
1 are relevant documents to this case. Thirdly, we believe that the
2 Prosecution has initially established the reliability of these documents.
3 So we decided to admit them into the evidence at this stage.
4 As we stated in our decision concerning the admission of the
5 documents, we made it quite clear that if, at a later stage, the Defence
6 team will find new evidence to challenge the admissibility of those
7 documents, they could freely file their motions to suppress these
8 documents from the evidence. There's no doubt about it.
9 So, I believe that the documents submitted by the Prosecution are
10 all admitted. It is so decided.
11 Are there any documents from Mr. Blagojevic's Defence?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour, there are. I believe we
13 submitted a list, and I'll just go down the list. D42/1, which is the
14 preparatory order of the command of the Zvornik Brigade; D43/1, the --
15 it's an intercept, BH army command of the 2nd Corps; D44/1, daily combat
16 report of the Bratunac Brigade; D45/1, request for information command of
17 the Bratunac Brigade; D46/1, intelligence report, command of the Zvornik
18 Brigade intelligence organ; D48/1, daily combat report of the Bratunac
19 Brigade; D49/1, interim combat report of the Zvornik Brigade; D50/1,
20 interim combat report of the Zvornik Brigade; D51/1, rule of the corps of
21 ground forces --
22 [Defence counsel confer]
23 MR. KARNAVAS: And I believe that's it. And I've just been
24 informed with respect to D43/1, pursuant to the Court's ruling, we're not
25 introducing at this point in time, Your Honour. So it would be D42, 44,
1 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, and 51.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. But you have to understand, you
3 have a chance to reintroduce those intercepts at a later stage.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: I do, Your Honour. I do.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
6 Any objections?
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Your Honour. There's been no foundation.
8 It's the same problem I have with my documents, and I think we can clean
9 it all up. All these documents are part of the Prosecution's expert case
10 and will be all done at once. Otherwise we have this odd problem of all
11 the military documents coming through the Defence without any real
12 foundation. And if we want to be strict as Mr. Karnavas has taught us
13 recently, I think we should be strict all the way around the board. These
14 are reliable documents, they're good documents, but if we're going to
15 provide for real foundations, we should be consistent.
16 JUDGE LIU: So you object to all those documents into the
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I don't -- I have no objections to being
21 strict. As far as that these are the Prosecution documents, I would beg
22 to differ. And I shouldn't have to wait until my defence to start putting
23 on my case. I'm on the offence, even though we are the Defence, while we
24 are in the Prosecution's case, and I'm entitled to use their documents to
25 not only attack their case but also to set up my case and put on my case.
1 So that's exactly what we're doing.
2 Now, it appears, from Mr. McCloskey, that he doesn't have any
3 problems with any of these documents. They come from him. Now, if he is
4 challenging these documents as, for instance, Ms. Sinatra is doing with
5 the intercepts, I would like to hear what the challenge is. If he is not
6 challenging, if there are no grounds, then he should just stipulate, which
7 is the normal practice. So, otherwise we're going to have some -- this
8 trial is going to take a lot longer. And I'm trying to expedite matters,
9 and as you well know, Your Honours, I'm being extremely efficient.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: I appreciate Mr. Karnavas's offer to stipulate,
12 and if he will stipulate to all our documents, I'll stipulate to his
13 documents. But then we have to try to get Ms. Sinatra involved in this,
14 and of course this is the reason why people want to shoot lawyers. And
15 I'm as guilty as the rest of us, Your Honour. But I think we can probably
16 solve this problem by stipulation. But I hate to dump it on you, but
17 maybe we should.
18 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, I consulted with my colleague on this particular
20 issue, and we also have to point out that the practice of this Tribunal is
21 different with any national jurisdictions. That is, during the
22 Prosecution's case, the Defence is also allowed to tender the documents.
23 From the interventions by Mr. McCloskey, we understand that they do not
24 object the document to be into the evidence as far as its contents. We
25 just have some problems with the form. So in this case, as I did in the
1 other case, we decided to admit those documents into the evidence as the D
2 documents, and in the future, the Prosecution could also introduce those
3 documents into the evidence. Then we have a P number on those documents.
