1 Friday, 11 June 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-02-60-T, the Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic, and Dragan
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Good afternoon, Witness.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
12 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to continue?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. We won't be long for this afternoon.
15 WITNESS: MIRKO TRIVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stojanovic, do you have any questions to
18 put to this witness?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
20 Good afternoon, Witness. Your Honours, we don't have any questions. We
21 are satisfied with the answers given yesterday during the
22 examination-in-chief of this gentleman who is testifying today.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination, Mr. Waespi?
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your Honours.
25 I don't it will be be long.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Trivic.
3 A. Good afternoon.
4 Q. I just want to cover a few areas with you this afternoon. First
5 of all, after you have testified last time, 27th of February this year,
6 you were again contacted by the Defence; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So they contacted you and not you them; is that correct?
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object as to relevance. Mr. Waespi
12 wasn't in Court perhaps when the gentleman testified last time but it was
13 made clear prior to the gentleman leaving last time that I would be
14 contacting him because of my inability to continue with my
15 cross-examination because of time constraints. So it was quite obvious.
16 So I object on relevancy grounds as to who contacted whom, knowing that
17 the gentleman would have to come and testify.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, I don't think that matters a lot if the
19 Prosecution asks this question for who contact whom.
20 You may proceed, Mr. Waespi.
21 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. And I take it before giving testimony today you talked to the
23 Defence; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. And with the Defence you also discussed the testimony you had
1 given the testimony you had given on the 27th of February; is that
3 A. No.
4 Q. So there was no discussion about, for instance, the area of
5 responsibility. You didn't discuss that subject with the Defence.
6 A. No. We just discussed the fact that questions would be directed
7 towards the explanation of the concept and the combat operations carried
8 out by the brigade --
9 Q. So --
10 A. -- and - I beg your pardon - the instructions for the work of
11 command staffs.
12 Q. So again my question: You did not discuss the area of
13 responsibility concept with the Defence?
14 A. The concept of the area of responsibility, no, but about combat
15 operations that a brigade engages in as a Infantry Brigade. But as those
16 instructions cover all forms of combat operations and the way in which
17 documents are drawn up in the command, naturally that area of the issue
18 was also included.
19 Q. Very well. Let me go to another subject. We have heard
20 testimony here of the presence of General Mladic, General Krstic,
21 Zivanovic in Srebrenica 1995, and I believe you have seen these people as
22 well on the ground; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. Now, can you tell the Judges how important it is for the senior
25 members of an army to be on the ground, to be present? Can you explain
1 that to us?
2 A. I don't think I quite understood your question and the gist of
3 it, but according to the concept and in -- depending on the significance
4 of the assignment, it was normal to expect that the command of the
5 operations and the command of the Drina Corps and the Chief of Staff of
6 the Main Staff or the command of the Main Staff of the VRS as this was
7 the crucial assignment at the time, that they should be on the location
8 where the troops are carrying out their basic assignment.
9 Q. So that will be a fundamental principle, that the senior people
10 would be on the ground where the main effort of an operation take place.
11 I think you called it the crucial assignment.
12 A. Yes. The main effort of the VRS was to protect and prevent
13 incidents where people in small villages were regularly suffering certain
14 losses and having casualties. In order to prevent that, the operation
15 Krivaja 95 was planned.
16 Q. Let me just show you a document.
17 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, that's a new exhibit but we won't
18 be using all of it, just one page. It will be Exhibit P860. And the
19 relevant page would be page 9, but if the witness could be shown the
20 whole document. So perhaps he can tell us whether he has seen it before.
21 Q. Mr. Trivic, have you seen this document before?
22 A. No. At least I don't remember seeing it. So I think I didn't.
23 Q. Can you tell --
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me. Just one second.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: If -- I don't know if this is correct, but it says
2 1992. We're into 1995.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
4 MR. WAESPI: I can explain, Your Honours.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I'd like an explanation as to the relevancy, why
6 we're talking about 1992 which is outside the period of the indictment.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, I haven't read this document yet, and maybe
8 it's a kind of report or regulations or comments, you know, on those
9 regulations, something like this. I'm not sure about that.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: That's why I'm asking for the relevancy, Your
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps the gentleman could explain to us the
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Waespi.
16 MR. WAESPI: Yes, there is a comment about the activities of the
17 Main Staff, their involvement into what's happening on the ground, what
18 is being done by the brigades. And I would like the witness, who has
19 been called as an expert, to comment on whether that's a valid concept as
20 it was in 1992, 1993, as in 1995. That's what I would like to ask the
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may proceed.
