1 Thursday, 29 April 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 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, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. We'll
10 continue the proceeding today.
11 Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. President, Your
14 WITNESS: MILOS STUPAR [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. McCloskey [Continued]
17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stupar. Yesterday you had mentioned a report
18 that you had I believe signed off on. We'll get to that in a minute. But
19 prior to you coming to The Hague, you understood that this issue of
20 you -- whether or not you were in command on these days was going to be an
21 issue in your testimony, didn't you?
22 A. [No Interpretation]
23 Q. I'm not sure the interpreters heard you. I think like yesterday
24 we need to remember speak up if you can. So you did know that this was
25 going to be an issue?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you make any effort to go through your records, any personnel
3 file, any of the older MUP records to try to find, you know, your annual
4 leave records or your leave slips or anything like that that might help
5 this issue?
6 A. I didn't have my annual leave records. I never received them. As
7 for our pay slips, annual leave was not recorded in these and I'm not sure
8 we were even receiving our pay at that time. The only thing I tried to
9 find was my request to be relieved of my duty on the 19th of May, 1995, as
10 commander of the detachment.
11 Q. Were you able to find any -- were you able to find that?
12 A. No, no.
13 Q. Did you ask the MUP for your annual leave records?
14 A. I never received any document, nor were documents issued at that
15 time for annual leave or anything else.
16 Q. Well, I know you said that, but did you ask the -- your employers
17 to look for any possible records that they would have kept after you had
18 informed them of the annual leave?
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. But you can still do that, can't you?
21 A. Yes. The problem, however, is that the brigade as such was
22 disbanded and I have no idea where the archives are.
23 Q. Well, I know finding records from the war can be difficult, but if
24 you do make an effort and if you do find anything, we would certainly
25 appreciate getting those documents that could benefit you in the long run.
1 You understand that?
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I think -- I take that a veiled threat
3 to the witness, as if somehow he's on trial at this point in time. I want
4 the record to reflect that the gentleman informed the Office of the
5 Prosecution back in 2002 that he was on annual leave. Then it becomes
6 incumbent upon the Prosecution, since he was interviewed as a suspect to
7 go look at his records.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to these
9 dialogues, and it's inflaming the witness. That was anything but a
10 threat, asking him to help us out by getting his annual leave records, for
11 God's sake.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Well --
13 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed, Mr. McCloskey.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
15 Q. So you understand that if you were --
16 A. You understand --
17 Q. I think we have a slight technical problem now. Do you understand
18 that if you are able to find any records that'll shed some light on this,
19 we would gladly accept them?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. And I have a few records that we can go over and you can
22 help explain those and how they may fit in to what you've been telling us.
23 So let's first start with what has been marked as P853. If we could give
24 the witness a B/C/S version of that and give him a moment to take a look
25 at it.
1 You had mentioned yesterday this report when I was asking you
2 and -- or something that sounded like this report. If you could just take
3 a minute to look at it and let us know if you think this is what you were
4 talking about.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could put the last page of the B/C/S on the
6 ELMO. We've got an original that might be -- the witness can take a look
7 at that as well. Can you put it so we can see the signature.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Does that appear to be the document you mentioned to us yesterday?
11 A. I think this is one of the documents that was mentioned yesterday,
12 the report for the first six months.
13 Q. Yes. And did you sign that document? Is that your signature in
14 that inked original that you're looking at?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you did sign it as commander of the 2nd Detachment in
18 A. That's how I signed it on the 15th of July, 1995, yes.
19 Q. Okay. And we note that on the front of that document it's dated 5
20 July, but on the right-hand corner it's handwritten 15 July. Is that
22 A. Yes. 15th July, that's when it was signed.
23 Q. And that's when, as you told us yesterday, you came in to the
24 office before going to Zvornik and you did some paperwork?
25 A. Not paperwork. As I said, this was supposed to have been already
1 sent and I had been in charge for most of this. And I had provided
2 monthly reports for the work of the detachment, and this was a six-month
3 report. The late Oficir wasn't there; he had gone to Kula and this had to
4 be sent off.
5 Q. So there was some period of time in this report that you signed
6 for, but you weren't involved in as commander, I take it?
7 A. I think the last 15 days of June, yes.
8 Q. You've told us you stopped being commander on 15 June, and this
9 report went through 30 June. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, but I think that in June it should say that the detachment
11 was still in Sarajevo so that there was actually no report for June.
12 Q. Well, if you will look under the heading "Engagement in police
13 work in the first half of 1995" - do you find that section? - you can see
14 there on the second paragraph there talks about: "Between 1 January 1995
15 and 30 June 1995, 6 policemen were daily engaged in guarding facilities
16 and material and technical equipment in Tisca where the depots are and in
17 Sekovici where the detachment headquarters is."
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. It also talks about policemen being involved in the forward
20 communication centre and Backovic and Sekovici. So it does involve some
21 time period into June 30th, up to June 30th. If you could also take a
22 look farther down there under "The state of readiness in the unit
23 headquarters" section. I asked you yesterday if you remember whether or
24 not there was a tank crew or -- a Praga crew ever in readiness in
25 Bratunac. If you could take a look at that, perhaps that will refresh
1 your recollection. As you can see under the state of readiness it says
2 that: "Between 18 March and 30 June 1995, a tank crew was in a state of
3 readiness in Bratunac. Four policemen, 105 days."
4 A. No, no. Just a moment. Please. It says: "From the 1st of March
5 to the 31st of March Praga crew on standby," and so on. "Four members" --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY:
8 Q. Perhaps you've got the wrong -- I think there's another version of
9 this report. Well, let's -- do you see between 18 March 1995 and 30 June
10 1995? It's the -- it should be around the third line down under "State of
12 A. Yes, I do see it. But here you see from the 1st of April to the
13 30th of April, the Praga crew was on standby in Sekovici. There is a
14 paragraph here. You see from the 18th of March, 1995, to the 30th of
15 June, 1995, the tank crew was on standby in Bratunac.
16 Q. Yeah. That's what I'm referring to. Does that help your
17 recollection? Was there a tank crew standing by in Bratunac on those
18 dates, March through 30 June 1995?
19 A. It's possible there was; I don't remember. I can't remember it,
20 but it's possible, yes. What is confusing here that it says: "From the
21 1st to the 30th of April, the Praga crew and the tank crew on standby in
23 Q. So do you recall sending the tank crew to Bratunac in 1995?
24 A. It's possible it was sent there. I don't remember exactly, but
25 it's possible.
1 Q. And the tank would have been sent with the crew I take it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you read in Mr. -- in this report that may have been written
4 by Mr. Borovcanin, he talks about a Praga and a BOV being assigned along
5 the Bratunac/Konjevic Polje road. And he mentions both the -- your unit
6 and the 1st Company PJP Zvornik. Do you remember reading that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, having looked at this document and thought about that report
9 that Mr. Borovcanin has written, the Praga and the BOV along that road, do
10 you know whose they were?
11 A. I didn't see them, so I don't know whose they were. But as of
12 2002 when I made my statement in Banja Luka, on my return from Banja Luka,
13 I talked to some members of the detachment. And they said to me that the
14 technical equipment of the 2nd Detachment was engaged in Bratunac at the
15 time Srebrenica fell.
16 Q. Was engaged in Bratunac or Sarajevo?
17 A. It -- during the work in Srebrenica, they were engaged in
18 Bratunac. That's what they told me; however, I didn't know this when I
19 was making my statement in Banja Luka.
20 Q. So today now you're telling us that you found information that the
21 Praga and the BOV were in Bratunac during the Srebrenica dates?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. And you were shown pictures and video of the Praga and the BOV
24 along the road originally to the Office of the Prosecutor, weren't you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you at that time said you didn't recognise those vehicles.
