1 Tuesday, 19th January, 1999
2 (Open session)
3 --- Upon commencing at 10.10 a.m.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Please be seated. Have the
5 accused brought in, please.
6 (The accused entered court)
7 JUDGE JORDA: Good morning to the
8 interpreters, good morning to counsel, both Defence and
9 Prosecution, to the accused. We can now resume our
10 work at the point that we left off.
11 Mr. Nobilo?
12 MR. NOBILO: Good morning, Your Honours. Our
13 next witness is Mr. Mato Tadic.
14 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I would like to
15 raise a point of order, and that is that Mr. Tadic was
16 given to us as a potential witness, his name, six days
17 ago, and the ruling of this Chamber is that the
18 Prosecutor should be apprised seven days in advance
19 before a witness is called. I received a fax from the
20 Defence on the 12th of January at 7.30 or 7.23 in the
22 Now, I am perfectly happy to have this
23 witness proceed, but we have also received the names of
24 other witnesses seven days in advance, and we prepare
25 in accordance with the Rule that requires us to have
1 seven days notice in advance. So, obviously, we are
2 somewhat disadvantaged in the cross-examination of this
4 We are happy to have him proceed today, but
5 we may ask that he remain until tomorrow for
7 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman?
8 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, if I am not
9 mistaken, today is the 19th. Counsel is saying he got
10 notice on the evening of the 12th. Count backwards,
11 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12. It's seven days. What
12 happened on the 12th of January? We had a Status
13 Conference concerning Judge Riad. We didn't know if we
14 were going to proceed or not this week. We were in
15 Court until 5.00 or 6.00 on the 12th, and I went home
16 to my office from Court that morning and I typed up the
17 disclosure and I faxed it straightaway to the
18 Prosecutor. I was still working at 7.30 or 8.00,
19 whenever it was, on the night of the 12th, and I worked
20 that evening to send that notice after the Court's
21 hearing. So that's our position.
22 JUDGE JORDA: I think that we'd have to try
23 to see things relatively. The Prosecutor says that he
24 didn't have the seven days. I'm not sure how you are
25 calculating. I know you all know how to calculate
1 properly. You know that 12 and 7 is 19. If we start
2 from the evening of the 12th -- the evening of the
4 All right. Please. Yes, there were some
5 organisational problems having to do with Judge Riad's
6 unavailability. Will you be prepared for the
7 cross-examination today? If you aren't -- will you be
8 ready? If you aren't, we can give you more time.
9 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I can let you
10 know after I hear what this witness has to say.
11 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Then we can wait.
12 All right. Let's have the witness brought in for the
13 time being.
14 Let me point out to you that the Judges are
15 not seeing their transcript on the monitors. One of
16 the Judges can see the transcript. Of course, it's
17 always in English.
18 (The witness entered court)
19 JUDGE JORDA: It's because it's in English.
20 That's what my colleague is pointing out to me.
21 All right. Do you hear me, sir? Please
22 remain standing. Give us your first name, your date
23 and place of birth, your profession and your residence,
24 and then you will take an oath and then you will be
25 seated. Please proceed.
1 THE WITNESS: My name is Mato Tadic. I was
2 born on the 15th of August, 1952 in Brcko. I now
3 reside in Sarajevo in Muhamed Hadzijahic Street, number
4 43. Up until the 15th of December, 1998, I worked in
5 the Government of the Federation as Minister of
6 Justice. At present I am on holiday and I am using the
7 rights accorded me by the law on state administration.
8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Please take the
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
13 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. Are you known as
14 Your Excellency, the minister or sir or Mr.?
15 THE WITNESS: I think Mr. Tadic would be
17 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, Mr. Tadic. Thank
18 you very much. You have agreed to testify for the
19 Defence, the Defence of the accused, General Blaskic,
20 who was a Colonel at the time, who has been accused of
21 various crimes. You are going to answer the questions
22 first of the Defence attorneys who brought you here,
23 and then the Prosecution will ask you some questions,
24 and then possibly the questions that the Judges may
25 care to ask as well.
1 Mr. Nobilo, proceed, please.
2 WITNESS: MATO TADIC
3 Examined by Mr. Nobilo:
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Mr. Tadic, you have also said you were born
6 in 1952 in Brcko. Can you tell us something about your
7 education, where you went to school, when you completed
8 primary school, secondary school and university?
9 A. After completing primary school in Brcko, I
10 went to the Franciscan classical gymnasium in Visoko.
11 Visoko is a town some 30 kilometres southwest of
12 Sarajevo. Having completed gymnasium, I went to the
13 theological faculty of Sarajevo for two years, and
14 after that the faculty of law of the university in
15 Sarajevo where I graduated in the 1st of June, 1977.
16 Having graduated, I returned to Brcko, where I started
17 work in the Municipal Office of the Prosecutor, Public
18 Prosecutor, and after passing my exams, legislative
19 exams, I was the Deputy Public Prosecutor.
20 From 1983, for eight years, I was the Public
21 Prosecutor. From the 1st of January, 1991, I have been
22 Deputy Republic Prosecutor for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 That is where I was when the war broke out in 1992.
24 On the 28th of April, 1992, I left Sarajevo
25 and went to Brcko, where I spent only one day and one
1 night. After that I withdrew to the territory that was
2 organising resistance to the Yugoslav People's Army and
3 the Serbian Army in the area of Brcko, after which I
4 went through several places in Posavina to the north of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. These places were Odzak, Bosanski
7 After that, at the end of 1992, in December,
8 in fact, I came to Orasje, that is a town to the north
9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is where I spent the
10 entire year of 1993. My task was to set up the work of
11 the courts and Prosecutors' offices and the legal
12 authorities and to set up the civilian institutions of
13 parent authority. From Orasje, at the end of February
14 or the beginning of March, 1994, I went to Mostar to
15 the Ministry of Justice and of the Republic of
17 On the 30th of March I was in Sarajevo once
18 again to the assembly, constitutional assembly, of the
19 Federation after the Washington Accords.
20 On the 22nd of June, 1994, I was appointed to
21 the government of the Republic and Federation of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the government of Prime Minister
23 Silajdzic. And this was one government with a dual
24 role, the role of republic and the role of federation.
25 After that, I was appointed to two more
1 governments of the federation, on the 1st of February,
2 1996 and on the 18th of December, 1996, and I performed
3 my duties up until the 15th of December, 1998. I took
4 part in a series of international conferences as a
5 legal expert, conferences linked to
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The most important was the Dayton
7 conference. In the preparations for the Dayton
8 conference, I spent some time in New York, and then I
9 was in Dayton for the entire time as a legal expert and
10 at several other conferences in London, Vienna, Rome,
11 et cetera.
12 Q. Thank you. May we now, after that
13 introduction, move on to the topic for which we have
14 invited you here today to testify as a Defence
16 Can you tell us something about the
17 legislative setup of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the fate of
18 that system, legal system, at the beginning of the war
19 in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
20 A. The legal system of Bosnia-Herzegovina had
21 certain rules and regulations governing it which were
22 republican, that is to say, of the Republic of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, such as the law on courts and the
24 law on public prosecutors' offices and some material
25 rules and regulations. However, at the same time in
1 ex-Yugoslavia, we had all the process laws at the level
2 of Yugoslavia, for example, the Law on Criminal
3 Procedure, and we also had other material rules and
4 regulations such as the Criminal Code, the Penal Code,
5 the special part of it relating to individual military
6 matters, security matters, and others relating to
7 perpetrators in federal organs, perpetrators of crimes
8 in federal organs.
9 After the war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina
10 in April, and especially later on in May 1992, there
11 was a complete state of chaos in the legal system and
12 in law, and part of Bosnia-Herzegovina became
13 separated, that is to say, it became an autonomous
14 setup with regard to legal matters, the legal system.
15 That is the portion that was in the Republika Srpska.
16 The second half, the second part, functioned
17 under difficult conditions, and the presidency of the
18 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in order to establish
19 the functioning of a legal system, enacted a number of
20 provisions having the force of law so that it took over
21 the Law on Criminal Procedure that was prevalent in
22 Yugoslavia and enacted a second rule and regulation
23 taking over the law from the one that existed in
24 Yugoslavia and rules as to its application in
1 Some of the laws, as I have already said, the
2 republics did not have. For example, the law on
3 military courts did not exist, and the law governing
4 military prosecution, these exclusively existed at the
5 federal level, that is to say, at the level of
6 Yugoslavia. And for this reason, the presidency of the
7 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, by a decree, set up
8 these military courts in Bosnia-Herzegovina and also
9 military prosecutors' offices. This decree was enacted
10 on the 13th of August, 1992, and it was published in
11 the official gazette, number 12/92.
12 According to that decree, for the territory
13 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, seven military courts were set
14 up. They were in Bihac, Banja Luka, Doboj, Tuzla,
15 Zenica, Sarajevo, and Mostar. Therefore, this decree
16 encompassed the whole territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
17 regardless of the fact that part of the territory had
18 already severed the hierarchial cooperation that it had
19 with the Supreme Court in Sarajevo, and that is the
20 section that was in the Republika Srpska.
21 At the end of 1992, because it was impossible
22 to communicate and because all communications had been
23 severed, the Supreme Court formed its own departments
24 outside Sarajevo, and they were in Tuzla, Bihac,
25 Mostar, and Zenica. Also at the end of 1992 in the
1 territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, a
2 decree was enacted to set up military courts and
3 military prosecutors' offices, and by that decree, four
4 military courts were formed in Mostar, Livno, Travnik,
5 and Bosanski Brod. Therefore, already at the end of
6 1992, we had three legal legislative systems, and very
7 soon, we would be given a forth in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
8 and that would be the one set up under the control of
9 Fikret Abdic in Western Bosnia.
10 Q. Before we move on, I should like to have a
11 set of documents handed out which testify to the
12 decisions made by Herceg-Bosna to set up these courts
13 of law.
14 THE REGISTRAR: This is D521A for the French
15 version and "B" for the English version.
16 MR. NOBILO:
17 Q. Mr. Tadic, would you please take a look at
18 the documents that we have tendered into evidence as
19 D521 and tell us whether those documents are the ones
20 that set up the district courts in Herceg-Bosna and the
21 offices of the prosecutor?
22 A. Yes, they are.
23 Q. For the moment, we are not going to enter
24 into detail, we'll be doing that later on when we speak
25 about procedure, criminal procedure, but could you, at
1 this point, tell us why, in your opinion, although you
2 were not in Mostar at the time and did not take part in
3 drawing up these laws, why were the military courts set
4 up in Herceg-Bosna, as the presidency of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina had established seven military
6 courts of law for the entire territory of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina previously?
8 A. Well, you would have to know the
9 circumstances that prevailed in the territory of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, and then you would be
11 able to understand the necessity for enacting
12 provisions of this kind.
13 When the war broke out, an essential
14 characteristic was that the communication lines were
15 cut off between the main centres in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
16 first of all, between Sarajevo as the capital and the
17 headquarters of the institutions of the republic, and
18 also communications were severed with the other large
19 centres such as Tuzla, Bihac, Mostar, Zenica, let alone
20 Banja Luka and Doboj, which were constantly under the
21 control of the army of Republika Srpska.
22 Secondly, in this territory, apart from the
23 Yugoslav People's Army, there was no professional
24 army. There were no military courts that had
25 previously existed. They were established at the level
1 of Yugoslavia, and, therefore, we had to find a
2 solution for this newly arisen situation.
3 As the armies organised themselves and tried
4 autonomously, independently, even one from the other,
5 and that discipline had to be maintained and
6 disciplinary action taken, then this had to be
7 regulated on the basis of rules and regulations, and
8 the Croatian Defence Council, which was established
9 fairly early on, even before the army of the Republic
10 of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been set up, and, second,
11 in the decree of the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina is mentioned in precise
13 terms, all of which indicated the need for a decree to
14 regulate matters of criminal liability and disciplinary
15 action within the Croatian Defence Council, and this
16 was a basic reason for which these rules and
17 regulations were adopted, and it was adapted to the
18 organisation of the Croatian Defence Council itself.
19 Q. Before we move further on, can we take a look
20 at these documents and at Article 1, and I'm going to
21 read it: "In time of war on the territory of the
22 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, herein HZHB,
23 military district courts shall be established."
24 How do you understand that article of the
1 A. From the norms of this provision, it clearly
2 shows that this is of a temporary nature, provisional,
3 only during the state of war and that it is a necessary
4 provision resulting from the outbreak of war.
5 Q. Tell us, please, district military courts in
6 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, at what level
7 was work in these courts done, and did these courts
8 recognise the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that
9 is to say, the joint court for the whole of
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and if so, how did this manifest
12 A. The district military courts of the Croatian
13 Community of Herceg-Bosna were courts of the first
14 instance, and they covered certain areas, certain
15 territories, that is to say, a number of
16 municipalities. What is characteristic for these
17 courts is the fact that the hierarchy with respect to
18 decision making made by the district military courts
19 were under the competence of the civilian courts of
20 law, and that means that if there were any complaints
21 to be made and appeals for crimes committed and
22 sentenced up to five years' imprisonment to a higher
23 court, which was a civilian court of law and which had
24 existed previously, and in more serious cases, appeals
25 were made to the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 and its department, regional department or branch
2 office in Mostar; therefore, we retained the
3 hierarchial competence of the civilian courts over the
4 military courts.
5 Q. Am I right in saying that these were civilian
6 courts which functioned in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which
7 were functioning there before the war and which were
8 common to everybody in Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is to
9 say, on the basis of the laws that prevailed at the
11 A. Yes, these were civilian courts functioning
12 on the basis of regular laws governing the regular law
13 courts and the public prosecutors' offices. And in
14 Article 5(B) of this particular provision, it is
15 clearly stated that appeals, as I say, appeals, against
16 decisions be decided by the Supreme Court of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina or its detached chamber of the
18 Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina seated in Mostar,
19 and it also states that this should be resorted to when
20 there is severed communications between the Supreme
21 Court, that is to say, when communication with the
22 Supreme Court in Mostar for Bosnia-Herzegovina was not
24 Q. Tell me, as regards court administration and
25 also ensuring conditions for the operation of courts
1 and also for the court budget and other logistic
2 support, what is the hierarchy involved, and under
3 whose jurisdiction were the military courts in terms of
4 court administration and material functioning of the
6 A. District military courts were under the
7 jurisdiction, under the competence, of the defence
8 department, that is to say, civilian authorities that
9 were then called the defence department, so they were
10 in charge of the court administration and logistics,
11 that is to say, ensuring conditions for their proper
12 operation and also making sure that salaries could be
14 Q. Mr. Tadic, could you please explain to the
15 Court about the judges and the prosecutors? What
16 status did they have and who appointed military judges
17 and military prosecutors?