23 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Trivic, can you tell us first of all what this document
25 is about. And I think it's probably enough to look at the first page of
1 the document, the cover page.
2 A. When anyone is asked to look at a hundred-and-more page document
3 in a couple of minutes and to assess it as you are requesting -- I do not
4 wish to be rude, but I don't think it is appropriate. In any event, I
5 can say that the title is "Analysis of the Combat Readiness and
6 Activities of the Army of Republika Srpska," which shows what it is. It
7 is an analysis of combat readiness for 1992. That is the year when the
8 army was formed.
9 In any event, any analysis requires one to be able to compare it
10 with something that constituted a basis for its activities, for its
11 formation, and everything else. And essentially this analysis, which I
12 haven't read -- I've already said that I don't remember, in fact I'm
13 quite sure that I didn't read it, in 1992 I didn't take part in this
14 analysis, so I never received this document to be able to make any
15 conclusions from it regarding my own unit. But in any event, an analysis
16 should contain what are the basic premises for the formation of the army
17 of Republika Srpska was made the best of, how the army was formed, what
18 the response to replenishment of units was since in 1992 there was a
19 deviation from the concept by the people who did not wish to respond to
20 the call-up and join the units of the VRS. So the army was being formed
21 by replenishment --
22 Q. I don't want to cut you short. I don't want you to give an
23 analysis yourself about that. I just have a brief comment to make, and I
24 believe it's not necessary for you to give any comment except for the
25 part we are discussing.
1 The only thing I would like to ask you is to turn to your
2 version, page 133. And in English it's page 153. So we see who signed
3 this document and perhaps also the date so it's on the record.
4 Mr. Trivic, can you tell us? Hundred and thirty-three. If you could
5 read out date and -- and who authored this document.
6 A. The date is the 5th of April, 1993, and the signatory of the
7 document is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Republika
8 Srpska, Dr. Radovan Karadzic.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Trivic. Now let's go to just one paragraph. It's
10 on page 9 in both versions, Your Honours, Mr. Trivic. In the English
11 version it's the second paragraph from the top, and I do have a -- well,
12 I believe we have one for the ELMO. The second paragraph from the top.
13 And in your version, Mr. Trivic, it's the second paragraph from the
14 bottom. And I would just like to read you this part of it and if you
15 need more, you can certainly acquaint yourself.
16 I read the last sentence of that paragraph: "The involvement of
17 different staff bodies in the brigades and other units yielded
18 particularly good results because in that way directives, commands and
19 orders reached those who were to execute them in the fastest way possible
20 -- the fastest possible way, and the planned concerted action was
21 relatively quickly performed."
22 Now, does that confirm what you said before about the importance
23 of the presence of Main Staff people?
24 A. I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow you. I didn't find this
25 passage on page 9.
1 Q. Yes. It's the last paragraph, and it's the last sentence in this
2 last paragraph.
3 A. Page 9?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. In my language it is not on page 9. I can't find the beginning
6 of the sentence as you read it.
7 Q. Yes. The beginning, I think, in your language of the second
8 paragraph to the last from the bottom starts: "We devoted significant
9 attention to controlling and extending assistance to subordinated
10 commands." That's the beginning of the paragraph I'm quoting.
11 A. "To controlling and extending assistance to subordinate
13 Q. Yes, exactly.
14 A. "Devoting special attention to them."
15 Q. And if you go to the last sentence on that paragraph which starts
16 with: "The involvement of different Main Staff bodies in the brigades,"
17 and so on. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Again, my question is whether that's a confirmation of what you
20 said before about the importance of Main Staff personnel being on the
22 A. This cannot be identified with what I said. This is an analysis
23 of combat readiness of the army in 1992 for which it was absolutely
24 essential and necessary for organ of the Main Staff to go to the units in
25 view of the need to set up those units and revive those units so as to
1 form defence zones. This was the beginning of the functioning of the
2 Army of Republika Srpska.
3 In 1995, the reasons were quite different, and a great deal of
4 effort was required in those days to activate the population that did
5 respond to the call-up and who was confronted with various dangers in
6 various parts of Republika Srpska. Those units had to be formed, a light
7 infantry brigade, or infantry brigades formed with the personnel left
8 over to fill in the posts, because the vast majority of the Muslim and
9 Croat population did not respond to the mobilisation of Territorial
10 Defence units which were developed into light infantry brigades. And the
11 one we are talking about throughout the war remained a light infantry
12 brigade, and no one can say that it didn't develop from a TO unit which
13 had its plan of engagement with the highly qualified personnel.