3 A. Yes. I didn't recognise them, because all these vehicles looked
4 the same. They're all mass produced, and they all look the same.
5 Q. So you didn't recognise your own vehicles because they looked the
7 A. All these vehicles look alike. And I did say that there were no
8 distinguishing features that would help me to recognise them. I only know
9 that our vehicles had blue licence plates, but on those pictures I
10 couldn't see any licence plates.
11 Q. Okay. Going near the end of the report, there's a section that
12 talks about -- that is entitled: "Cooperation with SJB, VRS commands, and
13 institutions and governments organs."
14 "Cooperation with SJB," what is just the SJB? We've heard a lot
15 of initials.
16 A. Public security station, that's the present-day police station in
18 Q. All right. Okay. Then it says: "VRS commands." And down in the
19 second paragraph, you talk about the cooperation with the command of the
20 1st VRS Birac Brigade in Sekovici. And you say it's poor, but then you
21 say: "Well, the cooperation with the battalion commands in the territory
22 of the municipality is good. And battalion commanders inform us all about
23 all intelligence-related events."
24 So you're saying you got along with the battalion commanders, but
25 the commander himself there wasn't a very good relationship with?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And would that have been -- I believe he was a colonel or perhaps
3 a Lieutenant Colonel Svetozar Andric at the time?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. How important is your coordination and relationships with the VRS
6 units that you're working with?
7 A. Well, it's important if I'm working with them.
8 Q. Can you explain to us why it's important, what aspects of it.
9 Give us a little more detail about that so we can try to understand. For
10 example, this is a wartime situation. We can read your report. We can
11 see that you're working with -- we know you're working with the army.
12 People -- your guys are getting killed. So in the context of a war when
13 you're working together with the army, where people are being killed, how
14 important is your relationship and good communication with those that
15 you're working with? Can you give us a feel for that.
16 A. Well, the communication is important; it's essential.
17 Q. So it would have been essential for the 2nd Sekovici Detachment to
18 be communicating with its army cooperators in any battlefield, is that
19 correct, that they're working with the army on?
20 A. Yes. The chief differences with the commander of the Birac
21 Brigade was on raising the units up to manpower level. When we had to do
22 that, have someone transferred to our unit, we had to have approval from
23 the army and the Ministry of Defence. But he did not allow this to
24 happen, and that was the main reason why we were, so to say, not on the
25 best of terms.
1 Q. So in the combat operations you were with with the army, they
2 shared intelligence with you?
3 A. It wasn't real intelligent information in the sense you mean.
4 Q. How do you know what I mean? I'm just talking about basic
5 military intelligence, combat intelligence, where the enemy is, what
6 prisoners are saying.
7 A. Well, if we were in the area, they probably knew us.
8 Q. You say here --
9 A. Told us.
10 Q. Yeah. So it only makes sense that if you're working with the
11 army, they will give you their intelligence, like you say here in this
13 A. There was no intelligence information, really.
14 Q. You're looking at this Court today and telling them you had no
15 intelligence information in combat activities in this war? Is that what
16 you're saying? No intelligence, really?
17 A. Poor intelligence. There was very little of it.
18 Q. Well, here you say that the battalion commanders informed you
19 about all the intelligence-related events. You're aware that the VRS had
20 excellent capabilities for intercepting enemy communications, weren't you?
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, Your Honour, I want to object at this
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: We have had no testimony with respect to the VRS.
25 We have had lots of testimony with respect to the Muslim intelligence
1 capabilities of intercepting, but I -- we have yet to hear any concrete
2 evidence and anything -- nothing has been presented with respect to VRS
3 capabilities. So making this statement is a fact not in evidence.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I think this is in the
5 cross-examination, they could present a case to us with this witness and
6 this witness could answer according to his knowledge. I don't think
7 there's any problem.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: With all --
9 JUDGE LIU: We are treating both parties on equal footing.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand, Your Honour, but when counsel makes a
11 representation, there has to be a fact as to that representation, unless
12 he's going to present us with some evidence. What I'm suggesting is to
13 say the VRS had excellent communication, we haven't heard any testimony,
14 so now counsel is testifying. So that's what I'm saying at this point.
15 If he wants to lay a foundation or tell us how he came up with that
16 conclusion, maybe there's no objection, but the way it's stated based on
17 the evidence as I understand it that has come into this case, there's
18 nothing for him to say that. He can assume because the Muslim authorities
19 had these capabilities.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey, you may break up your question,
21 going step by step. First ask about the VRS's intelligence ability.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I know it's been a long case, but we
23 have intelligence reports by the VRS that cite that they're getting radio
24 intercept messages. It's in evidence, it was discussed by Butler, it's
25 all over the place. Mr. Obrenovic -- He's maybe a mistake like he did in
1 his allegation against me yesterday. But there's plenty of foundation for
2 that in this case, and the witness should know that there is as well. So
3 if I would just respond to Mr. Karnavas's --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember.
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. Well, that solves it then. You don't remember. I won't ask you
7 about it, then.
8 Let's go to the Zvornik Brigade. You have told us that when you
9 were together with Mr. Obrenovic and Mr. Borovcanin and Mr. Vasic and I
10 think another person at the Zvornik Brigade, there was discussion of this
11 very difficult situation and that most of the -- that you felt it would be
12 best to open up an area, let the Muslim column through. Is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And when Pandurevic arrived, he told you and the whole group that
15 he had orders and that there would be a double line to stop those
16 remaining Muslims coming through. Is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And later, as you've told us, the -- there was a decision made to,
19 in fact -- after a horrible battle, to in fact allow those Muslims
20 through. Right?
21 A. Well, yes. They made the decision. I had nothing to -- when we
22 went out of the siege, they said the decision had been made to let them
24 Q. And that was a VRS decision?
25 A. Well, Pandurevic was up there. Probably, I don't really know.
1 Q. Did you know that Pandurevic a few days later got in big trouble
2 for that decision and that members of the Main Staff came up to look into
4 A. No.
5 Q. During that time you were in the Zvornik -- at the headquarters
6 there with this group, was the Kravica incident brought up and discussed,
7 or mentioned?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Well, at that time on the 15th of July, were you aware that
10 hundreds and hundreds of Muslims had been murdered at the Kravica
12 A. No.
13 Q. You never heard about it, despite the fact that you were there?
14 A. I heard about it sometime in 1998, 1999, around about that
15 time -- maybe 1996, 1997, but anyway a long time later.
16 Q. So the first time you heard about the Kravica warehouse massacre
17 was sometime in 1996?
18 A. Well, I don't know exactly, but later. I heard about it later.
19 Q. Mr. Obrenovic testified that that was a matter that was discussed
20 openly amongst all of you, the massacre at Kravica.
21 A. I think that Mr. Obrenovic lied. He wasn't telling the truth when
22 he said that.
23 Q. What do you think of Mr. Obrenovic pleading guilty and
24 acknowledging he --
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. Objection.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: We're not trying Mr. Obrenovic and I think this is
3 an improper question. What the gentleman thinks about Mr. Obrenovic
4 doing, whether he pled guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with it,
5 because then what if those who chose to exercise their right to go to
6 trial, does that mean somehow that they're guilty because they're going to
7 trial, versus those who have pled out like Momir Nikolic, the fountain of
8 truth. I think it's unfair to pose this question to the gentleman.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. McCloskey has not finished his question.
10 You don't know what his question is. Let us hear the question first.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I can go on, though the
12 interpretation of what that question was supposed to mean is certainly
13 nothing related to the reason for the question.