18 A. Article 2 of this decree says that district
19 military courts shall perform their functions
20 independently and shall operate on the basis of the
21 constitution and law.
22 May I recall that at that time we had one
23 constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and as far as
24 appointments are concerned, that was resolved in
25 Article 20 of the same decree.
1 Q. You mean the decree on military courts?
2 A. Yes, that's the decree I'm talking about, so
3 I'm talking about Article 20 where it says, "The judges
4 and jurors of the district military courts shall be
5 elected and relieved of office by the Presidency of the
6 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as proposed by the
7 head of the Defence Department," and they also
8 submitted reports on their work to the presidency.
9 Q. Tell me, according to your interpretation and
10 your perception of the work of military courts, the
11 commander of an Operative Zone, in this specific case,
12 Colonel Blaskic, who was subordinated to the main
13 staff, did he have anything to do with the
14 establishment of courts, the appointment of judges, the
15 control over the work of courts or military
16 prosecutors' offices, and the like?
17 A. No, no, it is the defence department that had
18 this right. There is a specific provision stipulating
19 that, at the proposal of the defence department, the
20 presidency does this, and there are specific provisions
21 to this effect, so in this respect, he did not have any
22 competencies whatsoever.
23 Q. The next point that I wish to hear your views
24 on, I would like you to present them to the Court, and
25 that is criminal procedure.
1 What was criminal procedure like in
2 accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure, and when
3 was this law of Yugoslavia taken over by Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina in order to become a law of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Herceg-Bosna, and what were the
6 stages involved in this procedure?
7 A. I pointed out earlier on, when I was
8 presenting a brief survey of the justice system, that
9 at the level of Yugoslavia we had a single procedural
10 law as regards criminal procedure. That was the Law on
11 Criminal Procedure, and the presidency of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina took it over. This was a decree
13 with legal force and it was published in the Official
14 Gazette No. 2/92, 6/92 and 9/92.
15 Lest there be any misunderstanding, may I
16 just clarify this a bit. Technically, this was taken
17 over on a double track so-to-speak. Once a decree on
18 the takeover of the Law on Criminal Procedure of the
19 former Yugoslavia was passed, and then another decree
20 was passed on the application and implementation of the
21 Law on Criminal Procedure, notably, on its
22 implementation in cases of war or imminent danger of
23 war. Because some things were simply resolved
24 differently in cases of war and imminent danger of
25 war. That is why there were so many Official Gazettes
1 in which this was published.
2 Also, at the same time the Criminal Code was
3 taken over, both the general provisions and the special
4 provisions, along with certain corrections, and this
5 was also published in the Official Gazette of the
6 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina 2/92, 8/92 and 10/92.
7 So the Law on Criminal Procedure now became a
8 republican law and, to the best of my recollection,
9 certain chapters are being implemented, notably,
10 Chapter 15 of the Law on Criminal Procedure which
11 speaks of so-called previous procedure. That is to say
12 criminal charges being filed against someone and
13 someone acting according to these criminal charges
15 Q. Please tell the court, according to the Law
16 on Criminal Procedure which applied in Yugoslavia,
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Herceg-Bosna, who is entitled to
18 file criminal charges against someone and where are
19 these criminal charges filed?
20 A. First of all, there is a general provision
21 saying that every citizen is entitled to bring criminal
22 charges against someone. However, in practice, and I
23 personally studied this particular matter, 90 per cent
24 of all criminal charges in the former Yugoslavia and
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina were filed by the police authorities
1 in charge, and only 10 per cent were filed by all the
2 rest, that is to say individual citizens, enterprises,
3 companies, institutions, et cetera. That is to say
4 criminal charges were mainly brought forth by the
5 police, that is to say their crime investigation
6 services that actually filed these criminal reports,
7 made them up, and saw where there were elements of
9 That is the way in which they filed criminal
10 charges against someone, along with evidence, and they
11 did this to the Prosecutor's office. Then it was the
12 Public Prosecutor who received these criminal reports.
13 Q. Thank you. I think that we have a
14 termological problem in the English language. My
15 colleague Mr. Hayman says so. He says that "criminal
16 report" is being interpreted as "criminal charges
17 brought against." My colleague, Mr. Hayman, believes
18 that "criminal charges" are the same thing as an
19 "indictment," and we are not speaking about
20 indictments. We are talking about criminal reports
21 filed by citizens to the police. So perhaps
22 "complaint" would be a better term, not "charges
23 brought against," but "complaint lodged." Because
24 every citizen, every institution can write a paper
25 saying "my neighbour stole my car yesterday," and he
1 sends that paper to the police. So that is a criminal
2 complaint. That is not a formal paper involved in the
3 criminal procedures. So perhaps, termologically, we
4 should use a different word for this. We should use
5 "criminal complaint."
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Can you ask the witness
7 to explain this. The police could file a complaint in
8 the court against someone. Whether you call that
9 complaint a complaint or an indictment does not matter
10 for present purposes. What I should like to know from
11 you, through the witness, is this: Could a private
12 citizen directly file a complaint in the court against
13 another citizen or is a private citizen limited to
14 this, that he must file a report with the police and
15 leave it to the police to consider whether or not they
16 would file a formal complaint in the court? Is my
17 question clear to you, Mr. Nobilo?
18 MR. NOBILO: It is quite clear, and we have a
19 highly qualified person to answer these questions,
20 because the system is substantially different from that
21 prevailing in Anglo-Saxon law, and therefore it is very
22 important to explain who is entitled to lodge such a
23 criminal complaint and who it is addressed to.
24 A. There is no problem whatsoever. I am going
25 to explain it to you in detail, because I am one of the
1 persons who worked on this for years in this kind of a
2 system, I mean.
3 An individual citizen can and does lodge a
4 complaint, in terms of a specific criminal offence,
5 primarily to the police. Then the police processes the
6 matter involved. An individual citizen can address a
7 court of law directly only in a few very special
8 cases. These are so-called private suits for lesser
9 forms of incrimination, for example, for insults,
10 libel, insult and libel. Also, some other offences
11 which are of a purely private nature belonging to the
12 domain of the family, for instance, and where it is up
13 to the citizen whether he is going to lodge a complaint
14 with the court. This is called a private suit and, in
15 this case, the court of law is addressed directly.
16 In all other cases, I am talking about
17 criminal offences now, the citizen, the private citizen
18 cannot appear before a court. He has two options. One
19 is to report the event concerned to the police and then
20 to have the police process this, to cooperate with the
21 police in terms of finding the perpetrator, if the
22 perpetrator is unknown, and also in terms of collecting
24 The other option that the citizen can resort
25 to is directly addressing the Public Prosecutor.
1 Q. Just a minute, please. In order to clarify
2 matters, am I right if I say that the Public
3 Prosecutor's office is structurally, organisationally
4 separate from the court, it is a different institution
5 from the actual court?
6 A. Yes. In our country the Public Prosecutor's
7 office is an independent state organ quite separate
8 from the court of law. That is one of the differences
9 between our law and Anglo-Saxon law and even the set-up
10 of laws in some other western countries. In our
11 country the role of the Public Prosecutor is different
12 than that in the Anglo-Saxon system and also in some
13 other western European systems. An individual citizen
14 could come to the Public Prosecutor's office and say
15 that his car had been stolen and then a so-called
16 report is written out on that. Also the citizen
17 concerned is cautioned against perjury and usually the
18 evidence involved is poor.
19 Then the Public Prosecutor resorts to Article
20 153 of the Law on Criminal Procedure, paragraph 2, and
21 then the Prosecutor asks the police or other
22 authorities to have certain data, evidence, submitted
23 to him to interview certain witnesses. These are
24 so-called information interviews. Also, they do not
25 have the weight of evidence before a court of law.
1 However, the Prosecutor can use this when weighing his
2 options and seeing whether he is going to institute an
3 investigative proceedings or not.
4 I don't know if I've been clear on this point
5 and whether this has been sufficient.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Nobilo, I am
8 MR. NOBILO: Thank you. Thank you, Your
10 Q. Mr. Tadic, please tell the court who can give
11 instructions either to the civilian or to the military
12 police to take certain action, to conduct pre-criminal
13 proceedings, to interview a person? So who are the
14 persons who can give such instructions to the police
15 according to law?
16 A. First of all, we must take as a point of
17 departure the fact that the police has a hierarchy of
18 its own, and it has its own bosses, so-to-speak. They
19 say what is going to be done. They give guidelines.
20 That is one part of it.
21 The other part is one that can exist,
22 according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, and it is
23 the Public Prosecutor in this particular case, and he
24 is also duty bound in a way to do so. If he asks the
25 police to work out such a report and if he studies this
1 report, and if he assesses that some things remained
2 unclear, and therefore procedure cannot be continued
3 and he cannot address himself to the court, then he
4 resorts to Article 153, paragraph 2 of the Law on
5 Criminal Procedure and asks the police or someone
7 He is also entitled to ask other institutions
8 for certain pieces of information, documents. For
9 example, a sketch of the crime scene, photographs,
10 analyses, blood analyses, for example. This can help
11 him make an assessment as to whether he is going to
12 enter the formal part of the procedure, that is to say
13 vis-a-vis the court of law.
14 Q. Tell me, what about the investigation judge?
15 Can the investigation judge also give the police
16 instructions in order to carry out certain
17 pre-investigation actions?
18 A. Yes, yes. There are explicit powers to that
19 effect in the Law on Criminal Procedure. They were
20 somewhat more liberal during the war, for practical
21 reasons, because the police were more operational in
22 this way. It was easier for them to get to the crime
23 scene, for example, et cetera, and the investigation
24 judge could check that's what the Law on Criminal
25 Procedure says. That is to say that he could entrust
1 the police with carrying out certain things.
2 Some action can only be ordered by the
3 investigation judge, not by the Prosecutor, not by the
4 police, and that is exhumation and a post-mortem. This
5 is exclusively the right of the investigation judge.
6 Q. So you mentioned three groups of persons who
7 can give instructions to the military police to take
8 action, that is, the investigation judge, the Public
9 Prosecutor and senior police officers. Now I am asking
10 you the following: The commander of the Operative
11 Zone, Colonel Blaskic, could he order the military
12 police to take fingerprints, for example, to interview
13 persons, to question certain persons or to do anything
14 else by way of pre-criminal proceedings, anything of
15 this nature?
16 A. In order to give an answer to this question
17 of yours, one has to know how the military police was
18 set up. It is a special administration within the
19 Ministry of Defence, and it has a commander of its own,
20 it has its own head. Within, this military police has
21 a few segments, for example, the crime investigation
22 service, the security service, the traffic and
23 communication service, transport and communication
24 service, in that sense. This was under the
25 jurisdiction of the head of the military police, within
1 this hierarchy of the establishment of the military
2 police. So Mr. Blaskic did not have these powers.
3 Q. We are going to go back to the documents
4 later on, but we are going to try and present the
5 procedure, the criminal procedure in
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. When a case, according to the
7 opinions of the police, that the case is being
8 completed, that the perpetrators have been uncovered,
9 that enough evidence has been amassed, what does the
10 police do then? Where does it send this case onto
12 A. The whole case is then sent onto the Public
13 Prosecutor. It is referred to him.
14 Q. What decisions can the Public Prosecutor take
15 once he receives the case from the police?
16 A. The Public Prosecutor studies the report that
17 he has received from the police and he can undertake
18 the following steps. First he can reject it. Article
19 153, paragraph 1 of the ZKP, Law on Criminal Procedure,
20 provides for this, because the Prosecutor feels that
21 the report does not constitute a criminal act, or he
22 feels that the material offered, for example, that the
23 case is out of date and there are formal reasons which
24 can lead him to reject a case. Or that there is no
25 reasonable doubt that a case exists, that is to say
1 that there is not even the minimum of evidence
2 necessary to bring in a case of this kind and to try it
4 Second, the Public Prosecutor is faced with a
5 dilemma, because, for example, what the police have
6 sent him is not a complete report. He doesn't feel it
7 to be complete. Then relating to Article 153,
8 paragraph 2, as far as I remember, of the Law on
9 Criminal Procedure, he seeks prior information,
10 preliminary information. That is the term we use.
11 That is, he asks those filing the charge, or the
12 report, can be asked for additional information. But
13 he might ask others for additional information, whether
14 it be institutions or enterprises or whatever,
15 depending on the case. For example, if it is a
16 financial matter, he can ask the banks for additional
17 preliminary information. Once he receives this
18 information, he will decide what he is going to do.
19 The third possibility provided for by the law
20 is that he asks the court to conduct an investigation
21 or to take investigative steps.
22 Q. Can you define which court you have in mind,
23 because this is a specific form of continental law.
24 A. He asks the competent court to do this and,
25 if we are dealing with a military court, then he will
1 ask the military court to do so, to provide him with
3 Q. What I had in mind was whether he asked the
4 investigating judge.
5 A. Yes, he asked the investigating judge. For
6 example, the report states that the municipal court of
7 Brcko, the investigating judge, makes a request that a
8 case be investigated.
9 Q. What about the investigating judge and the
10 presiding judge in a court of law later on?
11 A. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure,
12 he plays a different role and he cannot take part in
13 the hearing itself later on, the court hearing. His
14 role is therefore to complete the evidence on the basis
15 of which the perpetrator will be heard, and the
16 witnesses and expert witnesses be heard in a court of
17 law, in order to ascertain whether there is sufficient
18 element to raise an indictment.
19 Q. Could you tell us, please, who decides on
20 whether an investigation will be set into motion which
21 represents the first step in a formal criminal
22 procedure? Who decides this, and does Blaskic, as the
23 commander of the Operative Zone, was he able to say
24 that a procedure of this kind be set into motion or
1 A. No. This is the exclusive right of the
2 investigating judge, and the investigating judge passes
3 a decision on an investigative process being set into
4 motion. The investigating judge may not agree with the
5 request and demand made by the Public Prosecutor. If
6 this happens, then it goes before a council made up of
7 three judges, a panel of three judges, which then
8 decides whether to accept the request for a hearing or
10 According to the Law on Criminal Procedure, a
11 decision on going ahead with a hearing is brought after
12 the perpetrator is interviewed, and only once the
13 perpetrator is heard is the case formally opened. Or
14 the judge can state that he does not agree, and then
15 this comes up before a panel of judges, and the panel
16 of judges decide.
17 Q. The next point that I think would be relevant
18 and merits explanation, who decides which investigative
19 steps will be done in the case of an investigative
20 procedure, and who can propose to a judge that certain
21 steps be taken?