14 However, in this case the criteria for the replenishment of units
15 was not as they used to be when the best people were sent to the units.
16 In this particular case, the numbers had to be satisfied, and
17 even those who were unfit for the army joined. So for 1995, this
18 paragraph is not applicable. This related to the formation of units,
19 assistance to people to for those units, whereas in 1995 the importance
20 of the presence of superiors had to do with the execution of assignments
22 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Trivic. Let's go to a couple of
23 regulations. If you could be shown the brigade rules of 1984. That's
24 Prosecution Exhibit 370.
25 Now, have you seen these rules before?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, in relation to the other rules you have been discussing
3 yesterday, I think that was the manual for the work of commands and
4 staff, and for the record that was Exhibit D84, you told us that these
5 principles were applied by the VRS in 1995, the regulations about the
6 work of command staff. Do you remember that?
7 A. Yes. The manual for commands and staffs was used to prepare
8 combat documents and for the work of the commands on the basis of those
10 Q. Now, this other set of rules, the brigade rules of 1994, were
11 they also applied by the VRS in July 1995?
12 A. Yes, they were.
13 Q. And similarly, if the witness could be shown the next exhibit.
14 This is Exhibit P379, "Regulations on the Application of International
15 Laws of War in the Armed Forces of the SFRY".
16 I just have the same question as before. Were these regulations
17 also applied by the VRS in 1995?
18 A. They were.
19 Q. Thank you very much. I think it can be returned.
20 Now, let's conclude with the area of responsibility. In your
21 earlier testimony in February 2004, in your direct examination by
22 Mr. McCloskey, he did not ask you a question about the area of
23 responsibility; is that correct?
24 A. I can't remember.
25 Q. Yes. Let me --
1 A. -- the transcript.
2 Q. Yes. Let me read that to you?
3 MR. WAESPI: And, Your Honours, it's on page 7493.
4 Q. And I'll read out slowly what Mr. McCloskey asked you on
5 27th of February.
6 "Do you know what army units were supposed to cooperate with the
7 MUP to secure those roads from the Muslim army?"
8 And your answer:
9 "The units which were in that area which were engaged in the area
10 within their area of responsibility. The Bratunac Brigade, the Milici
11 Brigade were definitely tasked in this way, and they drew their own
12 conclusions of what it was that they were supposed to do in accordance
13 with that order."
14 Do you remember that?
15 A. Now, yes, and thank you for reminding me.
16 Q. You're welcome. Then Mr. Karnavas, in cross-examination,
17 followed up on it. And I'll read from page 7516.
18 Mr. Karnavas: "Okay. Now, in your position did you have a zone
19 of responsibility?"
20 "Yes, I did."
21 Mr. Karnavas: "Now, was that zone of responsibility based on the
22 rules, the brigade rules?"
23 Your answer: "In this case, no. The area was much broader than
24 the brigade would be assigned to in accordance with the rules."
25 Do you remember that exchange?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That was in February. Now, yesterday, a couple months later, you
3 were asked almost verbatim the same questions by Mr. Karnavas, and I'll
5 "Now, first of all," Mr. Karnavas asks, "does the brigade have a
6 zone of responsibility such as the one that's reflected on that
7 document?" And I believe you were talking about the map.
8 And your answer is:
9 "The brigade does not have a zone of responsibility. It's not
10 formulated as a zone of responsibility in terms of any task or aspect of
11 combat activity."
12 Do you remember having said that yesterday?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. How can you explain almost the same answer -- the different
15 answer to the same question?
16 A. I believe that all military analysts -- and I am not a military
17 analyst, I'm just a professional soldier who took part in the war and
18 started the rules and implementation and concept of the war -- would find
19 it clear. Yesterday, I had a document in front of me, and at my previous
20 appearance in court there was no document. It was just a discussion
21 about the zone of responsibility of a brigade, which is normally done.
22 Yesterday, I had a document in front of me which I still claim as a
23 combat document does not exist and is not drafted. There is a decision
24 of the brigade commander representing a zone with elements of combat
25 deployment, grouped forces, and it is signed by the person who drafted
1 it. And it is updated every day and in time generally.