14 Q. Now, I want to show you that -- some of these video clips again
15 briefly. And this is from our -- an exhibit that was marked P21 -- I'm
16 sorry, before I do that, there's another document I want to ask you about.
17 So I might as well finish up the documents.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: I apologise, Your Honour.
19 Q. This is Exhibit P850. It's not dated as far as I can see, and
20 it's entitled: "Personnel questionnaire." And if you can just take a
21 look at that and I'll ask you about some of the notations on it. Do you
22 know what this document is? Is it something you recall filling out or do
23 you know anything about it?
24 A. This is a personal questionnaire to establish rank of an
25 authorised official. I don't know when that -- what year that was, but I
1 don't remember ever having filled out this form.
2 Q. Okay. Well, let's just go over a couple of things in it. Let's
3 look at that number 6, the service record, where it says: "Deputy
4 commander from 8 March 1993 to 10 June 1993."
5 Is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it says: "Company commander from 11 June 1993 to 19 February
9 Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And it says: "2nd Sekovici Detachment commander from 20 February
12 1994 to 22 August 1995."
13 Is that correct?
14 A. This is correct according to the record and authorisation, but
15 when I was talking a moment ago, the administration was always late. So
16 this was a certificate once I was relieved of duty and the commander's
17 list was the 28th. So pursuant to the authorisation. And in actual fact,
18 on the 15th of June, 1995, was when I handed over the detachment and I
19 commanded until the 15th and until some officers had come back from sick
20 leave. That was about ten days, and then the other person continued.
21 Q. And you testified in direct that you were a commander on paper.
22 Is that right?
23 A. Well, it's very difficult for me to explain this to you. You come
24 from a country where everything is well-ordered, so it's very difficult to
25 explain the situation of a country that was at war with respect to
1 paperwork and administrations. I really don't know what to tell you. I'm
2 saying judging by the paper, the authorisation, I was commander from the
3 22nd of August. I said what the situation was like and what the command
4 was like actually on the ground. So do I have to explain to you that it
5 was at a time when the ministers had great powers, and he could relieve
6 and appoint commanders from one day to the next without any paperwork, any
7 authorisation on paper. Do you think that everything was done on the
8 basis of paper at that time?
9 Q. You're just repeating what you said in direct, that you were a
10 commander on paper. Right?
11 A. Well, that's what it says here. All that is written down here, on
12 the 22nd of August 1995.
13 Q. Okay. And we won't get into how well-organised my country is in
14 this time of warfare either.
15 Let's look down at 7.4. It says: "As OSL or in VRS from 1 April
16 1992 to 20 April 1995."
17 Do you know what that is a reference to? Did -- and where the
18 date 20 April 1995 came from?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. And then it says: "In special combat police brigade from 1 April
21 1992 to 20 April 1995."
22 Could that be a reference to you going on leave on 20 April 1995?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. You say you went on leave 15 June 1995.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Well, there's some other documents, but they're basically similar
2 and I don't feel the need to go over them.
3 Let's show the video.
4 [Videotape played]
5 MR. McCLOSKEY:
6 Q. Okay.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: I'm told that it's not working. Okay. I guess we
8 need to start it again.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Is that working, sir?
11 A. Yes, yes, it is.
12 [Videotape played]
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay. That's --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I take it we're going to have some
15 foundation as to what location that was. Are they going to be asking this
16 gentleman some questions, given that we know where he was.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: He has said he hasn't seen any of these things, so
18 I'm just asking him about these machines.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: It all depends on where this is happening. That's
20 what I'm saying. We have to establish, if you can lay a foundation, where
21 this occurred, because we're talking a large territory. So it's possible
22 to be someplace and not see this because this is happening someplace else.
23 JUDGE LIU: We just saw the clips of the video footage. The
24 question has not been asked.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. McCLOSKEY:
2 Q. Okay. We'll come back and try to get a freeze shot, but is it
3 fair to say that one of those machines was a Praga and one of them was a
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And can you tell us, now that we have this freeze frame, which is
7 which here? The one closest to us in front of the screen, which is that?
8 A. That's a BOV.
9 Q. And -- so the other one is a Praga. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And these are designed as anti-aircraft weapons?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And as you've said, you weren't -- you didn't see any of this
14 equipment along the Bratunac/Konjevic Polje road while you were there. Is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes, because I was only there up to Sandici. Just up to Sandici
17 was where I was. So Bratunac/Sandici.
18 Q. This is very close to the area of Sandici on the afternoon of 13
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Now we have the Prosecutor testifying where this
24 MR. McCLOSKEY: I thought that's what you wanted.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: I would like to know how he's making this statement
1 that this is near Sandici. Because between Sandici and Konjevic Polje,
2 it's quite a long distance. So if he could lay a foundation. Who said
3 that this was by Sandici? It's a long stretch of road; that's what I'm
4 saying. So he needs to establish through a witness, through prior
5 testimony, that so-and-so said that this occurred in such-and-such a
6 place. If that's the case, then it's a fair question. But for him to
7 make that representation, counsel now is testifying, and that's what I
8 object to.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I see no problem in this aspect, Mr. Karnavas.
10 And the witness answered that question already.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, the problem is: We have the lawyer
12 testifying, giving evidence. It's like me giving evidence as if I'm a
13 witness. If there was a foundation that somebody else has said: "This
14 occurred at this location," then I think it's -- then we know at least
15 there's testimony, whether it's right or wrong, that -- but there's
16 testimony that somebody said this happened at this location, where the
17 gentleman might have been. But because it's a long stretch of road, and
18 that's what I'm saying. I don't remember any evidence coming in through a
19 particular witness saying this incident here occurred at this location.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well -- but anyway, Mr. McCloskey, can you tell us
21 what's the foundation for that location?
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: I think we have to go back a long time ago to
23 Mr. Ruez I think who -- I think this original, as you remember, that
24 Potocari, the other film, Mr. Ruez talked about it to give you a
25 background on it and what we knew about it. And it's my understanding as
1 long as I have a good-faith belief in the truth and foundation of my
2 question and that it's something I can back up, I can ask a question based
3 on it. The points that Mr. Karnavas are making is a point that I'm not
4 even contesting. This man has said he didn't see this there; that's over.
5 We're on another subject.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I believe so.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you.
8 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Now, as you looked at this video today and as you after, I think,
11 speaking to the OTP have heard that your equipment was in Bratunac at the
12 Srebrenica time and you take a good look at this, does this look like your
13 equipment to you, very distinctive blue splotch on the back of that front
14 one. And there's some white paint marks -- some sort of white marks on
15 the back of the other one? Was this help you at all?
16 A. Let me say one thing: This isn't my equipment, it is the
17 equipment of the 2nd Detachment of Sekovici. And last time I told you
18 that I was able to identify that it was the 2nd Detachment, or rather, had
19 it been there I would have said. But I'm saying again that our vehicles
20 had blue licence plates, and every vehicle was registered. I don't see
21 any licence plates here at all. So maybe they do belong to the
22 2nd Detachment or maybe they don't, because they were mass produced, these
24 Q. Okay. Let's go to another section of the video, which is in the
25 area of Sandici. We should all be able to recognise it. I know there's
1 been testimony specifically on that. And you have already testified that
2 you were in the area of Sandici and that you saw Mr. Trifunovic there. Is
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And to remind us all, Mr. Trifunovic was one of the platoon
6 commanders of the 2nd Sekovici Detachment?
7 A. Yes. Yes, he was. He was the commanding officer of the 3rd.
8 [Videotape played]
9 MR. McCLOSKEY:
10 Q. Do you recognise the person there in the headband?
11 A. Yes. That's Cop, and I recognised him last time.
12 Q. He's the one that's speaking to this man that is calling out for
13 his son to come out of the woods?