4 Frankly speaking, to us, there's no difference between the P documents or
5 D documents, because those are all the documents that we based our
6 deliberation on. We never look at whether it's a P document or D
7 document. So we decided we will admit those documents into the evidence,
8 and I hope in the future, when the Prosecution introduces those documents,
9 there's no objections from Defence counsel, because you admitted those
10 documents already.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour, I have no objection to them
12 using my documents, which I received from them. So they could -- they
13 don't need to put a P number. They can use the D number. So -- but I
14 totally agree with you. Thank you.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
16 Ms. Sinatra, do you have any documents to tender?
17 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour, we do. But before I get to our
18 exhibit list, I have a little clearing up, while we have Mr. Obrenovic
19 here too. When we were using the model of the Zvornik Brigade, we offered
20 Mr. Obrenovic a floor plan. He marked it. I understand from the
21 Prosecutor that they have no objections to this. It has been marked for
22 identification purposes as D14/3. And it's not on our list, but the
23 Prosecutor has told me he has no objections. The problem is:
24 Mr. Obrenovic has just provided this copy to us at the last break. It is
25 only in B/C/S. But if the Court will allow us, with no objections to go
1 ahead and tender it into evidence, we will provide an English translation
2 at another time.
3 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
6 MS. SINATRA: So we have to make copies of it also for everybody.
7 We just received it. But thank you.
8 Now, I have another document that is not on our exhibit list, but
9 I believe that it might be best to go into private session to deal with
10 this document.
11 JUDGE LIU: First of all, you have to guide me on your list. I
12 received this morning, I believe. Some documents are highlighted and some
13 not. What's the difference between the two? Because in the Blagojevic's
14 Defence team's documents, it has a footnote there, so we could understand
15 what does it mean.
16 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. If I might. Our footnote is at
17 the end of the document instead of at the beginning. And we used the same
18 format as the Prosecutor used, which means that the ones in grey are the
19 documents that we intend to admit, and the ones in white we shall not
20 admit. But the explanation was at the end of the exhibit list instead of
21 at the beginning.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Can you read those numbers for
23 the sake of the record.
24 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour, I will go forward. We are
25 withdrawing entering D5/3. I believe the evidence was elicited from the
1 witness. We are offering D6/3, which was an Obrenovic document that was
2 provided way before trial. It's a written itinerary provided to the
3 Prosecutor during his interview in 2000.
4 We are offering for admission D9/3, which is the model of the
5 Zvornik Brigade, and it's my understanding that the Prosecution has no
6 objections to that.
7 D10/3, the brigade rules, definition of chiefs of organs; D11/3,
8 the explanation, the rules regarding duty officers; D12/3, the -- no, Your
9 Honour. We're withdrawing that document, because it is an Obrenovic
10 document that was just provided to us on the 26th of September. D13/3,
11 Zvornik Brigade engineering company. No. We're not offering that one
12 either. Oh, that was provided by -- no. It says OTP on my list. I'm
13 sorry. But I believe it was just provided recently by Mr. Obrenovic. No.
14 I'm sorry, Your Honour. It's clear now. D13/3 is the Zvornik Brigade
15 engineering company daily logbook, which was provided by the OTP at an
16 earlier time. D -- oh, okay. D2/3, which is the document from the
17 Republika Srpska, written on behalf of Mr. Obrenovic and provided by the
18 OTP during the testimony of Mr. Ruez; D15/3, which is the article on the
19 Drinski magazine, interview with Mr. Obrenovic; D16/3, interview -- OTP
20 interview with Dragomir Vasic; D17/3, OTP interview with Nada Stojanovic;
21 D18/3, OTP interview with Mico Gavric; D19/3, OTP interview with Nenad
22 Simic; D20/3, OTP interview with Milan Maric; D23/3, rules on utilisation
23 of engineering; and then the photographs of the model. If there's no
24 objections, we'll withdraw that offer of the photographs also. Actually,
25 it may be instructive for the Trial Chamber to have the photographs of the
1 original. So we will offer the photographs of the exterior of the Zvornik
2 Brigade headquarters. D26/3, the rules of combat for the engineering
3 company, paragraph 25; D27/3, the OTP interview with Dragan Obrenovic; and
4 D28/3 -- I'm sorry. D27 is the June 2003 interview of -- with Dragan
5 Obrenovic. D28/3, the April 2000 OTP interview with Dragan Obrenovic;
6 D29/3 -- I'm sorry. Oh, yes. The document supporting Nada Stojanovic,
7 it's from the OTP Butler report, it's the military police roster for July
8 1995. And D30/3, the document that represents the mandate for the
9 civilian protection organisation of each city in the Republika Srpska.