2 So the document that I was shown yesterday does not exist in a
3 brigade. However, if you insist, the term that is used in a discussion,
4 regardless of combat documents as a reflection of the order and the
5 instructions for a logbook, if we're talking about a zone of
6 responsibility that is assigned to a particular body, the only organ that
7 does have its zone of responsibility in the brigade command and higher
8 commands is the intelligence organ, and for them an area of intelligence
9 responsibility is assigned.
10 And now let me refer to yesterday's map. That map was possible
11 only since someone drew it up according to someone's instructions or
12 request. The only possibility is that it was formed in 1992 while
13 General Zivanovic was still a colonel, while the peoples of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina had still not split up, and when in the settlements in
15 Bratunac, Srebrenica municipality or any other municipality with mixed
16 populations, the intelligence organs who monitor the situation in various
17 parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were given the task to prepare some kind
18 of auxiliary documents with a zone of responsibility, but nobody actually
19 formalised this.
20 When the population moved from one area to another, when defence
21 zones were formed and defence lines in the territory of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina, then the brigades were formed out of people who responded.
23 On the one hand there was one nation, on the other another, and they each
24 had their zones of defence.
25 So I hope I have made myself clear. The term one use in a
1 discussion is one thing, and the document I was shown yesterday prompted
2 me to give the answers I did.
3 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Trivic?
4 MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE LIU: Any redirect, Mr. Karnavas?
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a couple of questions.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 Re-examined by Mr. Karnavas:
9 Q. Mr. Trivic, if we were to go into the brigade rules - and I don't
10 have them in front of me but that would be P370 - would you find in those
11 rules something that you referred to as an area of intelligence
12 responsibility that more or less reflects a geographical region such as
13 the map itself?
14 A. Would you please repeat that.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. I was not focused.
17 Q. If we go back to the rules, the brigade rules, focusing now on
18 the intelligence and security sectors. Is there a specific language
19 regarding an area or zone of responsibility for those organs?
20 A. Only as an area of intelligence responsibility that is supposed
21 to be monitored by the intelligence organ who is in charge for that area.
22 In order to make the document valid, this intelligence organ has to
23 indicate its observation points, axes of patrol, recording of phenomena
24 that is necessary for certain intelligence organs but also records that
25 include a certain legend which explains where ambushes were made, how
1 many people were arrested, et cetera. But the document I was shown
2 yesterday did not indicate even that.
3 Q. Sticking with the rules now. Now, if we went to the rules, would
4 we find anything in those rules that would designate to a brigade zones
5 of responsibility such as the one that we saw in the rules, such as the
6 one that's reflected in the map?
7 A. No.
8 Q. What sort of zones, just again, are we going to find in the rules
9 which you've indicated to a previous answer from Mr. Waespi were
10 applicable at the time? What sort of zones are reflected in the rules
11 for brigades?
12 A. The zone of defence and the zone of offensive or assault.
13 Q. All right. And again so we have a clear definition, could you
14 please tell us what a zone of defence is, what it looks like. At
15 least -- and I'm speaking based on the rules.
16 A. Pursuant to the rules, a zone of defence is a piece of land
17 limited or outlined by at least four points. These four points have to
18 be landmarks, features, easily observable that connect the right side
19 with the most prominent points of the front line of defence, the left
20 side, and the area behind the lines, the depth. That is a zone of
21 defence only when all the elements of combat disposition of a unit are
22 indicated in it, the neighbours, as in a combat document, left
23 neighbours, right neighbours, and the time when this zone of defence is
24 drawn into a map in that form with the approval and signature of the
25 person who created the map, when the map was started, when it was
1 completed, for which period.
2 Q. Just one final question. During the events surrounding
3 Srebrenica, your particular brigade, what sort of a zone did it have for
4 those events?
5 A. In the first part of the assignment, there was action - and I
6 cannot remember it off the cuff - with a part of the forces of the
7 Skelani Battalion on the axis that separates the Zepa and Srebrenica
8 enclaves outlined by four points which we can see from the order of the
9 commander of the operation or the corps commander. When the
10 prerequisites had been created and when it was estimated that action can
11 be corrected from that axis, then the next assignment was in the
12 north-west parts of the populated area of Srebrenica, again marked by
13 four limiting points. The assignment was to carry out an operation and
14 to emerge at the next lines. All this was accompanied by orders and
15 corrections in the decision both in the textual, in the graphic parts.
16 And since the forces of the 28th division were retreating, the current
17 assignment then was formulated as search of the terrain. But in adequate
18 military terminology, that is called pursuit. At the time when the enemy
19 is crushed and is in retreat, the forces that had carried out the
20 operation move into pursuit in order to catch up with the enemy. And
21 that was the part of the assignment in which my brigade, that is part of
22 my brigade, was involved.