22 A. The decision is made by the investigating
23 judge. That is the right of the investigating judge on
24 the basis of the Law on Criminal Procedure. The
25 proposal is made, first of all, by the Public
1 Prosecutor, because he has lodged the demand, the
2 request, put in a request. Once he has put in a
3 request, he proposes at the same time that so and so,
4 such and such an individual be heard, that expert
5 analysis be made, whether it be in the criminal field
6 or the financial field, depending on the case, forensic
7 or otherwise, depending on the case in hand. But the
8 defence, that is to say the accused with his defence
9 counsel, can put forward something themselves, and so
10 can the investigating judge. They can assess that in
11 that particular case something more must be done, for
12 example, that the crime should be reconstructed,
13 regardless of the fact that this was not proposed
14 either by the Prosecutor or the defence counsel. It is
15 the investigating judge that has the final say in this
17 Q. Therefore, the investigating judge may
18 conclude that the case has been sufficiently analysed
19 and the facts sufficiently established to bring it to
20 court. What happens next? What is the next step in
21 this procedure?
22 A. The investigating judge, once he has
23 completed his analysis, sends the case back to the
24 Public Prosecutor, and the Public Prosecutor, once
25 again, has three possibilities: One is to give up any
1 further procedure, any further prosecution, because he
2 has assessed that the material amassed and the evidence
3 amassed is not sufficient for conviction. Then the
4 case is dropped.
5 The second possibility is that the Public
6 Prosecutor asks additional information, once again, of
7 the investigating judge. These are rare cases, but if,
8 in the meantime, some new knowledge comes to light,
9 then he can ask for this additional material to be
10 supplied. I think this is Article 158 of the Law on
11 Criminal Procedure. I'm not quite sure which allows
12 for this possibility.
13 The third possibility, which is the most
14 frequent, that is to raise an indictment against the
15 perpetrator, to issue an indictment which is sent to
16 the court of law.
17 Q. Once again, although we see this from your
18 context, but, as I am Defence counsel for General
19 Blaskic and would like an answer, can Blaskic, as the
20 head of the Operative Zone, wield any influence and can
21 he influence the Public Prosecutor in him making his
22 decision as to whether to issue an indictment or not?
23 A. No, he cannot.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, I would like you to
25 get back to the essential point of our discussion
1 here. Do you hear me, Mr. Hayman? I would like us to
2 get back to the focus of our discussion. We want to
3 know what was the role, the function of the military
4 police at the time of that conflict in relation to what
5 the accused can do. Otherwise, we are hearing a kind
6 of course on criminal procedure, which takes me back to
7 concepts of which we are familiar in civil law. It's
8 very interesting, of course, but the focus of the
9 discussion is the military police and the orders that
10 the accused might give in wartime, in conflict time.
11 We would like to know whether there was a failure to
12 act properly, a failure to go to see the Prosecutor
13 General, but all the rest really is a presentation of
14 the civil procedures that was used for the Croatian
15 community of Herceg-Bosna.
16 That last question seems to better focus onto
17 what our discussion really is about. Otherwise we are
18 going to waste time.
19 MR. NOBILO: Yes, Mr. President, we felt it
20 necessary to give you the framework of criminal
21 procedure and to show that Blaskic had no role in this,
22 and we wanted to show that his role did not exist at
23 any stage of the criminal procedure, and we shall, of
24 course, be going back to the military police and show
25 this in greater detail, but we felt that we should
1 inform the Court of the specific features of this
2 procedure, where it is other people altogether from the
3 legislative system who decide whether a case is to be
4 brought to trial or not, and this is in connection with
5 General Blaskic.
6 We have now arrived at the point in which we
7 mentioned the indictment and the case and criminal
8 proceedings, so we will end there as far as criminal
9 procedure is concerned.
10 I'd now like to ask that documents be handed
11 around which concern the military police. We have a
12 set of documents, first the Croatian text and then the
13 English translation. They haven't been joined
14 together, that is to say, the Croatian text is separate
15 and the English text is separate, but they should be
16 conjoined as one piece of evidence.
17 THE REGISTRAR: This is D522A for the English
19 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we have the Rules
20 and Regulations on the Establishment of the Military
21 Police of the Croatian Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna
22 dating back to 1994, the regulations for the formation
23 and work of the military police of the armed forces,
24 and we have translated only the articles which we
25 consider to be relevant to this case.
1 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, just to note for
2 the record, that puts us at somewhat of a
3 disadvantage. While the Defence thinks that these
4 particular articles that start at, I think, Article 54
5 may be relevant to the case, there may be other
6 relevant articles that the Prosecutor feels are
7 important to bring to the attention of this witness,
8 and without a full and complete translation of that
9 document, we are handicapped in conducting an effective
10 cross-examination on this particular document.
11 JUDGE JORDA: How many articles are there,
12 Mr. Nobilo?
13 MR. NOBILO: In this document, we have
14 translated articles from Article 53 on up until Article
15 73 inclusive. It is a document which the Prosecution
16 has received but probably not translated yet. As you
17 noticed a moment ago and on several occasions, the
18 Defence only received parts of documents, a milinfosum
19 or some other document which the Prosecutor felt to be
20 important, and then we only used those parts of the
21 document that we received. Sometimes they were
22 photocopied in such a way that only one line of the
23 document was shown, whereas the other part was left out
24 of the photocopied page.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, while this is not a
1 great difficulty, this isn't the first time that one of
2 the parties, you included, considered out of an entire
3 document one part is relevant for the cause that you
4 are defending, I believe; isn't that true?
5 MR. HARMON: Usually, Mr. President, in that
6 circumstance, the other side has the ability to read
7 the document in toto. In this situation,
8 Mr. President, where there is a portion of a document,
9 this is only Article 53 through Article 73, I know that
10 there are 52 articles that precede 53. I don't know
11 how many articles go beyond 72. I don't have the
12 ability to read those particular provisions --
13 JUDGE JORDA: My second question is simply to
14 know whether the entire decree, from Articles 1 to 52,
15 were all of those given to you in Serbo-Croatian, as
16 Mr. Nobilo seems to say? Was it given to you?
17 MR. HARMON: We received this last week,
18 Mr. President. The --
19 JUDGE JORDA: That's what I thought. All
20 right. First of all, this is not the first time that
21 one of the parties receives an entire document, but the
22 other party considers that, for its case, only some of
23 the elements are relevant. It is self-evident, of
24 course, that you can take the entire document, and I
25 could, therefore, ask the -- or, rather, you can ask
1 the translation service, I'll tell the Registrar, that
2 the other relevant articles should be urgently
3 translated so that you could know the content, and then
4 if you need it for your cross-examination, you can have
5 it. I'll ask that the translation service be asked to
6 translate this material immediately. Of course, that
7 would delay the cross-examination.
8 Mr. Nobilo, proceed, please.
9 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 MR. HAYMAN: I just want to note,
11 Mr. President, our objection in the sense that the
12 Prosecutor, not only has he given us partial
13 translations of documents he has used in his case, he
14 gives us partial documents. No rule of completeness
15 has been applied by this Court to documents provided by
16 the Prosecutor and --
17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. I told the Prosecutor
18 that this was not the first time, not the first time,
19 that this has happened. That's the first of my
20 answers, I, perhaps, should explain myself, but then I
21 added that the party that does not know the entire
22 document is the one that has to ensure that the
23 document is completely translated, and I can say to the
24 Prosecutor that that is his responsibility to have the
25 document translated. That's all I'm saying.
1 What's your objection, Mr. Hayman?
2 MR. HAYMAN: The Court is suggesting that the
3 cross-examination should be delayed until some larger
4 part of the document is --
5 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I don't know. I don't
6 know. Perhaps that won't be necessary. I'm simply
7 saying that perhaps the cross-examination should be
8 delayed. It is the Judges who asked you this,
9 Mr. Hayman, I, myself, or Judge Shahabuddeen could
10 wonder why, from Articles 1 to 52, we don't know what
11 the context is. That is the question that the Judges
12 could ask, and that would delay the cross-examination.
13 I think it natural that one of the parties wants to
14 know what is the general context of the document.
15 You, Mr. Hayman, I'm not criticising you, I'm
16 not criticising you, but I consider it natural for you
17 to consider that what is relevant would be Articles 53
18 to 73. I'm not criticising you either insofar as you
19 have disclosed the entire document. I made sure of
20 that. Perhaps I might reproach the Prosecutor for not
21 having had the entire document translated earlier, but
22 having said this, I consider it natural that the
23 Tribunal and the Prosecution should have the entire
24 translation of the entire document, and I'll ask this
25 to be translated urgently. I think that the
1 translation service will not take a great deal of time
2 to do so.
3 MR. HAYMAN: If that is the rule,
4 Mr. President, we want the entire documents of all the
5 snippets and pieces and one lines and one paragraphs
6 that have been given --
7 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, Mr. Hayman,
8 Mr. Hayman, please, please, you always try to establish
9 rules, codes, and procedures. You are not in a
10 specific legal system. You are in front of Judges who
11 are trying to get to the truth of the case. Let us
12 operate, please. Immediately, you don't have to
13 construct a rule and a regulation. I'm not at that
14 point. If you had asked that at one point, we would
15 have considered that issue at another point, but for
16 the time being, I'm simply settling this issue.
17 You have supplied -- you are irreproachable,
18 irreproachable, when you supplied the entire text. The
19 Prosecutor could have -- let me finish please. I'm the
20 one presiding here. The Prosecutor could have had the
21 document translated earlier. He said that he was
22 missing one day. He could have had the entire document
23 translated earlier, but in light of the questions that
24 you're asking, the Prosecutor is now saying to us that,
25 in fact, he is missing Articles 1 to 52, so we're
1 trying to resolve the problem.
2 I've consulted Judge Shahabuddeen, and I'm
3 trying to resolve the issue. I'm not trying to resolve
4 all the questions since the 23rd of January, 1997.
5 I've been trying to gain some time here. And if I were
6 the one to ask, what would you say if I were asking
7 that 1 to 52 be translated, and in French in addition
8 to all that? Do I complain when I don't have the
9 documents in French? I don't say anything. That is
10 the end of that. I don't like people intervening once
11 the Trial Chamber has taken a decision.
12 I'll ask the Registry that the translation
13 service act immediately so that, as quickly as
14 possible, this text can be translated. That's
15 natural. It's natural to have the context.
16 MR. HAYMAN: I'm sorry I've angered you,
17 Mr. President, if I have, but it is my duty to --
18 JUDGE JORDA: The incident is closed. Yes,
19 it is your duty, but I also have a duty, that is, to
20 move things forward. Immediately, a rule must be
21 constructed, that's what one asks for. I'm trying to
22 resolve questions here. We always run into new
23 problems in this Tribunal. Let's try to resolve them
24 as we go along. I've never refused you a translation.
25 Let me point that out to you.
1 The incident is closed and the decision has
2 been taken. The translation service will start to work
3 on this as quickly as possible, and if the Prosecutor
4 needs explanations of the witness by keeping the
5 witness here, we can have him stay. We're wasting a
6 lot of time, and we waste a lot of time on a lot of
7 points, and I don't think that it is the Presiding
8 Judge who is causing us to waste most of the time
10 Mr. Nobilo, please ask your question.
11 In fact, we're going to take a break now.
12 That will calm all of us down, starting with me.
13 A 20-minute break.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.28 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.59 a.m.
16 JUDGE JORDA: We can now resume the hearing.
17 Have the accused brought in, please.
18 (The accused entered court)
19 JUDGE JORDA: As regards the organisation of
20 our work, we will sit until a quarter to one, and then
21 resume at 3.00 and work until 6.00.
22 Thank you. Will the translation be ready
24 THE REGISTRAR: The translation will be
25 available to the Prosecution tomorrow in the beginning
1 of the afternoon.
2 JUDGE JORDA: You see. That does not change
3 the fact that we agree that the exhibit can be
5 Mr. Nobilo, you may proceed.
6 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. I
7 have another document that is part of the regulations
8 for the formation and work of the military police, the
9 military police of the armed forces of the Croatian
10 Republic of Herceg-Bosna, so it is similar with D522;
11 however, it is not in continuity with the articles that
12 are in D522. We have separated it, and in this way, we
13 are going to shorten the time needed for translation
14 because we have three or four articles more there.
15 Could be please have this document
16 distributed to the Court and the parties? So this is a
17 document that we'd also like to have tendered and is
18 part of the regulations for the formation and work of
19 the military police from 1994.
20 THE REGISTRAR: This is D523A for the English
22 MR. NOBILO: Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Tadic, this document, 522 and also D523,
24 is called "Regulations for the Formation and Work of
25 the Military Police of the Armed Forces of the Croatian
1 Republic of Herceg-Bosna from 1994." Please tell the
2 Court, what is the relationship in terms of hierarchy
3 between this legal act called the regulations and the
4 legal act which is called the law? So what is the
5 relationship in terms of hierarchy between the Law on
6 Criminal Procedure on the one hand and the regulations
7 on the formation and work of the military police on the
8 other hand?
9 A. The Law on Criminal Procedure has absolute
10 supremacy over the regulations. The regulations are a
11 lower legal act. If this lower legal act is not in
12 compliance with the law, then the law is overriding.
13 Q. Am I right if I say that the lower act would
14 have to correspond to the institutes of the higher act?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, I would like to read a few sections of
17 the regulations to you, and then I would like to put a
18 question to you. I would like to find a connection
19 with the law.
20 I'm referring to Article 12 of D523: "While
21 accomplishing the tasks from the sphere of actions,
22 authorised official persons from the military police
23 have and apply the same authorities that, by the
24 regulations that determine the criminal procedure, have
25 the authorised bodies of the Ministry of Internal
1 Affairs of Croatian Republic of HB and authorised
2 official persons from the police."
3 So I would like to ask you the following: As
4 it says here in Article 12, regulations concerning the
5 military police, what did the legislator have in mind
6 when using this, that is to say, regulations that
7 determine the criminal procedure?
8 A. This Article 12 refers to regulations from
9 the Law on Criminal Procedure, that is to say, the Law
10 on Criminal Procedure regulated in detail how
11 authorised persons would act within criminal procedure.
12 Q. I wish to draw your attention to document
13 D522, Article 53, and I'm reading it out: "The
14 military police service for fighting crime consists of
15 a number of jobs and tasks which, by the law which
16 determines the criminal procedure, are being done by
17 the offices of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and
18 they are related to criminal actions which go under the
19 jurisdiction of military courts, and they are: 1)
20 Criminal acts that are committed by military persons;
21 2) Criminal acts that were committed by officers and
22 employees in military forces while doing their service
23 or in connection with their service and for other
24 criminal acts that they commit as coexecutors together
25 with military persons; 3) Criminal acts that were
1 committed by civilians but go under the jurisdiction of
2 the military court."