14 A. Well, he's saying it to that man. I don't know what he's doing.
15 Q. Let's continue with it.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. McCLOSKEY:
18 Q. Okay. Mr. Trifunovic, commander of the platoon, is telling this
19 Muslim man to call people down from the woods, isn't he? Would that be
20 your take on that?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. Would Trifunovic have done that on his own or would he have
23 received orders to take part in the process to bring Muslims down from the
25 A. I don't know.
1 Q. Do you think a platoon commander might do something of that
2 significance all by himself without any commander telling him to do it?
3 A. I don't know. I really can't say.
4 Q. You were in Sandici for how many hours?
5 A. Two, I think, perhaps three hours.
6 Q. You said two or three hours. Did you see any of this?
7 A. No. I didn't see this.
8 Q. Do you know what happened to all those men in the field that we
9 saw in the video?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you have any idea?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. Do you believe the allegations that they were all murdered?
14 A. Perhaps. I don't know.
15 Q. Did you see any dead bodies while you were in Sandici? I won't
16 show you the video that shows that, the bodies.
17 A. No.
18 Q. It is the case of the Prosecution that at that time there was an
19 organised process to capture and detain and separate adult male men for
20 execution. And as part of that process, young men after the age
21 of -- born after -- approximately 1980 were taken out of the Sandici
22 meadow and allowed to go free, and that process happened during a good
23 part of the day in Sandici. You were there for two, three hours. Did you
24 witness the process by which young men were called out by the Serb
25 soldiers? "Anyone that has been born after 1980 may stand up." Did you
1 observe that, that process, happening?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Some young men stood up and were allowed to go. Some young men
4 stood up and were told to sit down. You saw none of that?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You did see army present in Sandici?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did the Sekovici detachment have anything to do with the organised
9 transportation in buses and trucks of Muslim prisoners from Sandici?
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Did you have any trucks and buses at your disposal at that time to
12 be able to use?
13 A. I don't know that either -- actually, I'm not quite clear on your
14 question. Could you repeat your question, please.
15 Q. Did the 2nd Sekovici Detachment have the ability to access large
16 numbers of buses and trucks for the transportation of prisoners?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Now, you've said that you -- that Oficir or Mr. Cuturic who later
19 died in combat in another theatre of operations; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. You have said that he went with a soldier named Krsto up towards
22 the Kravica warehouse that afternoon and some -- shortly thereafter you
23 heard quite a bit of gunfire. Can you describe that gunfire for us, how
24 long was it, what kind of gunfire.
25 A. Well, all I can say is that it was intensive, so not sporadic
1 fire, but intensive fire. Although I can't tell you for how long. I
2 don't remember exactly when.
3 Q. Did you distinguish whether or not it was your typical 7.62
4 Kalashnikov automatic weapon that most soldiers carry versus say 50
5 calibre machine-gun? Could you make out the calibre, the size of the
7 A. Could you repeat that question, please.
8 Q. From what you heard, could you distinguish the kind of weapons
9 that you thought doing the firing? I've heard soldiers get good at that
10 after a while.
11 A. I think, as far as I can recall, there were infantry weapons.
12 Q. Well, did the infantry carry the 7.62 automatic AK 47 Kalashnikov?
13 Is that what you mean when you say infantry weapons?
14 A. They were carrying Kalashnikovs. There were also light
15 machine-guns and so on.
16 Q. All right. And how long -- sorry. Did you hear any other -- any
17 explosions, detonations, like hand grenades or larger-calibre explosions
18 like RPGs, rocket-propelled grenades?
19 A. Not at that point in time, no. Not then.
20 Q. Later, did you?
21 A. No. When I left, I didn't hear that.
22 Q. And about how long did this intense firing go on for?
23 A. I can't remember the exact time now.
24 Q. I didn't -- nobody can remember exact times, but can you just give
25 us a feeling for it. Was it more than a minute? More than five minutes?
1 A. I couldn't recall.
2 Q. Well, surely you know how long it takes to take a full clip from a
3 Kalashnikov and fire it on automatic until it's empty. How long does that
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. No idea?
7 A. It's not that I have no idea, but I never calculated that and it's
8 been nine years since I've been firing those kinds of weapons. It's fast.
9 Q. Less than a minute?
10 A. I think about a minute, something like that.
11 Q. And after emptying a full clip, is the barrel hot enough to burn
12 yourself if you grab it?
13 A. I don't know that. I never tried it.
14 Q. Is it fair to say that the more you fire your Kalashnikov, the
15 hotter the barrel is going to get?
16 A. Yes, you could say that.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you have told us you had access to a Motorola while
18 you were there in Sandici. Is that right?
19 A. A Motorola that I took from Cop at that moment when the shooting
20 was going on.
21 Q. And if an army officer had a Motorola and was within range, he
22 could speak to you on your Motorola, couldn't he, if he was on the right
24 A. If he was on the same channel, yes, he could.
25 Q. And what was your call sign at that time?
1 A. For whom?
2 Q. For you. You had a call sign, didn't you? I mean --
3 A. I don't think I had a call sign at that point, but usually I was
4 Laser 61.
5 Q. And do you remember what Borovcanin's call sign was at that time
7 A. I think it was Laser 2.
8 Q. Who was Laser 1, if anyone?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know who Laser 1 was?
11 A. Saric, Goran Saric, the commander of the special brigade.
12 Q. And Laser 3?
13 A. I think it was Milutin Erakovic.
14 Q. And Laser 4?
15 A. It was the man for the rear, but I can't remember his name now.
16 Q. Okay. And you get this call, you heard Krsto is dead. You've
17 just heard intense firing. You've heard Krsto is dead and that one of the
18 commanders, Mr. Cuturic or Oficir is wounded. So this is a pretty serious
19 situation and you get in your car and go there immediately. Correct?
20 A. As I said, I called Oficir. I asked him what was going on there.
21 He said that Krsto was dead and that he was wounded. At that point, I
22 called Ljubisa. I don't actually remember whether I called him or whether
23 he called me, because it's possible he may have heard me but not Oficir
24 and that he asked me what was going on up there. And I said things were
25 not well with Oficir. And then I left that Motorola and I set out
1 immediately over there because he had asked me to come and take him to the
3 Q. And so you go to the area of the warehouse and you saw him
4 standing on the road in front of the -- some 10 to 15 metres from the
5 warehouse is what you said. Is that correct?
6 A. About 10 or 20 metres, something like that. But he was standing
7 on the road. I think there's even a gate there leading to the warehouse.
8 Q. And you said you saw some soldiers firing weapons. Is that
10 A. I saw some soldiers and I heard sporadic gunfire, but I didn't see
11 them actually firing. I just saw them standing around there. I can't say
12 that I saw them holding a rifle and firing, but you could hear sporadic
13 gunfire of less intensity than I described previously. It was sporadic,
14 not intense now.
15 Q. So the soldiers were standing around where?
16 A. Around that warehouse.
17 Q. Were there any buses in front of the warehouse then?
18 A. I didn't see any at that point. I don't remember.
19 Q. But you were looking over at the warehouse?
20 A. Yes. I wanted to open the door for the late Oficir to get him
21 into the car and drive on.
22 Q. But you knew there were -- so you were looking at the warehouse?
23 A. I was looking toward the late Oficir so that I could open the door
24 for him. I leaned over to open the door and I could see a little behind
25 him, but I was focusing on him. And I opened the door and he got in and
1 we drove on.
2 Q. But you were looking over towards the warehouse where you saw the
4 A. Yes. But I wasn't paying that much attention to them. I just saw
5 them standing there and I heard the gunfire. That's all.