23 In all the three stages there was an area of operation, and I
24 would have to look at the documentation which is necessary for quality
25 command and leadership of the forces of the units.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you very much. I have no further questions,
2 Your Honour.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
4 Yes. Judge Argibay, please.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Yes. I have only one question. It's about this
7 famous map that we have heard was not drafted or made according to the
8 rules and doesn't represent anything, as you said, but we had one witness
9 coming here and telling us that this map was hanging on the wall of the
10 duty officer place in the Bratunac Brigade. Can you tell me why a
11 useless and let's say not-according-to-the-rules map was hanging in the
12 duty officer's position in the brigade?
13 A. I will be free to give you an indirect answer since you
14 formulated your question in this way, that is, requiring an answer with
15 an explanation. I saw that map in 1993 when I first came to the command
16 of the Bratunac Brigade. The commander then was Colonel Vuksic. That
17 same map was hanging on the wall, and who made that map and with what
18 reason, I don't know. I suppose it was made at the time of the events
19 which are described when talking to the Prosecutor, that is at the time
20 when it was necessary to record certain movements before the split-up,
21 before the basic prerequisites were created for the establishment of the
22 Bratunac Brigade.
23 When I said that it did not represent anything, the simple
24 explanation for that answer is that the map does not contain anything
25 that would make it possible to use it as a document. It does not even
1 indicate the command post of the brigade, which would be a necessary
2 element for any graphic depiction of the situation of the brigade. If at
3 least that element had been recorded, we could talk about that map as a
4 valid document, but this way it does not have the necessary contents that
5 would make it a combat document. Somebody drew it up on the basis of the
6 rules which stipulate how a map is drawn and that is all. It does not
7 contain the necessary elements for a document of the kind that we are
8 discussing here today.
9 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Thank you, but that was not my question. My
10 question was why a useless map was hanging in the office, in the duty
11 officer's office.
12 A. In any duty officer's room, there was a map of the territory
13 where that particular command was located. In certain units it was
14 represented as the working map. A working map has different content. It
15 is made for a longer period. The initial and the current situation of
16 the combat disposition is indicated, and that map is constantly updated.
17 At the time when the replenishment of the units was made from
18 leftover forces, it is possible that that map - and this is only my
19 assumption - that that map was drawn up by somebody who was designated to
20 act as an intelligence officers at the time when the Bratunac
21 municipality and Srebrenica municipality and that entire area were still
22 populated the way they were in 1992. If somebody did it based on the
23 intelligence plan of the brigade from the time when the Bratunac Brigade
24 was established, if somebody drew up that map with the idea that later
25 developments would be recorded on it and that it be used for
1 orientation - and I already indicated that I arrived only later - then
2 that map could have been used only as an ordinary topographic map
3 depicting that entire territory without any indications of zones of
4 responsibility, combat disposition, et cetera.
5 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Do you mean to say it was a sort of decoration,
6 standing -- hanging there for three years?
7 A. No. No. There was not enough map or sections of to have graphic
8 maps in that area, so we did with what was available. And this map could
9 have served as an aid for orientation for the people who worked in that
10 area. That was its purpose. The commander could have used it to show
11 certain axis, directions, as a topographic map. And I personally used it
12 when Colonel Vuksic was showing which routes could be used to get to the
13 adjacent area of Sekovici, Konjevic Polje, et cetera, and what the
14 distances were.
15 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Thank you. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Judge Argibay. Any questions out of the
17 Judge's questions? Mr. Karnavas?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Waespi.
20 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. At this stage are there any documents to
22 tender? Mr. Karnavas?
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. I would like to tender D200
24 and D201, and as is reflected in the list of exhibits here, the
25 translation is pending. So tentatively, assuming that we get the
1 translation, if I could have a week or so. I don't think it would be
2 that much more to have the translations done.
3 JUDGE LIU: Any objections?
4 MR. WAESPI: Yes. First of all, we still don't have -- well, we
5 have the B/C/S now, I see. But I believe to -- to ask for the
6 introduction into evidence of a whole book, even if it's translated, and
7 I question the use of resources of this book at this time. I believe he
8 read it out and so we can live with that. He gave his explanation. I
9 don't think it's necessary to have the whole book introduced into
10 evidence, frankly. The same applies to the second one.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Karnavas. Any response?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. Here's my response to that: First of all,
13 with the first book "Strategy of Armed Combat," I'm told that the entire
14 book was given to be translated. It is an official document that was
15 used at the time. We thought that it would be useful, so nothing is
16 taken out of context. They don't have to read the entire book, but
17 certainly it's there and it's available, and it was used at the time.