3 Again, my question is, is this norm directly
4 related to the provisions of the Law on Criminal
5 Procedure that you spoke of, and is it in conformity
6 with the Law on Criminal Procedure?
7 A. Yes. This Article 53 is a norm which is in
8 line with the Law on Criminal Procedure, and it
9 directly pertains to the powers that are envisaged by
10 the Law on Criminal Procedure.
11 Q. Now let us repeat this: The Law on Criminal
12 Procedure, does it allow the commander of the Operative
13 Zone to command the military police in terms of what
14 are going to be the investigative or pre-investigative
15 actions that they will take?
16 A. No, that is not within his authority.
17 Q. The next article, Article 55, in this same
18 document, D522, I would like to draw your attention to
19 that: "Actions from Article 54 of this book of
20 regulations are being done ex officio by the authorised
21 official person from the unit of the military police
22 that has the jurisdiction under the territorial
23 division and on the request of the authorised state
24 attorney or the court."
25 This provision of the regulations, that is to
1 say, Article 55, does it also reflect what you spoke
2 of, as you were commenting on the Law on Criminal
3 Procedure when you said who can exercise influence over
4 the military police in terms of the things that they
5 can do?
6 A. Yes. This provision contained in Article 55
7 is one that also addresses itself to the Law on
8 Criminal Procedure, and, with your permission, perhaps
9 it should be stated here, that the decree on the
10 establishment of district military courts, I don't know
11 exactly, but I think that it is Article 25, it
12 specifically stipulates that the internal affairs
13 authority is equated with the security authorities in
14 the armed forces.
15 The district military court is equal to a
16 regular first instance court, and the district military
17 prosecutor with the senior prosecutor, that is to say,
18 the republican prosecutor as far as certain powers are
19 concerned, that is to say, those stemming from the Law
20 on Criminal Procedure. So this decree speaks for
21 itself, that these are powers enjoyed by the
22 authorities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and
23 the security services in the case of war and, in this
24 case, this is the military police, that is to say, the
25 section that dealt with crime investigation.
1 Q. Did I understand you correctly? Are you
2 trying to say that when the military police acts as a
3 crime investigation police does, then they have to act
4 in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure?
5 A. Yes, absolutely. Several decrees that were
6 passed, including the decree on military courts, as
7 well as the decree on the application of the Law on
8 Criminal Procedure during war, in cases of imminent
9 danger of war, state this explicitly.
10 Q. Articles 69, 70, 71, I don't really have to
11 read all of them out, but could you take a look at
12 them, and could you say whether they fully elaborate on
13 the Law on Criminal Procedure, and are they fully in
14 accordance with the role of the police according to the
15 Law on Criminal Procedure? So would you please read
16 Article 69, 70, and 71?
17 A. Yes, yes, this is a consistent transcription,
18 so to speak, of the Law on Criminal Procedure, that is
19 to say, regulating the relationship between the
20 civilian police and the public prosecutor, and that is
21 what I stated in my introductory remarks, that is to
22 say, the police vis-a-vis the public prosecutor in
23 terms of filing criminal reports.
24 Q. I should like to draw your attention to
25 something else, I'm going to read it to you, and I
1 believe that this is the only one that refers to the
2 military commander, and that is Article 73 of the
3 regulations, that is, D522, and I'm reading it out
4 now: "The commanders of the units and all the members
5 of the Croatian Defence Council are obliged to, within
6 their rights and obligations, give necessary help to
7 authorised official persons from the military police
8 and enable them to collect information and accomplish
9 other acts that are mentioned in the Law on Criminal
11 So could you please tell me your opinion?
12 What duty is prescribed for a military commander, in
13 this particular case, Blaskic? How would you interpret
14 this provision?
15 A. It says there that all citizens and
16 institutions, enterprises, et cetera, are duty-bound to
17 assist the police, authorised official persons, in
18 terms of bringing to justice and to a court of law the
19 perpetrators of criminal offences.
20 Here it has been translated into military
21 conditions, which would mean that the commander of a
22 unit, as well as others within military units, are
23 duty-bound to help the military police and its crime
24 investigation section in terms of operative work
25 involved in collecting evidence concerning a particular
2 We can illustrate this by the following: To
3 give them insight into documents; to allow them to
4 enter or tour certain facilities; also giving them
5 access to certain persons, letting them question
6 certain persons from military units; then providing
7 them with technical assistance, so whatever the police
8 would do, in terms of crime investigation and in terms
9 of collecting evidence. That would be the duty of a
10 military commander as well as others in a military
11 structure. Because the military police, that is to
12 say, its section that relates to security, has wide
13 powers and they are even entitled to question the
14 commander himself and to look into his responsibility
16 Q. I think that there is a bit, or perhaps even
17 more than a bit, perhaps this is a substantial mistake
18 in the interpretation. So could you repeat once again
19 what is the duty of the military commander? Does he
20 have certain powers over the military police or does he
21 have other duties? Please, would you repeat this once
22 again slowly.
23 A. It is the duty of the military commander,
24 first and foremost, to help the crime investigation
25 police and to put at their disposal whatever they
1 require. That is to say to provide them with certain
2 documents, to allow them access in terms of certain
3 facilities, to question certain witnesses that are
4 under the command of that commander, that is to say
5 within his hierarchy, and also to give them technical
6 assistance, if necessary.
7 Q. Thank you. Does every citizen have that kind
8 of obligation, every owner of an enterprise, everybody
9 according to the Law on Criminal Procedure?
10 A. Yes. At the very outset I said that this
11 provision does exist in the Law on Criminal Procedure;
12 however, naturally, it does not mention the army. It
13 says that every citizen, authorised person, institution
14 of the state, enterprises, are duty-bound to help find
15 the perpetrators of criminal acts.
16 Q. Now let us go back to document D521. Let us
17 look at Article 27, the only one where the commander is
18 mentioned. These are special provisions related to
19 district military courts. Again, it is a decree with
20 the force of a law of the Croatian community of
21 Herceg-Bosna on district military courts during the
22 situation of war or imminent danger of war. I am going
23 to read this entire article to you, and I would like to
24 ask you to give me your views on this. This is the
25 only one where explicit mention is made of the
2 So I am reading Article 27: "The commander
3 of a military unit or military establishment shall take
4 every possible measure to prevent the perpetrator of a
5 criminal offence who is prosecuted ex officio from
6 hiding or escaping, to preserve the traces of the
7 criminal offence and objects which may serve as
8 evidence, and shall gather all information which may be
9 of use for the conducting of criminal proceedings.
10 The commander of the unit or establishment
11 shall immediately inform the district military
12 prosecutor or his immediate superior commanding officer
13 of the data referred to in paragraph 1 of this
15 The report of the commander referred to in
16 paragraph 2 of this article may be used in the manner
17 envisaged in the provisions of Articles 84 through 86
18 of the Law on Criminal Procedure.
19 A military commander holding the post of
20 company commander, an equivalent or higher post or an
21 authorised official of the Department of the Interior
22 and the security department, or the military police,
23 may arrest a member of the military in cases envisaging
24 detention under the Law on Criminal Procedure.
25 The commander and the authorised official
1 referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall
2 immediately, and at the latest within 12 hours,
3 surrender the member of the military whom they have
4 arrested, together with a report on the reasons for his
5 detention with evidence to the investigative judge of
6 the competent district military court or to the nearest
7 military unit and/or military establishment which shall
8 immediately bring him before the competent
9 investigative judge of the district military court. If
10 the military commander or the authorised official are
11 unable to do this, they shall forthwith, and within
12 eight hours at the latest, inform the investigative
13 judge of the competent district military court or the
14 nearest military unit or the military establishment of
15 which the arrested person is a member to immediately
16 take charge of him and without delay escort him to the
17 nearest competent investigative judge of a district
18 military court."
19 My first question would be the following:
20 Does this relate to a known person when the perpetrator
21 is known or is the commander supposed to investigate on
22 his own whether somebody committed a crime or not?
23 What do you think?
24 A. Well, judging by the context of Article 27,
25 its norm, it proceeds from the assumption that the
1 perpetrator of the mentioned crime is known, and that
2 this person should be detained, all the traces kept,
3 and this person should be surrendered to the military
4 police or, rather, the investigative judge.
5 Q. Give me an example, please, an imaginary
6 example. In which cases could there be this kind of a
7 situation that the military commander, for example
8 Colonel Blaskic, is duty-bound to detain a person and
9 to make sure that all the evidence is there? What
10 case, for example?
11 A. I shall quote an example. For example, let
12 us say that a murder was committed in his unit and that
13 everyone knows who did it, because it happened there.
14 The perpetrator is detained, all the traces are kept,
15 also the crime scene remains intact. They wait for the
16 police to come, the investigative judge and the Public
17 Prosecutor, and then the entire case is handed over to
19 Q. Thank you. Could we please have another
20 document distributed now.
21 THE REGISTRAR: This is D524, 524A for the
22 French version and B for the English version.
23 MR. NOBILO:
24 Q. May we identify the document. We discussed
25 it, that is to say you discussed it. So could you just
1 identify it and tell us what it represents, this new
3 A. This is the regulation, the decree by which
4 the application of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Criminal Code of the SFRY,
6 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in the time
7 of the immediate threat of war or in time of war on the
8 territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
9 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna.
10 Q. Thank you. Another question now, and this
11 would be the last question in that block of questions.
12 We have seen the formation of the military courts and
13 Prosecutor's offices in Bosnia-Herzegovina and what
14 their relationship was with the commander to the
15 Operative Zone. I would now like to ask you the
16 following: In the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was
17 there any other solution, and if there was, could you
18 describe it to us briefly, what the relationship there
19 was like between the commander of the corps and the
20 legal organs active for his territory.
21 A. The presidency of the Republic of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina enacted, as I've already said, a
23 provision on the founding of military law courts for
24 the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and they are the
25 seven courts that I enumerated earlier on. However, in
1 addition to that decree, the presidency of the Republic
2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina enacted a second decree on
3 special or separate military courts.
4 The characteristics of this decree and the
5 differences from the first decree is the following:
6 According to the first decree that was enacted, the
7 military courts were, hierarchially speaking,
8 organisationally speaking, one of the organisation of
9 the Defence ministry, that is to say under their
10 supervision, and the presidency of the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina appointed judges.
12 According to the second decree, we have a
13 purely military component. In this second decree the
14 commanders of the military units, as far as I remember,
15 and I think that I even have the documents somewhere
16 with me, that the commander of the brigade or lower
17 down echelon, the military echelon, could form a
18 military court. In that case he would be responsible
19 to it, that is to say he would be the individual
20 appointing the judges. That is the so-called decree on
21 special or separate military courts. I think that it
22 was published in the Official Gazette.
23 Q. Take a look at your notes. Feel free to do
24 so, if you need a date or a figure.
25 A. In Official Gazette No. 12/92 of the 13th of
1 August, 1992.
2 Q. That refers to the army of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, does it not?
4 A. Yes, it refers exclusively to the army of
6 Q. May we now move onto the last area, the
7 system by which criminal sanctions are put into
8 effect. What law was prevalent in Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 up until the war and what were the solutions in the
10 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna? What solutions
11 were found in view of the types of detention centres or
12 gaols and how criminal sanctions were executed?
13 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina had its own laws on the
14 execution of criminal sanctions. It had these before
15 the war, and it was the prevailing law on the basis of
16 which all sentences were executed, had institutions for
17 the execution of prison sentences, and other
18 institutions, forensic institutions, institutions for
19 minors and so on.
20 The presidency of the Republic of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina also, when the war broke out,
22 enacted a decree on the application of this law in a
23 state of war. The characteristics of that particular
24 decree which came into force in a situation of war was
25 that within the frameworks of the existing gaols or
1 detention centres, departments were set up for a
2 military prisons. Within the frameworks of the
3 penitentiaries or detention centres, there were
4 departments or special units for military convicts.
5 Identical solutions existed in the Croatian community
6 of Herceg-Bosna, once again on the basis of a decree.
7 In both systems, and in the district military
8 courts, a detention was provided for. That is to say
9 that is the phase while the investigation is being
10 conducted and before sentence is actually being passed
11 and judgment passed. The perpetrator then goes to the
12 district prisons and the penitentiaries, or houses of
13 correction, where there were special units for military
15 Q. If I have understood you correctly, there are
16 civilian detention centres for individuals whose trials
17 are ongoing, and then there are military detention
18 centres for military individuals who are undergoing a
19 trial, and a prison for criminal sanctions with both
20 civilian units and military units?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. Could you now tell the Court something about
23 the individual types of detention centres or prisons.
24 Under which ministry did they fall? Who was the
25 authority over these prisons?
1 A. By decree this question was regulated for the
2 military prisons, military detention. It was the
3 district military court that was in charge of these
4 centres and supervision was the defence department,
5 which was later to become the Ministry of Defence.
6 When it came to prison sentences, supervision was done
7 by the defence department and, as I say, later on it
8 became the Ministry of Defence.
9 It was quite separate, in the sense of
10 supervision from the civilian section. Civilian
11 section came under the Ministry of Justice, whereas the
12 Ministry of Defence was in charge of the military
14 Q. Therefore, both categories of detainees or
15 prisoners were under the control and supervision and
16 administration of two ministries, the Ministry of
17 Defence and the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of
18 Justice for civilians and the Ministry of Defence for
19 the soldiers. When you say Ministry of Defence, do you
20 consider that this was the civilian section of the
21 Ministry of Defence or the military units and military
22 commanders of the Operative Zones? Did the military
23 commanders of the Operative Zones have any supervision
24 over military detention centres?
25 A. We are talking about the civilian part of the
1 Ministry of Defence, so the Ministry of Defence was the
2 executive power and within the frameworks of its
3 competencies and authorisations it had other segments.
4 One of those segments was the main staff and, for
5 example, the chief of the military police and so on.
6 So this belonged to the civilian section of that
8 Q. I would now like to ask, although it does
9 emanate from your question, a direct question. Did
10 Blaskic, according to any basis, was he authorised to
11 control or command what was happening in a military
12 detention centre or military prison?
13 A. No, that was not his competence or
14 authority. I am just looking through the decree you
15 have tendered into evidence, which states precisely
16 that supervision is -- that the Department of Defence,
17 which was later the Ministry of Defence, was in charge
18 of this.
19 Q. You are talking about the decree on military
20 courts of law?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. I would now like to have a new document
23 handed out. This document has been translated only
24 into French. That's how we received it from the
25 interpretation and translation services. It is very
1 short and I would like to read it out so that everybody
2 can hear.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This is D525. A for the
4 French version.
5 MR. NOBILO:
6 Q. I am going to read it out, because there
7 isn't an English translation. The preamble: "On the
8 basis of Article 7, paragraph 2 of the decision on the
9 establishment of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna
10 dated the 18th of November, 1991, the presidency of the
11 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna at its session of
12 the 3rd of July, 1992 adopts the following decree."