10 And I have another document that I'd like to add to the list.
11 It's a document that's already filed in the records of this case in the
12 last -- it was filed 12 July 2002, but it's filed confidentially, and I
13 really think that we should probably go into private session.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
15 [Private session]
13 Page 3072 – redacted – private session
13 Page 3073 – redacted – private session
13 Page 3074 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE LIU: Now we are in the open session.
3 So, Mr. McCloskey, you have no objections to other documents; is
4 that my understanding?
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: Oh, I do, Your Honour. I believe the Court has
6 previously set a policy that just mere interviews statements for
7 cross-examination purposes are not admissible, and I haven't heard any
8 special argument to suggest that that rule should be broken. So I would
9 object to D16 interview of Dragomir Vasic, D17, interview of Nada
10 Stojanovic, D18 interview with Mico Gavric, D19 interview with Nenad
11 Simic, D20 interview with Milan Maric, D27 interview with Dragan
12 Obrenovic, D28 interview with Dragan Obrenovic.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.
14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. Of course, we believe that these
15 statements are totally admissible. They were used in cross-examination.
16 The two interviews of Mr. Obrenovic should be admitted into evidence to
17 show how he testified, one way one time, and then he totally changed his
18 story and testified another way another time. That was elicited through
19 the witness. He already said that he -- that was then, and then he told a
20 different story after he pled guilty. I'm not aware of any precedent with
21 this Trial Chamber that OTP witness statements are inadmissible. Unless
22 the OTP can prove that these people are coming to testify, then I believe
23 that they are totally admissible, because we have no other evidence with
24 which to support the cross-examination of Mr. Obrenovic.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Sinatra, in this aspect, I agree with you
1 that if the witness is going to testify during this Tribunal, their
2 interviews or their statements, principally, will not be admissible. But
3 as for these five interviews, that is, D16 to D20, I believe that during
4 the cross-examination you used them very intensively, and sometimes you
5 read the relevant parts of those interviews. I have to remind you that
6 all the transcript itself is the evidence. That goes without saying. So
7 we believe that all the relevant parts in those interviews has been read
8 out by you and is recorded in the transcript. Do you think there is still
9 a need to admit those documents into the evidence?
10 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I believe that each one of these
11 documents, although I read portions of them, that there is further
12 evidence within the documents to support the Defence cross-examination of
13 Mr. Obrenovic. I do -- I do wish to introduce them, and now that I know
14 that the policy of the Trial Chamber would be that they're not admissible,
15 next time I would read more into the record than I had read into the
16 record during this cross-examination if I had known that that was the
17 policy of the Trial Chamber. And if that is a policy, maybe I can change
18 it for the next witness. But for Mr. Obrenovic, I was not aware that I
19 had to read into the record from the OTP statements everything that I
20 thought was relevant, and so I re-urge admission of these documents, and
21 perhaps I'll change my presentation of cross-examination in the future.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, you had better not do that.
23 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, after consultation with my colleague, we arrived
25 at the following conclusions: As for the new documents introduced by
1 Ms. Sinatra, which is the D31/3, the position of this Bench is that,
2 generally speaking, any decisions, motions, and documents issued by this
3 Bench or by the Appeals Chamber will not be admitted as factual evidence
4 in that case.
5 As for whether it could be introduced through the 92 bis channel
6 is another matter. So we made a decision that the D31/3 is not admitted
7 into the evidence, and if the Defence counsel would like to reintroduce it
8 through the 92 bis documents, you could file your motions on that.
9 As for the D27 and D28, that is, the interview with Dragan
10 Obrenovic, we don't think that I we should admit them into the evidence,
11 because we have the witness here. I think he has been asked questions for
12 several days, almost exhausted the contents in those interviews.
13 As for D16, D17, D18, D19, D20, as I said, that those witnesses
14 are not likely to be called by the OTP or by the Defence in the future
15 proceedings, so these documents are admitted into the evidence.
16 Of course, in the future, if, just in case they came to testify,
17 we could withdraw them from the evidence. We have serious doubts about
18 D15, which is an article in a magazine on the 18th of February, 1994.
19 During the cross-examination, we don't think that article helps us a lot,
20 so this document is not admitted into the evidence.