6 Q. And you knew there was Muslim prisoners being held there?
7 A. I didn't know that at that point in time, no, until the late
8 Oficir started telling me what had happened to him.
9 Q. You've already testified that Krsto came up to Oficir and said
10 that he heard one of his Muslim neighbours might be up there and he wanted
11 to go see him. So given that, you should have known that there was
12 Muslims up there. And I believe you've testified you've seen or you've
13 said before you've seen Muslims being walked in that direction by unknown
14 army soldiers. So let's think about that answer. You knew there were
15 Muslims up there, didn't you?
16 A. I didn't know there were Muslims there. I did say they were taken
17 that direction. I did say that Oficir went in that direction with Krle,
18 but I didn't know where they were. When I set out, I didn't even know
19 where I would find the late Oficir, I didn't know that. If he hadn't been
20 standing on the road, I wouldn't have known where to look for him.
21 Q. When you looked over towards the warehouse, did you see Muslim
23 A. No, I didn't see any.
24 Q. You had heard long periods of automatic gunfire and you looked
25 right over at that warehouse where the soldiers were.
1 A. I didn't look into the warehouse. I just leaned over to open the
2 door for the late Oficir. That's how much I could see. It lasted about a
3 second. It was just a glance.
4 Q. And Mr. Cuturic, Oficir, had burned his hand -- his hands, and you
5 had to rush him to the hospital and leave the Kravica warehouse without
6 noticing anything at the Kravica warehouse. Is that correct?
7 A. That's correct. As soon as he got in, he said: "Drive on
8 quickly. I'm in pain."
9 I set out, started driving, and then I said: "What happened?"
10 And then as we were driving along, he continued his story.
11 Q. According to his story, a Muslim jumped out, took a gun, and
12 started shooting. And he grabbed the barrel and stopped it. That's the
13 basic story, isn't it?
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, I mean if he's going to be paraphrasing,
15 he should be paraphrasing correctly. Stop what? I would just like to
16 be -- I want the Prosecutor to be fair. He can cross-examine vigorously,
17 continuously, and lengthy, but he's got to be fair. If he's going to
18 paraphrase, he should paraphrase correctly.
19 JUDGE LIU: This is the basic story, the Prosecution said, basic.
20 If there's anything wrong, I believe that the witness could correct that
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you one thing: You may
23 have misunderstood or maybe you're misquoting. The Muslims didn't come
24 outside and take his rifle. He went in to look for someone, so he stepped
25 in. He took a step or two inside. That's what he said, at least, and
1 they grabbed him and then they grabbed his rifle away from him and fired a
2 few shots. And they killed Krsto there. At that moment, he went in to
3 pull Krsto out. And as they already had the rifle in their hands, they
4 pointed it at Oficir and he grabbed it by the barrel. He hadn't gone far
5 in; he was by the door. And they shot it until they fired all the
6 bullets. Then he started running back. At least, that's his story, what
7 he told me. And that was the injury he sustained, that was a burn.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY:
9 Q. Okay. And that's the story he told you. Now --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. It's also plausible -- let's -- given we have the medical record
12 that shows Cuturic has burns on his palms, we have the medical record that
13 shows Krsto was killed at about that time, at about that place, we have
14 another medical record showing somebody else was wounded at about that
15 time, at about that place; and we have the story that you've been told.
16 Did you ever hear this version of events, that officers, soldiers, MUP,
17 people in camouflage uniforms stood around the opening of the warehouse
18 with their automatic weapons and suddenly opened fire on a crowd of some
19 400 to 500 Muslims at one end of the warehouse, while at the other end of
20 the warehouse the soldiers are telling the Muslims: "Look what your
21 people are doing, they're attacking us."
22 And that while the soldiers or MUP, the people in camouflage, are
23 firing into this crowd of 400 or 500 Muslims, a Muslim crazily breaks out,
24 grabs a weapon, kills Krsto, wounds somebody else. Cuturic grabs the
25 weapon. And that's how he burned his hands. Have you heard that side of
1 the story?
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object to that. It's not
3 even a question. It's mischaracterised the facts. If he wishes to say:
4 We have this witness who said that and this witness who said that and then
5 to give the opportunity to the gentleman to see whether he heard those
6 stories, I don't have a problem. But this paraphrasing that on the other
7 end they're saying: "Look what these people are doing." And then
8 somebody else saying -- this whole incident. It's a total
9 mischaracterisation, and there is no relevance to it. If he wants to ask
10 a question like that, then at least he should be straight with the facts.
11 Tell the gentleman who said what at that point in time and be correct with
12 the facts. The summary of the events, as presented by Mr. McCloskey, are
13 rather embellished.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: If I may respond to that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. Karnavas, and I can find the -- he has read
17 the very witness statement out to this Court where the Kravica survivor at
18 the other end of the warehouse is relating to what the guard is talking to
19 him while he's hearing shooting. Mr. Karnavas read that out, and that's
20 also part of this record, as is the testimony of both Kravica warehouse
21 survivors who say that this shooting suddenly started from nowhere. So
22 the hypothetical or the interpretation of the question is based firmly on
23 fact. This witness is giving us a hearsay account of this thing. He's
24 not an eyewitness to it. So as he has said himself, this is the story
25 he's heard. I've asked him if he's heard the other story which
1 fundamentally may be the truth. The fact is this may be a mystery that
2 lives well beyond all of us.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, we've got two survivors. I really
4 have absolutely no objection to Mr. McCloskey reading the relevant
5 portions from the survivors' statements and say: "Witness one says this,
6 witness two says that. Now you're telling us this." I don't have a
7 problem with that. I do have a problem with the way the facts are sort of
8 put together in this hypothetical or his -- it's not a hypothetical in his
9 belief of what the testimony has been. That's what I'm saying, Your
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Karnavas, you know that this witness is not an
12 eyewitness to that particular witness. Whatever he told us is hearsay
13 evidence. I believe the Prosecution could put his case before this
14 witness. The only question the witness needs to answer is a yes or no
15 answer. Whatever he answers has very little relevance to this case.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I just -- from a technical
17 standpoint, as a technician in court --
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I'm objecting. The constant
19 backtalking in front of the witness is just completely inappropriate and
20 is --
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's time for a break, Mr. McCloskey. Would you
22 please finish this question and maybe we'll have a break.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, I have one or two questions and a
24 very short video and I'm through. So if we could go for a couple more
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Though we may have --
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may proceed.
4 MR. McCLOSKEY: Of course, there's other people in the room.
5 This shouldn't take long.
6 Q. So did you hear the story, the version, that I had --
7 A. No. No. No.
8 Q. And you didn't discuss either -- any version of the Kravica events
9 with Mr. Obrenovic on 15 July?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Okay. I want to show you a video segment that we believe was shot
12 on the afternoon of the 13th of July as someone was driving by the
13 warehouse. And it will be slow motion so that you can get a better look
14 at it, and I want to ask you a few questions about that.
15 [Videotape played]
16 MR. McCLOSKEY:
17 Q. Okay. Now here's the slow motion of that last segment.
18 [Videotape played]
19 MR. McCLOSKEY:
20 Q. Do you recognise what the pile of objects were in front of the
22 A. They looked like dead people.
23 Q. When you looked over at the warehouse that afternoon, did you see
24 anything that looked like that?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did 2nd Sekovici soldiers wear one-piece jumpsuits that day in
3 A. I think they did, yes.
4 Q. Sometimes when it gets hot, in order to get out of the top of the
5 jumpsuit, you take it off and roll it down and tie it around your waist?
6 A. Yes. But other soldiers had such jumpsuits, too. It wasn't just
7 the Sekovici detachment wearing jumpsuits.