13 It is the decree relative to the treatment of
14 individuals taken prisoner in armed conflicts in the
15 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, Article 1.
16 "The members of the JNA and the reserve
17 formations of the JNA and all other persons taken
18 prisoner in the armed conflicts against the community
19 of Herceg-Bosna (prisoners in the HZHB) the regulations
20 of the Geneva Conventions shall be applied relevant to
21 prisoners of war of the 12th of August, 1949."
22 And in brackets it states: "The Official
23 Gazette of the SFRY," and the number is 24/1950.
24 Article 2: "The chief of the justice
25 department and administration department in
1 co-operation with the chief of the defence department
2 and the chief of the interior affairs department shall
3 determine the location and locations in which in
4 keeping with the Geneva Conventions, as mentioned in
5 Article 1 of this provision, the prisoners shall be
7 Article 3: "The defence department shall
8 administer these locales related to Article 2 of this
10 Article 4: "This decree comes into force on
11 the day of its adoption."
12 The signatures, the President of the HVO and
13 HZHB, Mate Boban, and on other the side it states the
14 Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Croatian community
15 of Herceg-Bosna, the presidency and the number, Mostar
16 the 3rd of July, '92.
17 I should now like to ask you to comment on
18 this document and how the question of prisoners of war
19 was determined, who determined where they would be
20 located, who was in charge of the localities where the
21 prisoners of war were located, and so on.
22 A. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Geneva
23 Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war dated
24 the 12th of August, 1949, this provision was enacted,
25 this decree was enacted as soon as the armed conflict
1 broke out, that is to say, at the beginning of July,
2 with the aim of respecting the provisions of the Geneva
3 Conventions, and in that sense, three departments were
4 placed in charge of these affairs in the organisation
5 as it existed in the Croatian Community of
6 Herceg-Bosna, that was the justice department, the
7 defence department, and the internal affairs
8 department, that is to say, the police, that locations
9 be set for the temporary detention of prisoners of war
10 in conformity with the provisions of the conventions.
11 The important fact to note here and in regard
12 to this decree, in addition to the fact that the decree
13 had to be applied and the convention had to be applied,
14 is that the administration, supervision, and control
15 was in the hands of the defence department in the
16 organisation of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
17 and that was under their jurisdiction, whereas the two
18 other departments, only in a certain way, were a
19 support and helped localities to be found and
20 pinpointed for situations of this kind to be used for
21 purposes of detention.
22 Q. According to your knowledge, did the military
23 commanders, under the main staff, including Blaskic as
24 the commander of the Operative Zone, were they, in any
25 way, authorised to meddle and to interfere into the
1 affairs of organisation and location of the prisoners
2 of war, and did they have any authorisations and
3 competencies over the prisoners of war?
4 A. No. That was not under their competence or
5 this was not the competence of the commanders, and the
6 decree took it out of their hands, so to speak, and
7 that is how things stood, so that Mr. Blaskic had no
8 authorisations in that regard.
9 Q. According to your recollections and
10 knowledge, you were not the justice minister in 1993,
11 you were appointed minister in 1994, sometime in March,
12 but according to your recollections and knowledge, did
13 the military court in Travnik and the military
14 prosecutor's office in Travnik function normally in the
15 course of 1992 and 1993?
16 A. I said in my introduction today, I said a
17 number of sentences on the difficulties that the courts
18 found themselves faced with in functioning throughout
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and regardless of the fact that I
20 was not in Mostar, I was at the time in the northern
21 parts of Bosnia, in Bosanska Posavina at the time, I
22 was in constant contact and communication because I was
23 detached. And my duties were to go to Posavina to set
24 up the legal system there, and I know that it was a
25 very difficult situation. There were no cadres, not
1 enough cadres, not enough conditions for the
2 functioning of law courts.
3 This particular decree governing military
4 courts was enacted on the 17th of October, 1992, and it
5 was published in November 1992 in the official gazette,
6 but it was not until the end of 1992 that they began to
7 work according to those decrees, because we were not
8 able to establish courts of law until then, and Travnik
9 represented a particular problem because they did not
10 have the necessary conditions, and it took a long
11 time. There was just one judge in Travnik for a long
12 time and just one prosecutor.
13 Thirdly, they were not able to establish
14 their court in Travnik but had to seek a locality
15 outside Travnik which was all right on the basis of the
16 decree, but they did encounter many difficulties before
17 these courts of law could begin to function properly
18 for the whole area, and particularly in Central
20 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, that completes
21 our examination-in-chief. We would like to offer D521
22 to D525 into evidence.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, Mr. Harmon?
24 MR. HARMON: In respect, Mr. President, of
25 the exhibits, I have no objection to 521. That appears
1 to be an official translation.
2 In respect of the translation of 522, if you
3 can bear with me for just a moment, 522 does not appear
4 to be an official translation. In fact, in listening
5 to the translators and comparing what is contained in
6 522, there appear to be some errors. This may have
7 been a translation that was provided to Mr. Nobilo by
8 one of his colleagues in Zagreb or some place else, but
9 it is not an official translation, and I would ask that
10 the record note that and that there be an official
11 translation of those particular provisions.
12 In respect of 523, I believe, Mr. President,
13 that also is not an official translation, but a
14 translation was provided, the English translation, at
15 least, was provided to counsel and did not come through
16 the official translation section, as it has no
17 translation mark on it.
18 Exhibit 524 appears to be an official
19 translation. I have no objection to that, and 525,
20 Mr. President, I do not see an official translation
21 mark, but I believe Mr. Nobilo said in respect of 525,
22 that came from the translation section.
23 With those reservations on 522 and 523, that
24 is, noting that those exhibits are not official
25 translations, I would make that objection only, and,
1 therefore, Mr. President, I would ask that those two
2 exhibits be officially translated into English and into
3 French, the two official languages of the Tribunal.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Rather than having them
5 retranslated, perhaps the registrar could ask the
6 translation service, which has to translate Articles 1
7 to 52 of Exhibit 522, couldn't we ask the translation
8 service to do a quick verification of the translation
9 of 522 and 523 and then to make corrections or to say
10 that the translation seems to be proper?
11 THE REGISTRAR: It's possible to verify the
12 translations, but I may call your attention to the fact
13 there is no obligation that the translations provided
14 in this courtroom be done by our translation service.
15 Let me draw the attention of the parties to that.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. That's a point on which I
17 should have asked a question.
18 Mr. Prosecutor, you do not have an absolute
19 right, independently of what was said before the break,
20 in respect of the translation service, but you
21 yourself, at the proper time, must make the comments
22 which are important to you.
23 However, Mr. Registrar, could we still not
24 have the translation checked quickly, since, in
25 addition, the translation service is responsible for
1 the translation of Articles 1 through 52?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, of course. Since that
3 is the request, we will verify the documents.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. But there is no
5 right in principle. It often happens that each of the
6 parties provides translations to one another.
7 All right. We will resume at 3.00. The
8 Court stands adjourned.
9 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.50 p.m.
1 --- Upon commencing at 3.10 p.m.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Have the accused brought in,
4 (The accused entered court)
5 JUDGE JORDA: We are going to work until
6 6.00. Excuse me for my delay. We had some work
7 outside the Tribunal. I apologise to you for that.
8 Mr. Harmon, we can begin again now for the
9 cross-examination, after the witness has been brought
10 in, of course.
11 MR. HARMON: As I mentioned this morning,
12 this witness was called one trial day earlier than we
13 expected. I am not prepared to proceed on the
14 cross-examination now, and I would request that the
15 matter be brought back, possibly, tomorrow.
16 I understand, Mr. President, from
17 Mr. Dubuisson, that the translation of the complete
18 exhibit will be done by approximately noon. We will, I
19 understand, start tomorrow at 2.00, so I would be
20 prepared to cross-examine this witness by 2.00
22 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Do you have another
23 witness, Mr. Hayman?
24 MR. HAYMAN: We do, Mr. President. It would
25 be our request, though, that, putting aside those
1 aspects of his cross-examination that may involve the
2 untranslated portions of the document, that the balance
3 of Mr. Harmon's cross-examination should proceed now.
4 Why is that? That's because we gave notice seven
5 calendar days ago that this witness would testify. The
6 Court's order regarding disclosure of witnesses does
7 not speak in terms of hours. It did not mandate
8 disclosure of a certain number of hours, that is seven
9 times 24 hours. It spoke in terms of calendar days.
10 I've already expressed that we were in Court last
11 Tuesday, we had a Status Conference, discussing the
12 very issue of whether we would be in session this week,
13 and whether we would be proceeding by deposition and so
14 forth. So we have complied with Your Honours order
15 with respect to disclosure of witnesses with respect to
16 this witness. There is no reason to delay the
17 cross-examination on that ground.
18 In terms of the document, I won't go into my
19 more fundamental disagreements with the position of the
20 Prosecutor on that, but suffice it to say that if there
21 are questions he has that pertains to untranslated
22 portions, then they pertain only to those sections, and
23 there is no reason to not continue and get the bulk of
24 the cross-examination done this afternoon while, quite
25 frankly, the testimony is fresh in all of our minds.
1 That's what we would like to do,
2 Mr. President.
3 JUDGE JORDA: Before I consult with my
4 colleague, would you like to make a comment,
5 Mr. Harmon?
6 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, I think we should
7 take a look at the Court's order and operate in the
8 spirit of the Court order. The Court order was seven
9 days ahead of the calling of the witness. Let's not be
10 too cute and let's not cut this too closely. The fact
11 of the matter is giving notice at one minute to
12 midnight on the seventh calendar day ahead of time
13 would be in violation of the spirit of the Court's
14 order. Likewise, Mr. President, it's my contention
15 that giving notice at 7.23 in the evening is
16 essentially the equivalent of six days in advance, and
17 we had received from the defence a list of other
18 witnesses seven days in advance. Obviously, we prepare
19 based on the notice and the compliance with the Court
21 These witnesses, there are a number of these
22 witnesses who we were given at 7.23 that evening, I
23 spent a significant amount of the lunch hour, all but
24 ten minutes, trying to collect exhibits so I could use
25 with this particular witness. I have not completed
1 that process.
2 So I regret to say that I am not prepared to
3 proceed with the cross-examination of this witness. I
4 am quite confident that the witness's testimony will
5 remain fresh in everybody's mind until tomorrow at 2.00
6 in the afternoon. We would ask, Mr. President and
7 Judge Shahabuddeen, that we proceed with another
8 witness. I will be prepared at 2.00 to cross-examine
9 this witness.
10 JUDGE JORDA: I wouldn't like this discussion
11 to go on endlessly, but I am sure that you weren't
12 pleased with my having interrupted you this morning,
13 Mr. Hayman, but I give you the floor again before I
14 consult with my colleague.
15 Referring you to Rule 90(G), the Trial
16 Chamber's exercise control of the mode and order that
17 interrogating witnesses present so as to make the
18 interrogation presentation effective for the
19 ascertainment of the truth. I give you the floor one
20 more time so that you can not say that we have not
21 allowed to you speak.
22 MR. HAYMAN: You have, and I am grateful,
23 Mr. President. I will be brief. The testimony of the
24 criminal justice system and the extent of which Colonel
25 Blaskic could punish individuals for criminal
1 violations is at the heart and soul of the case that
2 the Prosecutor brought by his indictment in 1995. If
3 he is not ready now to cross-examine a witness about
4 that criminal justice system, shame on him. He didn't
5 do his homework in 1995 when he accused my and
6 Mr. Nobilo's client of failing to punish criminal
8 Secondly -- one moment. My colleague reminds
9 me as well, Mr. President, that with the exception of
10 two of the documents shown to the witness, these are
11 public documents, public published documents which came
12 from the same Narodni list sources which the Prosecutor
13 has drawn on as well. It is a search for truth, and a
14 search for truth involves a balance and equal position
15 of the parties, and there being no good reason to
16 delay, cross-examination should proceed just in the way
17 it proceeded for the Defence on many occasions, which
18 may have been difficult, but nonetheless we proceeded.
19 It should proceed now as well.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. I would like to
21 consult with my colleague.
22 The cross-examination of the witness will
23 begin tomorrow in the afternoon.
24 Mr. Hayman, do you have another witness or
25 would you like us to start again at a quarter to four
1 so you can bring the witness in?
2 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we do have
3 another witness.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Is he ready? Do you want to
5 start immediately?
6 MR. NOBILO: Yes, immediately. Yes, yes, he
7 is all set.
8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. The Tribunal thanks
9 you. So that things be clear, Mr. Harmon, tomorrow
10 afternoon you will have exactly the same amount of time
11 that the Defence used for the examination-in-chief.
12 MR. HARMON: May I inquire of Mr. Dubuisson
13 how much time that was?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Two hours and ten minutes.
15 MR. HARMON: Thank you, Mr. Dubuisson.
16 (The witness entered court)
17 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear me, sir? If you
18 speak French, I can hear you. Perhaps it's best for
19 you to put your headset on because not everybody speaks
20 French here. I thank you for what you've just said.
21 Thank you for speaking my own native language. There
22 are two official languages in this Tribunal. You can
23 use either of the two you like or your own native
24 language because all of the interpreters booths are
25 available to you.
1 Give us your first name, your profession and
2 place of birth and current profession and then remain
3 standing for a few moments in order to take the oath.
4 Please proceed.
5 THE WITNESS: My name is Slobodan. My family
6 name is Jankovic. I was born in 1932 in Brussels.
7 JUDGE JORDA: And your profession?
8 THE WITNESS: I am a retired professor, but I
9 still give courses at the Zagreb University.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Professor of what, please?
11 THE WITNESS: I am a professor of flight
13 JUDGE JORDA: And where do you reside
15 THE WITNESS: I live in Zagreb.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. That is enough for
17 now. Would you please take the oath.
18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
19 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
21 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you very much. You may
22 now be seated.
23 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC
24 JUDGE JORDA: You have agreed, at the request
25 of the Defence, to testify in the trial of General
1 Blaskic, who at the time of the alleged facts was a
2 Colonel. First you will answer the questions of the
3 lawyers who had you come in, that is Mr. Nobilo, and
4 then the Prosecutor will ask some questions and,
5 lastly, you may be asked some questions by the Judges.
6 Mr. Nobilo, please proceed.
7 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC
9 Examined by Mr. Nobilo:
10 Q. Professor, you've already said that you were
11 born in 1932 in Brussels. Could you describe your
12 education to us a bit and perhaps the most important
13 things you did upon graduation.