18 The second document, which was the introduction to the "Theory of
19 Military Management," though it was used, and particularly as far as
20 training was concerned, there was a small portion from which the witness
21 replied on explaining some of his answers yesterday. Again, we think
22 this is also relevant both to the case, also relevant to understanding
23 military principles. It's -- I think few of us in this courtroom are
24 versed enough in those matters. So I don't think that in any way it
25 taxes or overburdens the already overburdened, you know, list of exhibits
1 that we have. I think it's useful, and I don't see why we shouldn't at
2 least make it available to everybody, especially to the members of the
3 Bench. Thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Karnavas, there are a lot of books and
5 publications concerning the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia
6 during that era. I think the Tribunal cannot admit and translate all
7 those books into English and have them admitted. That's the problem.
8 What if we admitted this book, with the relevant parts? As for
9 how much, the relevant parts, I think we will rely on the submission of
10 the Defence.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: That would be fine, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE LIU: Pending the translation, of course.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Right. That will be just fine, Your Honour. I
14 just want to make sure you don't have -- when you're trying to figure it
15 all out, I didn't translate a particular chapter. You don't have it
16 available. So I want to make sure that it's all available. But that's a
17 fair ruling, Your Honour, and we accept that.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Those two documents are admitted into
19 evidence withal relevant parts.
20 And on the part of the Prosecution, are there any documents to
22 MR. WAESPI: No, Mr. President, just a remark. Of course we
23 accept your ruling, but we have some debate about the report of the Dutch
24 government. Just a hundred pages was referenced numerous times and we
25 didn't admit it. And here comes -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, we made a decision that eventually it will come
2 into evidence. We'll see how relevant those documents is. But please
3 remind us at the end of the Defence case how many documents are pending
4 at that moment and then we'll consider it at that stage.
5 MR. WAESPI: Very well, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Well, there's another matter I would like
7 to bring to the attention of both parties. During the testimony of this
8 witness, we admitted six documents under seal, and those six documents
9 could be separated into categories. One is the video clip, and the other
10 is the diary of this witness. So if we lift the confidentiality of the
11 witness for the transcript for the last testimony, it seems to me there
12 is no need for the protective measures, you know, for those documents.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, for the diary, I would submit, Your Honour,
14 with all due respect that they should be kept on a confidential basis,
15 because I believe -- and I don't think they translated all of it. And we
16 haven't received the entire translation, but I think that this was a
17 personal document. It wasn't an official document. There were other
18 matters on the diary that were of a personal nature. So I would prefer
19 that it remain confidential, and of course I'm willing to work with the
20 Prosecution to see what portions are innocuous enough to be open to the
21 public. But I think the safe ruling at this point in time would be to
22 keep it on a confidential basis.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any view?
24 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I agree with Mr. Karnavas, and perhaps the
25 witness could also identify the areas which he deems are really private.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. So I believe that the video clips --
2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
3 JUDGE LIU: I think the video clips is not tendered at this
4 stage, so we do not discuss this matter. As for the diaries, especially
5 personal diaries, we'll see, you know, which part should be still in the
6 protective measures and certain parts we should lift the confidentiality
7 of those documents.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Just -- just while I remember. There was some
9 personal thoughts with respect to certain individuals.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Of course, those are, I think, highly
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: And so I certainly would object - not that I can
15 do anything about it - but I will object to those being open to the
16 public. I think they will be -- the gentleman was kind enough to bring
17 the diary to start and we commend him for that. But I think those
18 private thoughts should be kept private.
19 Now, with respect to dates, places, obviously we don't have a
20 problem with that. But private thoughts, particularly about certain
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I hope the parties could meet together to
23 discuss this issue and submit us a suggestion concerning the diary. Is
24 that agreeable?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: That's very agreeable, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
2 Well, Witness, thank you very much indeed for coming to The Hague
3 to give your evidence. The usher will show you out of the room. We wish
4 you a pleasant journey back home.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, we still have a few minutes left.
8 Mr. Karnavas, would you please brief us about the upcoming witnesses next
9 week or the week after next?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. Next week -- okay. Next week
11 we have two, possibly three witnesses. The -- do you want the names,
12 Mr. President, or --
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe some of them are in -- have the
14 protective measures, so you don't have to mention the names. If there is
15 a necessity, we could go to the private session.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I don't -- unless you want to hear the
17 names, Your Honour, I don't. But basically what it comes down to is
18 this: We have two, possibly three witnesses next week. The following
19 week we have Professor Radovanovic, who is our expert on demographics.