21 It is so decided.
22 And there's a housekeeping matter.
23 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
24 JUDGE LIU: So except what I have said, the other documents are
25 admitted into the evidence.
1 There is a housekeeping matter concerning the Nikolic case, that
2 is, the document D14, D15, and D16. The transcript did not reflect
3 whether they are admitted into the evidence or not. Could I ask Mr.
4 McCloskey whether there's any objections on your side.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could have a second to see what those are.
6 Do you recall, Your Honour?
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, please. D14 is the intelligence support of
8 the armed forces of the JNA.
9 Yes. Mr. Karnavas.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I do believe that I moved
11 for them to be admitted. When we had Mr. Nikolic on the stand.
12 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe, Your Honour, that we did move -- the
15 Defence moved for their admission.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: It was my understanding that they had been
19 JUDGE LIU: I see. But it's not reflected in the transcript.
20 Are there any objections?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. I just want to make clear, you know, this
23 matter is settled.
24 Thank you very much.
25 Thank you, Witness, for giving your evidence to this Bench, and
1 your testimony ran for several days, and everybody is very tired. And I
2 think I should say that thank you very much to give your evidence. The
3 guard will show you out of the room.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 [The witness withdrew]
6 JUDGE LIU: And the counsel for Mr. Obrenovic could be excused.
7 MR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have about 20 minutes left in this sitting,
9 so we'll deal with the 92 bis witnesses. Concerning 119, W118, W99 and
10 W105, as well as W101. And as for the adjudicated facts, this Bench is
11 waiting for a ruling from the Appeals Chamber. I believe that sometime
12 next week we'll have that decision. Then we'll be in a better position to
13 deal with that adjudicated facts issue, after October 20th. I hope the
14 parties will be prepared for that, including the agreed facts.
15 Let's come to that 92 bis witnesses. The Prosecution has proposed
16 five witnesses to be included under the Rule 92 bis. The first witness is
17 W119. Since we are in the open session, we could generally discuss it,
18 but if we come to the specific issues which might be dangerous for
19 disclosing his or her identity, we could easily go to the private session.
20 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. President. I think, as Mr. Karnavas has
21 agreed and suggested, private session would be a wise idea, just out of an
22 abundance of caution.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
24 [Private session]
13 Pages 3080-3095 – redacted – private session
17 [Open session]
18 MS. SINATRA: I withdrew D12/3 because I thought that by putting
19 it on the list and submitting it to the Trial Chamber, we would acquiesce
20 to the admissibility of Mr. Obrenovic's documents. But since the Trial
21 Chamber has now moved that the Obrenovic documents are admissible and
22 relevant, we would like to reinstate D12/3, which was a document provided
23 by Mr. Obrenovic on 27 September 2003.
24 JUDGE LIU: Don't you think that will affect your position in the
1 MS. SINATRA: I'm sorry, Your Honour?
2 JUDGE LIU: I mean, I give you the opportunity to challenge those
3 documents at a later stage. If you show us more evidence or new evidence,
4 you know, we could suppress those documents. So now you ask for this D12
5 into the evidence, which does not mean that you're implying -- you implied
6 that you give up this opportunity. This is my question.
7 MS. SINATRA: I do not want to acquiesce or give up the position
8 that we still believe that Mr. Obrenovic's documents are inadmissible. I
9 guess -- is there a way to offer it in the alternative? Because this is
10 with the witness here. In the alternative, if the Court does find at a
11 later date that the documents are admissible, we would like to offer it,
12 but I don't know that I could offer it at a later date without having had
13 the issue of Mr. Obrenovic here. If the Court will allow me, I will offer
14 the document once this has been finally decided at the end of the defence
15 case, if that's appropriate.
16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. McCloskey, any objections?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. This document is admitted into
19 the evidence.
20 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.
21 JUDGE LIU: Are there any matters that the parties would like to
22 bring to the attention of this Bench at this late stage?
23 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
24 JUDGE LIU: And I have been reminded by the court deputy that D5/3
25 will be under seal.
1 Well, it seems none, so we'll resume on the 20th of October,
2 Monday, in the same courtroom. So the hearing is adjourned.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.50 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day of October
5 2003, at 9.00 a.m.