14 A. I studied at the Royal Military School in
15 Brussels at the polytechnic division. After that, I
16 worked as an officer in the army of the former
17 Yugoslavia, and that was until 1972.
18 As an engineer, I first worked in a factory
19 and then at the Military Institute in Belgrade and then
20 at the Higher Military School in Zagreb, and that was
21 until 1972.
22 In 1972, I became a reserve officer, and I
23 went to give courses at the University of Belgrade,
24 courses on exterior ballistics. Before I left the
25 army, I completed postgraduate studies
1 in aerodynamics. I presented a thesis in exterior
2 ballistics, and then I moved to the civilian university
3 in Belgrade. Then I was, again, engaged by the former
4 Yugoslav army as a specialist in aerodynamics, and I
5 worked on a guided missile, and when that programme was
6 finished, I asked the army to be transferred to Zagreb
7 to the military academy where I wanted to finish my
8 technical career, my scientific career.
9 At the military academy, I gave courses until
10 these unfortunate events occurred. Right before these
11 events, I asked to be retired, and I was in retirement
12 when everything began. The Croatian government asked
13 me to resume my work, and, therefore, I went to work as
14 a technician at the institute in Zagreb, and then I was
15 reengaged as a professor at Zagreb University.
16 In the meantime, I have been in retirement,
17 but I continue to give courses, and I am a tutor.
18 Q. Professor, your latest book is called "The
19 Mechanics of Projectile Flight"; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. My book has just appeared. It's called
21 "The Mechanics of Projectile Flight." I consider that
22 this book is quite good.
23 Q. Thank you. Professor, could you please tell
24 the Court, what did the Defence put at your disposal
25 from this case and which is related to the shelling of
1 Zenica in April 1993? Also, could you please tell the
2 Court what are the relevant facts that you managed to
3 establish on the basis of your knowledge from the field
4 of ballistics, and then we are going to distribute a
5 set of documents.
6 Would you please speak about the ballistics
7 problems that you studied in relation to the Blaskic
9 A. I had available to me the text of the
10 witnesses, the testimony here, that is, the text of the
11 Major of the international forces, I don't remember his
12 name, Witness V, Witness W, and I also received
13 photocopies that had to do with that text. These
14 copies and photographs are of very poor quality;
15 however, there was a great deal of data in the text,
16 and on the basis of that data, I did some calculations,
17 and I can give you some of those calculations, that is,
18 the results of those calculations.
19 Q. Before we have these documents distributed,
20 the Major from the international forces whose statement
21 you read, was that Major Baggesen?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 MR. NOBILO: I would like to have this set of
24 documents distributed, please.
25 Q. Professor, could you please wait for a moment
1 until the documents that you prepared are handed out to
3 THE REGISTRAR: This is D526.
4 MR. NOBILO:
5 Q. Professor, the first two or three
6 documents --
7 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Nobilo, Mr. President,
8 excuse me. Could we have the translation into English,
9 please? We don't have it.
10 MR. NOBILO: That is exactly what I wish to
11 mention. The first three documents have only three
12 sentences that we would like to have translated via the
13 ELMO because these are technical figures, it's not a
14 real text, so we are going to put it on the ELMO and
15 have it interpreted with the permission of the Court.
16 So I'm talking about the first three documents, and
17 there is one sentence only that relates to technical
19 MR. CAYLEY: Well, my only comment would be,
20 Mr. President, I accept what my learned friend is
21 saying, but it may well be that some of the material
22 that is untranslated in this document is relevant to
23 the Prosecution, so I would say at this moment, let's
24 wait and see.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Please continue, Mr. Nobilo.
1 MR. NOBILO:
2 Q. Professor, you have the floor. Could you
3 please explain to the Court first and foremost what you
4 found in Witness W's statement and Major Baggesen's
5 statement, and what conclusion did you draw on that
6 basis, and then could you please present your findings
7 and your opinion?
8 As regards the first three documents from
9 this set that you prepared, we are going to put a
10 sentence that is relevant, and we're going to have it
11 read out, but we're going to put them on the ELMO, that
12 is, this device next to you, so that our colleagues who
13 do not speak Croatian can see exactly what this is
15 A. Since I am a technician, a technical person,
16 a scientific person, I have a technical and scientific
17 logic which I will present.
18 In the text that I read of Witness W, on page
19 6.016 on line 8, 6.020, and on 6.021, line 2, they said
20 that there was a 122-millimetre calibre and that it was
21 an explosive projectile. Then on page 6.025, line 10
22 and line 11 --
23 JUDGE JORDA: So that people understand
24 everything here, excuse me, so that we would agree, for
25 the public as well, that your witness is contesting the
1 ballistic conclusions that were given by some of the
2 Prosecution witnesses at the Zenica shelling, is that
3 what we're talking about, the time of the shelling of
4 Zenica, in order to put this back into context, because
5 otherwise, I suppose that many people will be lost.
6 MR. NOBILO: You're right, Mr. President.
7 Perhaps it was my mistake.
8 Yes, we are talking about the shelling of
9 Zenica. The Prosecutor claimed, through their
10 witnesses, that the six shells that fell on Zenica in
11 April 1993 were fired from the positions of the HVO in
12 Puticevo. We have the transcripts of the Prosecutor's
13 witnesses, and we gave them to our ballistics expert,
14 and we also gave him photocopies of the pictures of the
15 shell imprints and also other related documents, and
16 then we asked the expert to give his expertise and his
17 expert opinion on this as to the quality of the
18 Prosecutor's witnesses' statements and also whether
19 there is any proof that these shells were fired from
20 HVO positions, from Puticevo, as the Prosecutor and
21 their witnesses have been claiming.
22 And, at first, the professor is going to
23 refer to the exact pages and places where there are
24 relevant ballistics details, and then he is going to
25 make mathematical calculations as to whether this was
1 possible or not.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, do you have any
4 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I don't want to
5 delay matters, but I would make two observations. The
6 first observation is this: I've actually just looked
7 at the transcript to which the witness is referring,
8 and I cannot find any reference to what he's actually
9 saying, except on one particular reference. Now, be
10 that as it may, I'm trying to assist my learned
12 The second point is, this witness, I do not
13 believe, should come here to comment on the quality of
14 the Prosecutor's evidence. That is a matter for the
15 Judges. He is an expert. He can comment on the
16 conclusions that witnesses reached and state whether he
17 believes that those are correct or incorrect, but I
18 don't believe that a witness can be brought in here to
19 comment on the quality of evidence. That is a matter
20 for you.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, Mr. Nobilo,
22 proceed. Go ahead.
23 MR. NOBILO: Would you like me to say
24 something in reference to what the Prosecutor just said
25 or should I continue my examination-in-chief?
1 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I would like you to
2 comment on what the Prosecutor said.
3 MR. NOBILO: This witness was brought here in
4 order to present his own expertise as to whether the
5 shell could have been fired from HVO positions, as
6 claimed by the Prosecutor, or not.
7 Within this expertise, he is going to give a
8 critical analysis, a scientific, accurate analysis of
9 the data that was provided by the Prosecutor through
10 his witnesses, namely, this is an area that we are not
11 familiar with as lawyers, the ballistics expert. So to
12 call him a ballistics expert was invited by the
13 Prosecutor, and he spoke of certain exact figures, and
14 he presented this to us as science, and we brought in
15 another scientist, not only to establish what happened,
16 but also to give his opinion about the methods that
17 were applied by that witness, because Witness W, this
18 key witness, did not have any findings of his own. He
19 was making various calculations. He was trying to
20 orient himself in space, and he said, "Yes, the firing
21 came from Puticevo."
22 So there are two things involved here. One
23 is to make a calculation as to whether the shooting
24 could have come from Puticevo or not, from the HVO
25 positions, and, on the other hand, as an expert, he
1 will analyse the findings of the Prosecutor's witness
2 from the point of view of mathematics and ballistics.
3 JUDGE JORDA: As regards the first point,
4 Mr. Cayley, the Judges agree with you. If the witness
5 cites sentences from the transcript, he has to cite
6 them exactly. In any case, the Prosecution can monitor
7 that. We had to be clear here.
8 As regards the second point, the Judges think
9 that there is nothing unusual for the witness, who is a
10 specialist in ballistics, to come to discuss certain of
11 the assertions of one of your witnesses. There is
12 nothing excessive in that. There is nothing rigid in
14 Mr. Nobilo, be careful with the sentences
15 that the witness cites, because Mr. Cayley is right,
16 the sentences have to be cited correctly.
17 Mr. Cayley says that he only saw one of that
18 was correct, is that right?
19 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I am just trying
20 to assist my learned friend. I mean, we can discuss it
21 with the witness during cross-examination exactly what
22 he is referring to.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Mr. Nobilo, you
24 have to be sensitive to some of the questions and to
25 the comments that the Prosecution has made. I'm sure
1 you will be sensitive.
2 MR. NOBILO: I wish to thank him for his
4 Q. However, professor, please do proceed. What
5 are the relevant facts for a ballistics expert that you
6 found in the transcript and that you later used for
7 your own calculations?
8 A. I cited the pages and lines from which I had
9 found the data necessary for the exact calculations and
10 for the mathematical simulations of this event.
11 Therefore, as I said, it was clearly said that it was a
12 122 millimetre --
13 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me for stopping you,
14 because there is no point in our continuing. I don't
15 like to interrupt things. No point in continuing
16 discussing things if we don't agree on the basis. In
17 the transcript, whether it's in French or in English,
18 did Major Baggesen speak about 122 caliber? Yes or no,
19 Mr. Cayley?
20 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, he did, Mr. President. It
21 may well be that if the witness is referring to the
22 French transcript, that may have different page numbers
23 to the English transcript, which is a problem for us.
24 JUDGE JORDA: That's a problem. That's a
25 real problem. For once I have a French speaking
1 witness. That's really a tragedy. Well, all right.
2 Try to refer the French quotation to the English one.
3 Let's not get lost in pointless discussions. It's yes
4 or no. Is there a correspondence between the English
5 and French versions? Can the registrar help us,
7 THE REGISTRAR: There is a difference in the
8 French and English pagination.
9 JUDGE JORDA: Are the paginations different?
10 What I am interested in knowing is not the difference
11 in the pagination but in the caliber. That's what I
12 would like to know about.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Well, I would not think so.
14 THE WITNESS: The English pages, I was citing
15 the English pages.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Well, that's the advantage of
17 having an English speaking and French speaking
18 witness. You read English as well?
19 THE WITNESS: I don't know English as well,
20 but I do understand what Mr. Cayley said.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Was it or was it not a 122
22 caliber weapon? Everything revolves on that.
23 MR. CAYLEY: 122 millimetres, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Let the witness
25 continue. All right. There were 122 millimetre
1 shells. I hope we won't interrupt you again. Go
3 A. The first thing to which I have to call your
4 attention is that there are two explosive projectiles
5 of 122 millimetres, two different types, two completely
6 different types. One, is the Russian projectile, which
7 dates from the Second World War. We could call that
8 one an old projectile. It's not a modern one, and
9 which is OF462.
10 Then there was a modern one, which is M7666,
11 which is a construction of the former Yugoslav army
12 dating from the 1980's, '82, '83, more or less.
13 The modern projectiles of the former Yugoslav
14 army has an elongated fuse with 735 metres. I am
15 looking at the original document from the former
16 Yugoslav army. Here at the top you can see exactly
17 that it's the military institute with the number of the
18 document. Here you see that the speed of the
19 projectile was 736 metres. That's the only thing we
20 need this document for, only to show where my sources
21 are, because it's very important, and will be very
22 important for later on.
23 JUDGE JORDA: But there's a handwritten
24 correction, isn't there not?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, there is a correction.
1 The correction goes against my presentation, therefore,
2 there is no problem. Because the correction is that
3 the velocity is greater, which does not support what I
4 say, therefore, I suppose there won't be any problems.
5 MR. NOBILO:
6 Q. Please, for the purposes of the transcript,
7 so that it would be quite clear, even after several
8 months, I would like to say that we are now looking at
9 document number 3 of D526. In the middle under 3.5 you
10 refer to a sentence which reads as follows: With the
11 initial speed of 735 metres per second --
12 JUDGE JORDA: This is document L?
13 THE WITNESS: The modern projectile has a
14 range, I found the range in document K here. It's
15 17.133 kilometres, 70.000 kilometres and 133 metres
16 (sic). The document --
17 Q. Please, professor. We have to do this as
18 precisely as possible. The transcript, the translation
19 says 70.000 kilometres.
20 A. 17.133 metres.
21 Q. And also, for the purposes of the transcript,
22 I would like to say that we are talking about D526,
23 page 2, which is marked with a letter K, and then point
24 2. The text reads as follows: For a howitzer, 122
25 millimetre howitzer, D-30J, two part bullets are used
1 with full or partial powder charges and cumulative with
2 little rotation illuminating smoking projectiles up to
3 17.133 metres.
4 Professor, can you tell us whether both
5 shells can be fired from the same howitzer?
6 A. As I said, that this howitzer has two
7 projectiles, which are explosive, that is the range and
8 initial velocity of the more modern one, which was
9 constructed by the former Yugoslav army in the early
10 1980s. I don't have the exact year. In addition, the
11 document --
12 Q. Professor, just a minute, please. The
13 President did not have the opportunity to hear you
14 throughout. So you confirmed that both shells can be
15 fired from the same 122 millimetre howitzer, right?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Tell us, please, is there a difference
18 between the range of the old shell and, as you called
19 it, the modern shell?
20 A. We are now only speaking of the modern one,
21 the one from the former Yugoslav army. As I have said,
22 and it's noted by M76, that's M76, but I would also add
23 that this is an official document of the former
24 Yugoslav army, and this is only the first page on which
25 we see that it has been signed, and that it really is a
1 document that comes from the former Yugoslav army, that
2 the source is a sure one. That this is sure data.
3 Q. Professor, we have a certain procedure here
4 in the Court of law, and it's quite different from the
5 technical matters that you have been involved in. So I
6 would like to read the first page of document D526 and
7 then I am going to put a question to you. So I am
8 reading this for the sake of the interpretation.
9 "Federal Secretariat for National Defence, Technical
10 Department. IN No. 2372, the 25th of June 1986."
11 "On the basis of point 35 of the instructions
12 for elaborating and using military expert literature,
13 Roman numeral IV, U-1/2, edition of 1982, I hereby
14 prescribe the following technical instructions:
15 Howitzer 122 millimetres D-30J. Description, handling
16 basic and technical maintenance which shall enter into
17 force immediately." Head, Major General, master of
18 sciences, Vlado Sljivic, engineer, signed.