20 He's prepared a report. We hope to have it translated by Monday. It's
21 been in the works. It's been in the works. It's 25 pages. I anticipate
22 that she will require two days of testimony, because she spent a lot of
23 time going through the methodology used by Mr. Brunborg. We've had her
24 here. She's gone through the document. The OTP was kind enough to allow
25 her access to their computers and she came with some assistance and has
1 put a tremendous amount of time in that.
2 After that I anticipate we will have Mr. Karremans testifying on
3 the 24th and 25th. He will not be able to make it next week. And we've
4 been in contact so in accommodating his schedule, it will be 24th and
6 We did have a military expert on our list. I spoke with
7 Mr. McCloskey, and I had indicated to him that perhaps I would wait until
8 Monday for him to give the update to the Court, although I'm willing to
9 give it. We reached an accommodation, basically - and he can correct me
10 on Monday, or Mr. Waespi can - that they do not have any objections to
11 the report and at attachment to the report that we filed, the supporting
12 material, for it to be coming in in lieu of live testimony. They don't
13 accept the contents, obviously. That's for the Trial Chamber to decide.
14 But at least it would very much as a 92 -- or an expert report coming in.
15 So that would save us two or three days of testimony.
16 So we believe -- we believe that we will finish on time provided
17 that Mr. Karremans stays -- that we can keep it within the two-day limit
18 and that's what I'm hopeful. I tried to get him a little bit earlier.
19 But in any event two witnesses next week, possibly three. If the
20 third witness comes up I don't expect him to be more that a two-session
21 witness. And frankly, we could use the added time in between for
22 preparation. And as you know, we have been going at it at a fairly rapid
23 clip. In the final week they're pretty important witnesses. So even
24 though we will probably not sit for couple of days next week, I think
25 it's important for us to have that additional time. So that's what we're
1 looking at.
2 JUDGE LIU: So how many witnesses altogether in the future two
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Maximum five, minimum four.
5 JUDGE LIU: I see. So you still remember that the deadline for
6 your case is on the 25th of this month.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I remember that, but I've also, Your Honour,
8 haven't lost sight of the fact that the Jokic case is not to start on the
9 immediate Monday. I just -- you know, I have to take advantage of every
10 opportunity I get to just sort of indicate my awareness of these things,
11 Your Honour.
12 I hope that we end on the 25th. You know, I could not get the
13 gentleman earlier in light of the circumstances, and again, this is --
14 these are terribly difficult and complex issues that I'm dealing with,
15 lots of prep time, and I don't want to complain, but this week I think
16 we've been extremely flexible in light of the circumstances.
17 There is one other outstanding subpoena, and we've been in
18 contact with the Serbian government. They're going to try to assist.
19 I'm not holding out on that. If the gentleman is not available by that
20 time, he's just not available. We'll see what we have to do if something
21 comes up later on. But that's where we are, Your Honour.
22 So I anticipate resting on the 25th, but again, Mr. Karremans may
23 take a little longer. It's a very complex issue. The gentleman has
24 never really testified, and I think that there are some issues that need
25 to be clarified in this case. So that's where we are.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Waespi.
2 MR. WAESPI: Just a couple of points. Military expert, that's
3 true. It was discussed with Mr. McCloskey, and that's what -- he is
4 correct in the assessment, but I'm sure Mr. McCloskey will address you on
5 Monday and sort of give his final okay.
6 We would appreciate getting the third witness, the name of the
7 third witness next week as soon as possible. We have the two names but
8 not the third one.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: The third one is --
10 JUDGE LIU: Shall we go to the private session?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Private.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please, if we
13 are going to mention the names.
14 [Private session]
12 Page 10799 redacted, private session.
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We are in the open session. Mr. Waespi.
20 MR. WAESPI: Just to conclude two other points. 92 bis, that's
21 correct, we accept testimony of about -- I think they filed 28 witness
22 statements, and we accepted all of them but five. So for five of these
23 witnesses we would require their attendance for cross-examination.
24 And the expert on demographics, Professor Radovanovic, the rules
25 really give us 30 days or, I believe, a time indicated by the Trial
1 Chamber, and does he see with the expert report of the military witness
2 if we have time to look at it, we may even say the report can come in.