8 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't have any further questions, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, do you have any re-direct?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I think a break would be in order at this point in
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you insist.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't insist, Your Honour. I'm just saying that
14 I'm going to go on for -- well, not some time but a little bit of time.
15 We could all use the break, especially the people in the booth and the
16 interpreters, so I'm looking after their welfare as well.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll resume at 10 minutes to 11.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, your re-direct.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, I believe that you should
23 re-arrange your gown, otherwise your image on television may not be so
25 MR. KARNAVAS: I apologise, Mr. President, Your Honours. My
1 apologies. And thank you.
2 Re-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stupar.
4 A. [No Interpretation]
5 Q. Okay. You're going to have to speak up a little bit louder. I
6 just want to go through some of the documents, some that were shown and
7 some that were not shown. So first if I could show you Exhibit P850 for
8 identification. That was -- this won't take long.
9 Now, obviously this is a personnel questionnaire. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And could you please tell us what your date of birth is on this
12 particular document.
13 A. 7th December 1963.
14 Q. All right. And is that the correct date?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now, this is the document that was referred to by the
17 Prosecutor under column 6, was it not, that designated you as the deputy
18 company commander or the commander of the 2nd Detachment -- 2nd Sekovici
19 Detachment from 20 February 1994 to August 22nd, 1995. Correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if we understand your testimony correctly, you're disputing
22 those dates?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, following that it says that you were the chief of the Zvornik
25 section of anti-terrorist administration. And it states from 23 August
1 1995 onwards.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, was that a position you took up after leaving the
4 2nd Detachment, 2nd Sekovici Detachment?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Is that date correct, 23rd August 1995?
7 A. According to this document, yes.
8 Q. Okay. What about in your own mind, given that you now have
9 disputed some of the dates?
10 A. I have already said that on the 15th of June I orally agreed with
11 the minister Tomo Kovac that I should be transferred to this
12 anti-terrorist administration to the Zvornik department, and that Oficir
13 should take command of the detachment. However, this document was late
14 and I only received it later on because the administration wasn't working
16 Q. Do you know, sir, do you remember about what date you started
17 working as the chief of the anti-terrorist administration in Zvornik?
18 A. This administration was supposed to be set up, but it never
19 actually came alive.
20 Q. All right. Well, let me rephrase the question. In your mind,
21 when did you take up this position or did you ever take it up in light of
22 your previous answer?
23 A. De facto this administration never existed. There were attempts
24 to set it up. I was there, I think, for a year. I had this document
25 appointing me to that position, but I didn't actually do any work.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to show you what has been marked as P851
2 for identification, and I just have one quick question for you. Now,
3 that is -- this is your workbook, is it not, or a copy of it?
4 A. Yes, yes. Yes, this is a copy of my work document.
5 Q. Okay. But it states here, if I'm not mistaken -- at least in the
6 English version, that the date of birth is 7 December 1968. Do you see
7 that on the original -- on the copy in Srpski?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Was that your date of birth?
10 A. No, no. It was 1963.
11 Q. Do you know who put 1968, in light of the -- sort of the
12 implication that this was a highly efficient administration during the war
13 period in the RS?
14 A. I don't know who entered this.
15 Q. Okay. Next -- that's all for that document.
16 Now, I want to show you -- we're going to go through three
17 documents one by one.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: And for the record there will be -- the documents I
19 will be handing the gentleman will be P855, P856, and P854. We'll do it
20 in those -- that order. These are all -- these are identification
21 numbers. We're going to go one by one.
22 Q. So if you could look at 855, what has been marked as P855. This
23 is a decision, is it not, sir. 855.
24 A. It's not this. It's 856, this one that I have.
25 Q. All right. We'll get it. Do you see this -- this is a decision,
1 is it not, sir?
2 A. Yes. This is a decision assigned to the Sekovici police
3 department as a commander from the 23rd of February, 1994.
4 Q. Okay. Now -- but the decision is dated that it was issued the
5 following day, on the 24th, at the top.
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. So you began working the day before the decision was issued,
8 according to this document.
9 A. Well, I worked a lot before. I did that -- those kinds of jobs a
10 lot before, but this is when I actually received the decision.
11 Q. Right. Exactly. But what I'm stating is from the decision itself
12 it reflects that at least the date that you started working before the
13 decision was even issued.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And this was from the Ministry of the Interior. Correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. Now, I want to show you, if you could look at what has
18 been marked for identification purposes as P856. Do you see it, sir?
19 A. Yes, I see it.
20 Q. And now this is a decision from the deputy minister, is it not?
21 A. Yes, deputy minister.
22 Q. And it notes that this decision was issued on 23 August 1995, if
23 you look all the way to the top left-hand corner.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And again we see that the decision is issued two days after you
1 have -- you were to have taken up your post as a chief of the Zvornik
2 department. Correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And of course if we went back to the first document, which was
5 P850, the first one that was shown to you by the Prosecutor and that I
6 showed you, here it says August 23, 1995, the date of the decision, but
7 not the date that the decision has in it, which is 21 August 1995. Is
8 that correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Do you have any explanations why you have these discrepancies?
11 A. Well, that was the slowness of the administration.
12 Q. Did you have anything to do with these dates?
13 A. No.
14 Q. All right. Now, let me show you if you could look at what has
15 been marked for identification purposes as P854. Do you recognise what
16 this document is?
17 A. Well, I can see that it's -- it relates to my years of service or
18 something like that.
19 Q. All right. And does it have anything to do with keeping track of
20 your years of service for social security benefits or retirement benefits?
21 A. Possibly, yes, it could be that.
22 Q. And here on the first page we see the date 21 August 1995.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if you were to go to page 3, it says that -- there we find 23
1 February 1994, and then further down we find 20 August 1995. Correct?
2 A. I haven't got that third page -- oh, yes, I have. It's on page 2,
3 I've found it.
4 Q. Okay. So at least if we were to look at the previous two
5 documents along with this one, that is Prosecution exhibit for
6 identification 855, 856, and this 854, we at least see that some dates
7 correspond, and that is February 23rd. We see that on all three pages, do
8 we not?
9 A. The 23rd of February is on page 2.
10 Q. Right. Okay. What I'm suggesting, sir, is that all three
11 documents seem to have the date in various places?
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. All right. Now, help me out here. Is it a fact, if you
14 know, that in keeping these records for retirement purposes, every day has
15 to be accounted for?
16 A. I think it ought to be, yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, let me show you another document. This will be the
18 last document. And this is from the Prosecution disclosure material with
19 the ERN number of 01763874. We have an unofficial translation that the
20 Defence did, which is currently being checked and revised officially.
21 This will be marked for identification purposes as D16, the English
22 version, with D16/B as the original version in Srpski.
23 And if we could put this on the ELMO, the English version, if we
24 have an extra copy. This is a decision, is it not, sir?
25 A. Yes, it is a decision.
1 Q. Now, the decision has a date on it, does it not, on the left
2 corner of March 3rd, 1997?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And in this decision, this is about your appointment to a position
5 dating to June 1, 1996. Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So at least in glean -- in looking at this document, it would
8 appear that the decision came out some nine months after you began
9 taking -- you took up your post, assuming that everything is correct.
11 A. Well, it's like this: Look at what has happened here. They're
12 indicating here that I'm the commander of the detachment from the 22nd of
13 February, 1994, until the 30th of June, 1995.
14 Q. I'm going to get to that. Polako, polako.
15 A. Slowly, slowly, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Let's deal with one step at a time. If we look at the date
17 when this decision was issued and we look at the other date, it says:
18 01/06/1996, it would appear that there's a nine-month delay?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. So this decision is retroactive.