19 So, professor, please, would you tell us
20 whether this first page relates to the second and third
21 pages that you have already referred to?
22 A. This is the first page of the document. And
23 what I showed you, that is where the maximum range is
24 indicated, is on page 18. The other pages are not
25 necessary. This is simply to show you that this was an
1 original document.
2 JUDGE JORDA: So you are not going to -- do
3 you waive the other pages, Mr. Cayley? Will you give
4 up on the other pages?
5 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I would like to
6 know what they say before I waive on them. They may be
7 of some use.
8 JUDGE JORDA: I say we find ourselves in the
9 same problem. Let me turn to the witness.
10 Sir, there are 18 pages, referring to the 122
11 military gun, that -- a lot of pages on that gun.
12 THE WITNESS: It is the description of the
13 howitzer and giving other data which are not relevant
15 JUDGE JORDA: You are saying that. You say,
16 with all the respect that I owe to you, I have to say
17 to you -- I have to say that in an adversarial
18 discussion. You have to understand that.
19 THE WITNESS: If necessary, we can present
20 the entire document.
21 JUDGE JORDA: We won't ask for it to be
22 translated, because we won't fall ourselves into the
23 situation we were in this morning where decrees were
24 involved, but we could ask the Prosecution be given the
25 manual that will not be a condition for the
2 Perhaps it should be given to you,
3 Mr. Cayley. If you don't want to --
4 MR. CAYLEY: We would like a copy.
5 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, with your
6 permission --
7 MR. CAYLEY: The President is addressing me
8 at the moment, Mr. Nobilo.
9 Mr. President, we would like a copy of the
10 manual, if that's possible. As you can see, this is
11 page 19, so there are several pages beforehand and
12 perhaps several pages thereafter. The next document is
13 page 4, again, of a larger document. Yes, we would
14 like the full documents and we would like to know what
15 they say.
16 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, allow me.
17 JUDGE JORDA: You can give a copy of those
18 documents, I suppose that you have one, you can give a
19 copy to the Prosecution, and the Prosecutor will draw
20 the inferences from it that it wishes to. But the
21 cross-examination will not depend upon that, unless we
22 have the witness brought back.
23 Can you give him the documents, Mr. Nobilo?
24 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, I cannot, because
25 I haven't got them, and I don't feel that it is
1 necessary, because if we continue in that fashion,
2 we'll never get over this trial. I very much doubt
3 that Mr. Cayley is interested in how a howitzer is
4 manufactured. What we are talking about is its range,
5 and we have brought the necessary material on the
6 howitzers range and firepower. Are we going to bring
7 in all the manuals related to the construction of a
8 howitzer? I don't see any sense in that. We are
9 talking about the construction of a howitzer, how it is
10 manufactured, the parameters used in its manufacture,
11 whereas we are dealing with range and fire power.
12 JUDGE JORDA: The Presiding Judge is asking
13 for it, not Mr. Cayley.
14 I understand what you are trying to
15 demonstrate, and you find the basis for your
16 demonstration on this page 19 with the letter K. I
17 understand that. But, in fact, one could wonder
18 whether the description might not provide arguments
19 that could be useful for the following arguments, and
20 which would be useful for the Prosecution. I am
21 neutral in this case. I am not always neutral, but I
22 try to keep things on an even footing. We are not
23 trying to waste time. We are not running into the same
24 problems we did this morning, which had to do with
25 hierarchical constitutions.
1 For you the Defence, what is involved here is
2 establishing that in order to -- that you want to
3 counter what was testified to by a witness, and your
4 witness is prepared to show that on a page it is stated
5 -- I don't know Serbo-Croat, but we can see that what
6 you are saying is correct. Thank you for helping us.
7 That's fine. But we can legitimately ask the
8 question. It's not very complicated. I am simply
9 asking you not today to provide these documents.
10 That's not going to be a condition for the
11 cross-examination. There must be a manual that can be
12 found, since it's a military instruction manual. I am
13 not asking you provide it today or tomorrow. It's not
14 going to be a condition for the cross-examination.
15 However, if in the final arguments the
16 Prosecution wishes to counter certain points, it can be
17 in a position to do so. Do you have that document?
18 THE WITNESS: It can be found, not in The
19 Hague. I'm sure it won't be in The Hague.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Well, not now. You don't have
21 it in your briefcase, by any chance?
22 THE WITNESS: No. A colleague has it, and
23 I'll ask him to make a copy of it for us.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you very much. Please
1 A. That was regarding the first modern
2 projectiles. As regards the other projectile, here are
3 some data regarding the modern projectile. The
4 Croatian army in Croatia, we had documentation on that
5 projectile, the drawings, that we could construct it,
6 but we did not have the firing tables with us for that
7 projectile. Let's remember that we did not have the
8 firing tables, charts, that went with the projectile.
9 Q. Professor, do you maintain that there are no
10 firing tables or charts for the new projectiles? Is
11 that what you are saying?
12 JUDGE JORDA: In French it was very clear.
13 MR. NOBILO: It was not quite clear in
14 Croatian as to firing tables or charts.
15 Q. Would you explain to us the importance of the
16 firing tables or charts.
17 A. We could construct the projectiles, we could
18 manufacture them, but we did not have the firing tables
19 and we wouldn't know what angle had to be used for the
20 howitzer in order to fire at a specific target. We
21 couldn't do it without the tables. In order to
22 construct these tables, we had to calculate them. We
23 need to have a field of fire and information about the
24 field of fire which, at that point, Croatia did not
25 have. It was impossible to make them. Today Croatia
1 has a firing range with the minimum amount of
2 information that it would need, and it didn't at that
4 Q. Just one moment, please. Professor, let us
5 define more precisely what happened then and what
6 happened later on. In 1993, that is the only year that
7 we are interested in, did the Croatian army, according
8 to the best of your knowledge, manufacture modern
9 shells, and did it have the firing tables for those
10 modern shells in 1993?
11 A. It would be better to answer the question
12 after having explained the other projectile.
13 Q. Would you try? Now, why did I ask you that
14 question? Because in your previous answer you failed
15 to mention the part -- you didn't define the past and
16 the present. You didn't give us dates. I know it is
17 difficult for you to adjust to us legal men, it is
18 different from your logics, but may we try and
19 reconcile the two, marry the two. In 1993 --
20 A. As I said, that at that time, that is in
21 1993, in 1993, I said that the Croatian industry was in
22 a position to produce those productions but did not
23 produce so because we did not have the firing tables,
24 and we were not able to make the calculations. We
25 didn't have the field and we didn't have the necessary
1 instruments, everything we needed in order to measure
2 the firing range. Because of that, we did not produce
3 that modern projectile.
4 However, the other projectile, the old one,
5 the OF, of Russian make, could be bought on the black
6 market. We had the firing tables and we had the old
7 projectile, the OF, and we had the firing tables. With
8 me I have those tables, which were used at that time.
9 Q. Please continue.
10 A. To continue, I must now introduce
11 mathematics. In order to calculate the trajectories, I
12 am using a modern trajectory material table. It's a
13 model which is -- and these are your standard
14 calculations which are found in the standard 4355 of
15 NATO. All the explanations about this model are in my
16 book in Chapter 9.
17 The results, therefore, of the calculations,
18 depend on the data that you introduce into the model.
19 There are several data which are very significant and I
20 have to present them here.
21 First, there are the initial conditions for
22 flight. I found this on page 6.024, on line 22, and
23 6.029, line 10. There it states that it is 520 metres.
24 That is the height of the weapon.
25 JUDGE JORDA: You found it, Mr. Cayley? You
1 found the reference?
2 MR. CAYLEY: It's not in this set of
3 transcripts that I have here, but, as I stated before,
4 there may be a difference between the French and the
5 English. We will have to try and track it down.
6 THE WITNESS: I have the documents here.
7 JUDGE JORDA: You have them? Can you find
8 them? Very well. That would facilitate the
10 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President --
11 A. 6.024.
12 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President -- just one
13 moment, please. If I may, Mr. President. Checking the
14 correctness of the testimonies of the expert witness
15 and the pages is up to the cross-examination. In this
16 way we are using up too much time. The expert witness
17 has made a claim. It is on page such and such. He
18 said that and we can see whether it was correct or not
19 during the cross-examination.
20 JUDGE JORDA: It's a valid objection, except
21 that -- I agree with you, Mr. Nobilo. I am only doing
22 that because this has to do with the cross-examination
23 as well. Mr. Cayley, you can see that the witness will
24 accommodate you.
25 MR. CAYLEY: I may have a different version.
1 I suspect I don't. If the witness is going to show us
2 now a page number, fair enough. Then I have a version
3 that I am being provided with that is different. But I
4 disagree with my learned friend in that, clearly, the
5 Prosecutor should actually be able to follow the
6 proceedings, and it's not simply a matter for
7 cross-examination, as he suggests.
8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We will take a
9 decision. You continue to quote the pages and, at the
10 time of the cross-examination, if there are any
11 contradictions, I am not going to -- I am simply trying
12 to facilitate things here. Since the basic objection
13 came from the fact you remember -- that the fact that a
14 witness could come to testify contrary to the testimony
15 of another testimony through a transcript. I am simply
16 trying to facilitate things and to allow things to be
17 followed clearly and precisely. But, Mr. Nobilo, that
18 doesn't cause me any problems. Perhaps during the
19 cross-examination things will get straightened out. If
20 you agree, please continue.
21 MR. NOBILO:
22 Q. Please continue, professor. Carry on with
23 what you were saying, quote the pages, and during the
24 cross-examination, if there are any problems, you can
25 clarify matters. Thank you.
1 A. I had said that the first data was the
2 elevation of the weapon, and I found that data on page
3 6.024, on line 22, and 6.029, line 10. Therefore, the
4 elevation was 520. There are different data. I took
5 the data which was the least supportive of my thesis.
6 The second important data has to do with the
7 initial velocity, which is found on page 6.025, on
8 lines 10 and 11, and the document which I showed you,
9 that is referring to the initial velocity, which was
10 735 metres.
11 The next data had to do with the initial
12 angle and the elevation, as the military people say, of
13 the howitzer tube. We don't have that information for
14 right now. We'll leave that question open.
15 Then there are the weather conditions, the
16 wind, the atmosphere, that is the air pressure, and the
17 air temperature. On page 6.107, line 5 through line 8,
18 there it states that there was almost no wind at all
19 and that it was springtime, that the initial conditions
20 corresponded to the standard atmosphere, as we say
22 In the model we also looked at the earth's
23 rotation, because for a howitzer of this type that
24 rotation is influential.
25 Then there is the elevation of the target,
1 which is on page 6.024, on line 25. It states that the
2 elevation of the target was 310. There is also
3 different data, according to the author. I took those
4 that least support my thesis.
5 Therefore, we should obtain a range of 16
6 kilometres, which is stated on page 6.024, line 7 --
7 6.029, also line 7, and 6.091, line 8. We should
8 obtain the falling angle from 40 to 44 degrees, between
9 40 and 44 degrees, which is said on pages 6.020, line
10 13, and page 6.034, line 24 and 25. And these are the
11 simulation results.
12 Therefore, with me I have my portable
13 computer next to me, and I have this model in my
14 computer and I can simulate it for you as well. But to
15 be more practical, I will show you the results. But,
16 if you want, I can present them here before you or make
17 other calculations, if that's necessary.
18 Therefore, I'm speaking, first of all, about
19 the more modern projectile and figure B.
20 Q. Therefore, it is Defence Exhibit D526, page
21 B, the page marked B.
22 A. These are the results of a test, but it's
23 simply to show you that the model is correct. All the
24 data that I used as the initial data are indicated
25 here, and you can see that you have a range that we saw
1 in the document from the former Yugoslavia. Therefore,
2 the model is good.
3 Q. This refers to the new projectile, does it
5 A. I'm speaking about that projectile, and
6 that's indicated here, M76. We are speaking about this
7 projectile from the former Yugoslav army for which we
8 did not have the firing tables. We didn't have them
9 then; we don't have them now; I never saw them.
10 We will now simulate the results that we
11 need. I had said that in the model, we did not know
12 the initial angle. I looked for the initial angle by
13 making several calculations in order to find the
14 falling angle which would be the least favourable,
15 unfavourable, and that would be 44 degrees. Here are
16 the results I got with the elevation angle of 26.3
17 degrees. I had that angle, the angle of impact, but I
18 did not then have the range, which was 15 kilometres.
19 I looked for the angle and the elevation
20 which would give the range desired of 16 kilometres.
21 This is document C. Here we have the range of 16
22 kilometres, but we do not at all have the 44-degree
23 angle of fall but 48, and that was a very significant
25 Q. Just one moment, please, Professor. Let us
1 clarify some points. From where do you get the data
2 that the angle of impact, when the shell falls, must be
3 a 40-degree to 44-degree angle? Who determined that
5 A. I had said that the angle of fall should be
6 between 40 and 44 degrees. That is on page 6.020, line
7 13, and 6.034, lines 24 and 25, let me repeat, pages in
8 the text of Witness W.
9 Q. Thank you. Your calculations, which can be
10 seen on page C, indicate that this angle of impact
11 should be greater, 48.1 degrees, is that correct, for
12 it to have a range of at least 16 kilometres?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. That's what I said.
14 Q. Please continue.
15 A. In order to be complete, I sought the
16 possibility of having the 16-kilometre range and the
17 44-degree angle, it's possible, but with a very, very
18 strong wind. Therefore, you would have to have a wind
19 which would be 13.5 metres per second, and it had been
20 said that there was no wind. That's document D.
21 Q. Tell us, please, Professor, if we were to
22 satisfy the conditions that Witness W said, that there
23 was no wind, and the conditions that the angle of
24 impact was up to 44 degrees, what would be the maximum
25 range with the modern version of the shell that the
1 Croatian army did not possess, that is to say, the
2 better, the more sophisticated one?
3 A. That is document F, and here you can see that
4 the range is 15 kilometres.
5 Q. And that is insufficient to reach Zenica; is
6 that correct?
7 A. You said that you would've had to have a
8 16-kilometre range, and here it's 15.
9 Q. Therefore, according to the Prosecution
10 witness, in order to satisfy the angle of fall, which
11 he maintains, according to the traces, that it could
12 not reach a range of 16 kilometres, it would be lacking
13 one kilometre; is that your conclusion?
14 A. I repeat, what I'm showing to you here are
15 the calculations. These are the mathematics. This is
16 not my opinion but mathematics, the preciseness.
17 Q. The next question, do your calculations
18 indicate, we would like to have the text, not only
19 facts and figures and diagrams, do they show that if we
20 were to respect the fact, as ascertained by the
21 Prosecution witness, that the angle was 44 degrees and
22 that the howitzer then, even with a modern shell, would
23 not be able to reach further than 15 kilometres?