3 So -- but it's a difficult topic, as Mr. Karnavas indicated, and we need
4 time to read it, to discuss it with our people. And I can't do that
5 before I have it in the English version.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Just so I can --
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Just so we understand this whole concept about
9 equality of arms. When it takes me two or three months to get folks
10 motivated in the Registry to assist, and for me to file request and
11 request to get the funding, to arrange the travel, and then this
12 professor came here, and then even though we had prior notice there was a
13 glitch. I haven't complained, but I brought her here with two
14 assistants, and there was a lot of down time waiting to get access to the
15 computers. So we can't have it both ways where on the one hand it
16 frustrates the Defence by not having the resources or everything is
17 delayed by weeks on end, and at the same time be inflexible and keep to
18 the rules.
19 Now, I understand that this professor has looked at the work
20 that's been performed by the Office of the Prosecution. They have an ton
21 of experts. In facts, they have an entire section on this. I agree with
22 Mr. Waespi. It's a rather complex issue. But the report is about 25
23 pages. It's not very large. That's number one. Number two, she has
24 testified before the Tribunal, so she's not an unknown and -- you know,
25 they know her. She's testified in other cases. If fact, I'm told she's
1 made an impression on the Prosecution.
2 Number three, she will be arriving a couple of days earlier. If
3 they wish to give up a Sunday, for instance, or part of a Sunday, I
4 certainly will make sure that Professor Radovanovic is available to meet
5 with them so they can discuss her report in assisting them in preparing
6 for their cross-examination, something that was never available to the
8 So again I just want to point out the -- you know, if we're going
9 to be fair in this process, we have to understand that the Defence has
10 certain limitations, and I could not engage this expert until we had
11 Brunborg on the stand. What he's finished testifying, I then put a
12 series of steps in motion, and I have the documentation to demonstrate
13 the amount of effort that I've gone through in personal expenses --
14 personal -- in order to have her come here with her expert. So we've
15 done everything that's humanly possible. And she's going to be
16 testifying for approximately two days, for both sides, that is. I
17 anticipate one day for the Defence, perhaps one day for the -- and again
18 I will make the professor available to the Prosecution. If Sunday is not
19 a convenient day, I'll make her available on Saturday. Not a problem.
20 They can speak with her, go over the report, talk with her. I think
21 that's a generous offer.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. I think this Bench has already given you
23 instructions of how to conduct the direct examination with the expert
24 witness. I doubt very much whether up need for the whole day to ask
25 questions to the expert. But I hope you just bear that in mind, and of
1 course this is your witness.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm bearing it in mine.
3 I'm also bearing that I sat through five days of Butler, five
4 excruciating days where I wasn't even able to object. So you can imagine
5 the level of my frustration, but I sat there. I'm asking for one day.
6 And It's a complex issue. And I'm sure you will be riveted, riveted with
7 the direct examination and the information that we will get from
8 Professor Radovanovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. The next question about 92 bis witnesses.
10 I think this Trial Chamber is just considering the filings from the
11 Defence as well as the reply from the Prosecution. We are going to make
12 a decision concerning of those witnesses early next week.
13 The third issue about the videolink witnesses in Mr. Jokic's
14 case, and the Bench is considering this possibility, and if there is any,
15 the decision will be rendered next week, because we need at least two
16 weeks for preparation.
17 And as for the Pre-Defence Conference for Mr. Jokic's case, I
18 wonder if next week we will only have two witnesses could we have the
19 Pre-Defence Conference fit in somewhere next week? Is it possible,
20 Mr. Stojanovic?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] To be quite frank, Your Honour,
22 I had planned to spend next week in Zvornik to finalise the preparations
23 for all the witnesses that we have announced and to complete my interview
24 with the military expert. So it would be more acceptable for us if we
25 could hold it at some other time. But if you feel that it is absolutely
1 essential, maybe I should postpone my trip there.
2 JUDGE LIU: I think we should do our best to help you to finish
3 your investigation. I just make a suggestion on that.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, finally I have to say that this Trial Chamber
6 is very grateful to the government of the Netherlands for their
7 assistance in calling a witness to testify in this case, especially to
8 the Ministry of Defence as well as the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. In
9 the past, they gave us a lot of help, but we just take it as granted, but
10 now, I think as well as Mr. Karnavas, are very grateful for their
12 I think that is all for today, and next Monday we'll sit in
13 Courtroom III at 9.00. The hearing is adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.31,
15 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of June,
16 2004, at 9.00 a.m.