21 A. Well, I suppose it would be, yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now we'll go to the explanation. Now, the explanation
23 states that on February 24th you took up the duties as the 2nd -- the
24 Sekovici Detachment commander. Correct?
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection. That's not what it says --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: It says that the decision was dated that.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Well, I'll read it --
6 MR. McCLOSKEY: And he can ask questions but his interpretation is
7 leading in a cross-examination question.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm merely trying to guide the witness --
9 JUDGE LIU: Read --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: -- through this maze of paperwork.
11 JUDGE LIU: Read whatever is written there.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
13 Q. We have the date of 24/02/1994. Correct? You see that date under
14 the explanation part?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, what is that date -- if you read the explanation, what does
17 that date reflect?
18 A. It reflects when I received the decision for the first time
19 appointing me as detachment commander.
20 Q. All right. Now, if you look at then the previous date on the
21 decision, 01/06/1996.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right. From looking at this decision, what can one conclude?
24 A. That I was the detachment commander from the 26th of February,
25 1994, to the 1st of June 1996.
1 Q. Okay. Now -- but that, sir, would contradict, would it not, the
2 previous --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- decision. So that we're all clear, in this decision it doesn't
5 reflect what we see in Prosecution's exhibit for identification 856.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Did you have anything to do with this, by the way?
9 A. No.
10 Q. All right. Now, I think we got the point.
11 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, if there's going to be an argument on
12 this point --
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: -- I would like to make it -- respond to the
15 point, because it clearly does not say what he just said it says.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll clarify it.
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: If he's going to start arguing it.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll clarify it. I appreciate the assistance.
19 JUDGE LIU: Can we hear the Prosecution first.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Perhaps he can clear up with further questions,
23 but in looking at this document, the 30 June 1995 is referenced to a
24 regulation that is dated that date, regulation -- it's regulations on the
25 systemisation of posts in the MUP, number K/P-1016 dated 30/06/1995. In
1 another of these documents they refer to the same regulation. In P856
2 they talk about the same regulation K/P-1016, dated 30 June 1995. So it's
3 hard to say what it means. But there is no reference that this is the
4 ending work date of this man, and -- so that's why -- maybe that can be
5 cleared up.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: With pleasure.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: And Mr. McCloskey is absolutely correct. That goes
9 to a decision, that date.
10 Q. Sir, we're going to go step by step. Okay. I want you to look at
11 the last document that I showed you, which is the decision of 3 March
12 1997. Okay?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, under the part that says "decision," we have a date of 1 June
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you please tell us what does that date reflect, based on the
18 decision itself?
19 A. It means that I am deployed to the post of the operations officer
20 for counterintelligence work in the operative centre, Bijeljina, in the
21 centre for intelligence and counterintelligence, as established by the
22 regulations, et cetera, et cetera, and the date is the 1st of June, 1996.
23 Q. All right. Well, we can all read, but I just wanted an
24 explanation. Does this mean -- I have to lead a little bit for
25 clarification purposes. Does this mean that June 1 is the starting date
1 of your employment in this new job?
2 A. Well, that's what it should mean, judging from this piece of
4 Q. Okay. Now, if we go to the explanation, okay, and it says: "The
5 decision of 096539, and we have it here. It's one of these -- and that
6 would be 85 -- Prosecution Exhibit for identification 855/A, we will see
7 that it has the number on it. And then it says: "Dated 24/02/1994." And
8 it says that you were deployed to the duties and tasks of Sekovici
9 detachment commander. Correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now -- so am I correct in interpreting this document to mean that
12 from the -- at least based on its face, that from 24 February 1994 to 1
13 June 1996, based on this decision, it would appear that you were for that
14 entire period of time the commander of the Sekovici detachment?
15 A. Judging by this piece of paper, this decision, yes, that's what it
16 would appear.
17 Q. Right. But if we then go to Prosecution exhibit for
18 identification 856, which was dated 23 August 1995, a period in between
19 these two dates, it states here that you -- in between these two dates, as
20 of 21 August 1995, you became the chief of the Zvornik department of the
21 anti-terrorist administration. Correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you.
24 Now, just one last thing. This -- because it was raised by the
25 Prosecutor, we have a date of 30 June 1995. Do you see that in the
1 explanation? It says KP --
2 A. [No Interpretation]
3 Q. Okay. Now, that date, if I'm not mistaken, refers to a
4 regulation, does it not?
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. And that's K/P-1016?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
9 Now, I think that's it for the documents. I just have a couple of
10 minor questions. First of all, the Prosecutor used the word "paperwork,"
11 and asked you when you went in on June -- July 15, 1995, whether you did
12 any paperwork. Other than signing these documents, sir, that we know, did
13 you do any paperwork as far as filling out forms, making reports, anything
14 of the sort?
15 A. The administration did all that. I just signed.
16 Q. Okay. Now, I would suspect that since we have these reports every
17 three months and every six months, there must have been a report that
18 followed this one for the next three-month period starting with July,
19 August, September. Correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were you asked to sign that document, presumably if you had been
22 working into that quarter? Were you ever shown that document to sign it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. All right. Now, when you met with the OTP, with the
25 investigators, you told them about the dates you believed you had been
1 working when you went on vacation, what you did on vacation, and so on and
2 so forth, did you not?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did they at that time make any requests of you to search for and
5 try to locate any documents that would assist them in determining your
6 whereabouts and your activities and your functions?
7 A. They did ask me about the decisions.
8 Q. Okay. Did you tell them where they could find the decisions?
9 A. Yes, I told them, at the MUP.
10 Q. Did they ask you to go and try to fetch them, locate them,
11 retrieve them, do that work for them in other words?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Had they asked you to go and try to find the paperwork, whether it
14 was still there or in the archives, would you have made any efforts?
15 A. Well, I would have.
16 Q. Okay. Now, you were shown a video at the time that you were
17 questioned by the Prosecution, were you not?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In fact, I believe we saw parts of that video here today.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And in showing their video, there were times when they would stop
23 the video and ask you some questions and ask you what, if anything or
24 anyone, you recognised in the still -- the frozen frames. Correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And did you answer those questions to the best of your ability at
2 the time?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, we saw today a photo, a still, of Cop, Trifunovic I believe
5 is his last name. Correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And was that frame frozen for you to look at and try to identify
8 the individual, if you recall from reading your statement?
9 A. Yes, yes. 2002, when I gave the statement.
10 Q. And did you by any chance identify the individual and point that
11 out and point out his identity and his association with the 2nd Detachment
12 at the time you were being questioned by the investigators of the Office
13 of the Prosecution?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, yesterday you described a little bit about where the
16 2nd Detachment was located when you found them on the afternoon or early
17 afternoon hours of 13 July 1995.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now -- and again I just want to make sure that I understand and
20 that we all understand. How were they situated?
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Objection, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: This has been asked and answered, like he says,
24 yesterday. If there's some specific issue he wants to clear up, I don't
25 have an objection to that. But it looks like we're starting over again.
1 JUDGE LIU: The question is not clear. "How were they situated,"
2 what does that mean?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm trying not to draw fire from the other side,
4 Your Honour, on the basis that I'm leading the witness. If I could be
5 given some leeway to give a predicate, which I think is appropriate --
6 JUDGE LIU: Of course. This is re-direct.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you.
8 Q. Now, the Prosecution asked you some questions and pointed out some
9 still photos as to what Cop was doing. Do you recall that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. First of all, were you with Cop the entire time that you were
12 there visiting your mates?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you know whether all of the troops from the 2nd Detachment were
15 around Cop when that activity was going on?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Had you seen that activity, the one that we saw on video that is
18 as plain as day, especially after you identified the individual -- but had
19 you seen that, would you have admitted that to the Prosecution?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How many -- how many tanks and how many Pragas does the 2nd
22 Detachment have?
23 A. The 2nd Detachment had one tank, one Praga, and one
24 three-barrelled BOV.
25 Q. All right. Are you sure?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. All right. Well, help me out here, because maybe my math is wrong
3 or maybe I'm too tired and I haven't got the dates right. But there was a
4 document shown to you by the Prosecution, and I believe it's 853 for
5 identification purposes. If we could show you this document, maybe you
6 can help us out here a little bit.
7 Do you have that, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, I want you to go to the section that says: "State of
10 readiness in the unit headquarters."
11 That would be page 7. If we could put that on the ELMO, please.
12 And it would be page 4 for you, sir, in Srpski. All right.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, I'm going to count the lines. It says one, two, three, the
15 third line where it says: "Between 18 March 1995 and 30 June 1995, a tank
16 crew was in the state of readiness in Bratunac."
18 A. That's what it says here.
19 Q. Okay. And now if you go all the way down to the end, the very
20 last one, it says: "Between 1 May 1995 and 30 June 1995, a tank crew was
21 in a state of readiness in the unit headquarters," and I believe that
22 would be Sekovici. Correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Now, it would seem that these dates overlap, do they
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if there's only one tank for the unit, how can the tank be in
3 two different places at the same time?
4 A. Probably somebody made a mistake who compiled this report, the
5 administration, I assume.
6 Q. All right. Did you compile this report?
7 A. No, no, that was done by the administration.
8 Q. All right. Okey-doke.
9 Now, if we go down to line 5, here we do have the one -- we have a
10 Praga, right, between 1 March 1995 and 31st March 1995. Correct?
11 A. What line did you say?
12 Q. Okay. I said line 5 where it says: "Between 1st March 1995 and
13 31st March 1995, a Praga" --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. And then if we go to the next line, there you see 1 April
16 1995 and 30 April 1995. There we have a tank crew and a Praga.
17 A. Yes, in the headquarters.
18 Q. Okay. With the tank, I guess we see some discrepancies again.
20 A. Yes. Probably they made an error when they compiled this.
21 Q. All right. So now we have it in three different places, but with
22 the Praga it would appear that that could have occurred, March 1 to 31st
23 March, and then 1 April. So the dates at least correspond. Correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. Now, if we stay with this report and we go to the end of
1 the page, the last part, this was pointed out and the Prosecution
2 highlighted the word "cooperation," though in his questioning he was using
3 the word "coordination," but I would suspect that is the same,
4 cooperation, coordination, in the context in which the question was posed
5 on cross-examination?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But you would -- would cooperation also mean resubordination?
8 A. No. It could mean that, but not necessarily. People can
9 cooperate whether they are in a subordinate-superior relation or whether
10 they are equals.
11 Q. All right. Is there anything in here, though, that says that when
12 the Sekovici detachment unit was in any of these locations, that they were
13 subordinated and were working under and being controlled by and ordered by
14 VRS units?
15 A. I didn't understand your question.
16 Q. In reading this document, 853, where it talks about cooperation,
17 does it say anything about resubordination?
18 A. No.
19 Q. All right. Is there anything in that document, incidentally,
20 about cooperation with the Bratunac Brigade?
21 A. I don't think so.
22 Q. All right.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no further questions, Your Honour. Thank
24 you very much, Mr. Stupar.
25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
1 Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any re-direct?
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We have no
4 JUDGE LIU: At this stage, are there any documents to tender?
5 Mr. Karnavas?
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Your Honour. We certainly would -- D115,
7 D116 -- okay. D115 is the conversation between Kazimierz Piekos and
8 Milos Stupar conducted on June 2002. This is the transcript of his
9 statement given to the OTP. D116 is the decision that we introduced just
10 now on redirect of 3 March 1997. And in light of the fact that we made
11 reference to the other documents that were given to us by the Prosecution
12 and that are listed on their exhibit list, we would propose that P850,
13 P851, P854, P855, and P856 also come in. And if we need to give them D
14 numbers, we are happy to do so.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
16 Any objections, Mr. McCloskey?
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: Well, there's no foundation for any of these
18 documents, Your Honour, but it's all the Prosecution's documents. So
19 Mr. Karnavas will withdraw his foundation requests or his objection to the
20 last group of documents I offered into the same thing, we might be able to
21 reach what is more reasonable. I have no objection truly to any of these
22 documents coming in. And I would suggest that I can add the declaration
23 that we've done for the other documents, we'll add these documents in as
24 well so that the Court can see where all this stuff came from. And I
25 don't have any objections. The interview statement of this witness, you
1 know, I have no objection to the Court viewing it either, because
2 it's -- from what I gather, the only subject or reason for it is the
3 attack on the integrity of the Prosecutor, which I don't think it should
4 be -- that there's any substance to that attack. But if it's made, I have
5 no objection to you reviewing that statement, as you can clearly see that
6 there's no problem in that statement. So I don't have any objection to
7 any of this material, and we should just add to it 850 and 853, which are
8 the documents that I think I mentioned.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 Any objections to document P853 by the Defence?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: By the Prosecution? I have no objection to all of
12 these documents. I just wanted to note that I have the official
13 translation of P -- D116. We've just -- were able to get it. And as far
14 as the comments, it was not meant to be an attack on the Prosecution.
15 What I was trying to demonstrate is that in spite of the cautionary
16 language used by the Prosecutor, the gentleman gave a statement, answered
17 all the questions, and I think that is something that needs to be
18 considered in factoring in the gentleman's credibility. I think that was
19 the purpose of it.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. McCloskey.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, as this witness would probably
22 readily admit, many times in an interview or interrogation, you tell the
23 person what you think of what they're saying. It was done forthrightly
24 and honestly. I remember him well. We had a long chat. It ended with
25 his having no complaints. So the implication that there was something
1 wrong here that we had to live through the other day is -- in any event, I
2 have no objection.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, as a principle that the previous statement will
4 not be admitted into the evidence. But since the Defence counsel insisted
5 that this piece of the documents goes to the credibility of this witness
6 and there is no strong objections from the Prosecution, so the document
7 D115 is admitted into the evidence as well as D116, P850, P851, P853,
8 P854, P855, and P856. After this sitting, the Defence may consult with
9 the Court Deputy for the Defence numbers on the same documents. It is so
11 Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to give your
12 evidence; we appreciate it very much. The usher will show you out of the
13 room. Please feel free to go now. We wish you a pleasant journey back
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me that we exhausted the witness
18 list for this week, but I have to remind Defence counsel that all together
19 we are one day behind the original schedule. And also, we don't think
20 this witness helped us a lot, because we are only interested in the
21 subordination or resubordination issues from the testimony of this
22 witness. I don't think there is any differences between the parties that
23 terrible things happened in certain times, in certain areas. But the most
24 important thing for this case is the linkage of your clients and that
25 incident. This is what we want to hear from the future witnesses. So I
1 hope -- and we see there's still room for improvement of the direct
2 examination, as well as for the cross-examination, of course. And we have
3 to make the best use for the time availability to us. The deadline is
4 there, and we have to do our utmost to make it.
5 Well, this is what I want to say at this stage. Are there any
6 other matters that the parties would like to raise at this stage?
7 Mr. Karnavas?
8 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. McCloskey?
10 MR. McCLOSKEY: No, Mr. President. We are working on our -- the
11 work we've mentioned before on the joint motion. And no problems.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, the hearing is adjourned.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
16 at 11.43 a.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
17 the 3rd day of May, 2004,
18 at 9.00 a.m.