24 A. Yes, those are the results.
25 Q. Thank you. Professor, please continue.
1 A. Therefore, I will now show you the same
2 calculation with the other shell, OF, that is, the
3 Russian shell which was used and is still being used by
4 the Croatian army. We'll start with document G.
5 JUDGE JORDA: Usher, please stay near the
6 witness because he needs you, and I want the tables to
7 be visible in the public gallery.
8 A. First, I would like to say something,
9 something very important. The OF Russian shell, the
10 Croatian army does not use with that charge, with the
11 725-metre charge, and this is because the shell, the
12 Russian shell, has a maximum velocity of 690 metres per
13 second. That's the initial velocity, and we have the
14 firing tables for that velocity.
15 Nonetheless, I did calculations for the other
16 velocity because it is true that the Croatian army
17 could or would have been able to add powder in order to
18 reach that velocity, but I repeat that in that case, it
19 did not have the firing tables for that initial
20 velocity and could not use them.
21 Therefore, I will now present to you the
22 calculations that the Croatian army could not use
23 because it did not have the firing tables for that
24 velocity. Even if it had done that, it would have had
25 a 16-kilometre range. That is what one sees on
1 document G. Under normal conditions, with an elevation
2 O, with no wind, et cetera, those are normal
4 With this charge, which covered the 735
5 metres under the conditions with a target elevation
6 that we spoke about, on document I, you can see that
7 one could reach 16 kilometres but with an angle of fall
8 of 54 degrees or even more. That is much greater than
9 what had been said in the text or else --
10 Q. Excuse me, sir. I apologise for interrupting
11 you, but I would like us to go back to document G which
12 determines a rather large angle of impact of 60.5
13 degrees which is considerably, significantly higher
14 than 44 degrees as was stated by the witness?
15 A. The document that you see is really a test in
16 order to see what the maximum range of that projectile
17 would be. These are not the conditions that are of
18 interest to us, that is, the conditions of the
19 elevation and of the target elevations. The following
20 document gives us the elevation of the weapon and the
21 elevation of the target which is of interest to us.
22 This is the document which shows you the
23 520-metre elevation with an elevation of 320, and if
24 you fire over 16 kilometres, you have a much greater
25 angle, that is, you have a 53-degree angle of fall or,
1 more precisely, 53.4 degrees, or else if you want to
2 have this 44-degree angle of fall on document H (sic),
3 you can see that the range is 14 kilometres.
4 JUDGE JORDA: I think it's "N," is it not,
5 not "H," but "N"?
6 A. Excuse me, yes, it was "N." Therefore, I can
7 declare simply that what Witness W said is wrong from a
8 scientific point of view.
9 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me, Mr. Jankovic --
10 A. As a professor, I say that.
11 JUDGE JORDA: Say that you don't agree. Say
12 that you don't agree.
13 A. I say that science does not agree.
14 JUDGE JORDA: Well, the Judges will decide.
15 A. That is how we speak in our profession.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Let me give you a sense. Your
17 calculations do not match those of the witness for the
19 MR. NOBILO:
20 Q. I would like things to be quite clear because
21 this is an area which is very far from us legal men.
22 We have, of course, learned something about ballistics
23 and firing power from rifles, but I'm sure none of us
24 are well-versed in your field.
25 So with the Russian shell, the kind the
1 Croatian army didn't use, and then we can suppose that
2 the HVO didn't use it because it did not have the
3 firing charts, tables, if we wanted to satisfy the
4 angle of impact which was seen by the Prosecution
5 witness, we would be one kilometre short; is that
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. If, with the shells for which firing tables
9 existed which the Croatian army did possess and the HVO
10 did possess, we wanted to satisfy the angle of
11 impact --
12 A. No, because the Croatian army did not have
13 the firing tables with the 735 velocity. With what it
14 had and with what it used, it could not reach, not at
15 all, could not reach 16 kilometres, in no case. The
16 maximum range of the Croatian army was 15 kilometres
17 and 300 metres, that was said here, and I have firing
18 tables. I didn't make calculations. It's not
19 necessary. They were original documents that could be
21 Q. Therefore, on document N, we have the
22 velocity of the fire of the shell at 735 metres per
24 A. I did these calculations because it is
25 possible that the Croatian army could add powder --
1 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, you said that already.
2 You said that already. I think it's very clear. Let's
3 try to summarise. You'll never reach 16 kilometres
4 with the thesis of the witness. That's very simple.
5 Very well.
6 Mr. Nobilo, please continue with your
8 MR. NOBILO: I have almost finished, but I
9 have one more question to ask the witness.
10 Q. Witness W spoke about additional ammunition
11 charging, additional charging, and that if you added
12 additional powder, the range could be longer and reach
13 16 kilometres. What can you say on that score?
14 A. As far as I know, one always has to look at
15 documentation when one wants to study technical
16 problems. This howitzer is called, in Russian, "pola
17 puni"; in English, it's "full"; in French, I would say
18 "complet." It's the powder, as Witness W said, 3.8
19 kilograms, and that was a piece, one piece.
20 There are different mixtures of powders, but
21 for the artillery people, that was the type of powder
22 that they used, and that's how you reach the initial
23 velocity of 690. This charge, this powder, which
24 determines velocity that was used by the former
25 Yugoslav army, I never saw, but it is most likely
1 possible to add powder, that is, add powder to this
2 full charge, in order to achieve that. But these are
3 technical problems, and I'm not prepared to answer
4 that. You would have to look at the documents and make
5 calculations, et cetera.
6 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Mr. Nobilo?
7 MR. NOBILO:
8 Q. But according to your experience, did the
9 Croatian army, with whom you cooperated technologically
10 speaking, did it construct and manufacture shells with
11 some extra charge?
12 A. I, myself, constructed a 122-millimetre
13 projectile with a great range which is one of the
14 projectiles that we called base bleed, and my
15 colleagues gave it the necessary charge in order to
16 reach the velocity that's used, because now we have the
17 instruments, we have the firing ranges, and we have a
18 projectile which is of much greater range.
19 Q. Tell us, please, when did you do this? What
20 year was that?
21 A. The first weapon was prepared in -- we flew
22 it in 1997, the spring, I think it was in May.
23 Q. What about 1993, did the Croatian army have
24 any of the things you have just mentioned?
25 A. That was impossible. I knew then what I know
1 now, but we didn't have the technical assets.
2 Q. These calculations, the software that you
3 used in calculating the targets and ranges, are they
5 A. As I said to you, these are the
6 calculations. I gave you the name of the model, and I
7 told you that it's standard and it's found, that is,
8 the reference is found, it's standard 4355. If you
9 want, I have these calculations in my portable
10 computer. I have my book. There's a chapter on the
11 methods, et cetera.
12 Q. That is the NATO reference, is it?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. NOBILO: We have thus completed, and we
15 would like to offer this as an exhibit, Exhibit D526.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley?
18 MR. CAYLEY: I'd like to reserve the position
19 of the Prosecutor on this until we have at least an
20 English translation of the contents of this red file,
21 and as we stated --
22 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.
23 MR. CAYLEY: -- we would like full copies of
24 the documents that have been referred to and not just
25 these extracts that appear here, please.
1 JUDGE JORDA: It's difficult to delay the
2 cross-examination, if we have to do that for each
3 witness. Personally, it seems difficult to me. We're
4 talking about calculations here. You can contradict
5 what's been said. I, myself, asked that the entire
6 work be given to us, but understand me well here.
7 We're talking about calculations that are very complex
8 by the artillery people, but thanks to the witness,
9 these have been made more simple to understand. But
10 the major point of the direct examination dealt with
11 the trajectory, that is, can one reach 16 kilometres
12 starting with the assumptions expressed by the various
13 witnesses that were your witnesses?
14 I think we're going to take a break. We will
15 resume at 5.00, and then you can do your
16 cross-examination. If, later, in the coming weeks and
17 once all these translations have been provided and you
18 have a problem, you can submit a written brief, but in
19 my opinion, we cannot delay the cross-examination.
20 Please understand what I'm saying. This is not the
21 same problem we ran into this morning. This is a
22 problem in which the direct examination dealt only with
23 trajectory issues and calculations. I think you have
24 to refer back to trajectory problems and calculations.
25 Otherwise, we will never finish. Do you understand
1 what I mean? You need to have a calculator in order to
2 do the calculations, and that will facilitate the
3 calculations for you.
4 MR. CAYLEY: As you know, I'm not a
5 ballistics expert. I'm not suggesting that we delay
6 the cross-examination. I can commence. However, in
7 respect of all of the references that have been made to
8 the transcript, which I genuinely cannot locate in the
9 transcript that I have, if I cannot locate those by
10 5.00, and I don't think I'm going to be able to go
11 through about 30 references in 25 minutes, then I would
12 like to continue with the cross-examination on the
13 balance of that tomorrow.
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cayley, subject
15 to what the registrar is going to tell me, it seems to
16 me that this discussion about the transcripts seems a
17 little bit odd. In one of the most modern courts in
18 the world where we have transcripts right in front of
19 us, I don't think it should be very difficult. The
20 witness quoted four, five, six things. You simply have
21 to make the correspondence between the transcripts that
22 the witness read in French with the English transcripts
23 that you have. If there's a contradiction, you can
24 point it out. If you like, I can give you a half
25 hour. We can resume at ten after five so that you can
1 have the time. I had really foreseen this objection.
2 That's why I asked Mr. Nobilo to agree to our wasting a
3 little bit of time first.
4 Let me make a suggestion. We'll take a
5 30-minute break. It won't be a break for you, I
6 understand, and the registrar can be available to you
7 in order to make the correlation between the English
8 and French transcripts. Therefore, Mr. Dubuisson,
9 there won't be any --
10 THE WITNESS: Can I say something? These are
11 quotations from the English transcripts and I have
12 them. I read them in English.
13 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.
14 THE WITNESS: I have the test here. I can
15 make it available to you.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, do you want to make
17 a statement?
18 MR. HAYMAN: I have checked the citations
19 during the witness's testimony, and I have found all
20 but one, in the English, unofficial transcript.
21 They're there. I found them.
22 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Mr. Cayley, you've
23 got 30 minutes and, with a calculator, you have the
24 transcripts and then we can conduct the
1 --- Recess taken at 4.40 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 5.15 p.m.
3 JUDGE JORDA: We can resume the hearing now,
4 please. Have the witness brought in and the accused.
5 (The accused entered court)
6 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
7 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Cross-examined by Mr. Cayley:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Professor. My name is
10 Cayley. I'm from the Office of the Prosecutor. These
11 are my colleagues, Mr. Harmon and Mr. Kehoe.
12 Now, the first question that I have for you
13 is, what type of weapon fired from a position that day
14 onto Zenica? What type of 122-millimetre fired that
16 A. I listened to the Croatian translation and
17 did not really understand your question, because in
18 Croatian, I was asked what weapon was launched from the
19 position. I understood "from the position." I
20 understood from the text, that's something I don't know
21 about, but when I read the text, speaking about a
22 122-millimetre howitzer and explosive projectiles, and
23 I said that there are two types of this projectile.
24 Q. You obviously didn't understand my question,
25 Professor. Listen very carefully to what I'm saying.
1 I will speak slowly, and directly answer the question
2 if you can. If you cannot answer the question, simply
3 say, "I don't know," and that will suffice.
4 The question that I'm asking you is what type
5 of 122-millimetre howitzer fired on the 18th April,
7 A. I do not know. I assumed according to the
8 text and according to what I know, that is to say, in
9 terms of what the Croatian army has, that this is a
10 122-millimetre howitzer, D30.
11 Q. You said that you didn't know, and the fact
12 is, Professor, that unless you were there, you wouldn't
13 know, would you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. There are two kinds of D30s that are relevant
16 for these proceedings. There is a D30-A and a D30-J,
17 isn't there, Professor?
18 A. Yes. From a ballistics point of view, they
19 have the same characteristics, though.
20 Q. The D30-J, though, Professor, is a Yugoslav
21 variant, isn't it, of the D30-A, and it has a longer
22 range, doesn't it, Professor?
23 A. I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. Well, Professor, let me show you my first
25 exhibit, which is an extract from Jane's, a world
1 renowned publication on weapon systems, if the witness
2 can be shown this exhibit.
3 THE REGISTRAR: This is document 564.
4 MR. CAYLEY:
5 Q. Now, Professor, this is the RH Alan
6 122-millimetre howitzer, D30, and I would like you to
7 go straight to the second page of this document, and
8 you will see --
9 JUDGE JORDA: Just a moment, Mr. Cayley.
10 Excuse me. Are you talking about page 1 or page 2?
11 MR. CAYLEY: Page 2, Mr. President, which,
12 midway down the page, says "Czech Republic and
14 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. All right. Thank you.
15 Would you put this on the ELMO, please?
16 MR. CAYLEY:
17 Q. Now, you will see that the maximum range for
18 this particular weapon firing base bleed is 20.000
19 metres, firing an M76 projectile is 17.133 metres, and
20 firing --
21 JUDGE JORDA: Is this listed under
22 "Features," "Characteristics"?
23 MR. CAYLEY: It's listed on the second page
24 of the document under --
25 JUDGE JORDA: Yes.
1 MR. CAYLEY: -- "Maximum Range."
2 JUDGE JORDA: So it's 21 miles because I
3 heard a translation of -- oh, 21.000, and I heard
4 21.000 instead of 20.000. Is it 21.000 or 20.000?
5 MR. CAYLEY: Can you move this document down
6 on the ELMO? No, no.
7 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the witness spoke
8 in French. He does know some English, but I personally
9 do not know whether it is sufficient. It would be a
10 good thing to have this text read so that the text can
11 be translated into French and Croatian so that my
12 defendant could also understand.
13 JUDGE JORDA: He can't have the translation
14 in French?
15 THE WITNESS: It isn't necessary. I
16 understand it well enough.
17 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Let me go back to
18 my question now, it is really not a translation
19 question, is it 21 -- I see. It's 21.000 metres.
20 You're talking about the gun at the top of the page; is
21 that correct?
22 MR. CAYLEY: That's correct, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE JORDA: So it's the D30 HR M94. That's
24 the gun we're talking about.
25 MR. CAYLEY: That's right.
1 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Continue.
2 MR. CAYLEY:
3 Q. Now, the maximum range of this weapon, and
4 this, I know, is a Croatian variant of the weapon, is
5 15.300 metres with a TF462 projectile and full charge,
6 17.133 metres with an M76 projectile, and 20.000 metres
7 with the M95 base bleed projectile.
8 Now, if I can show you the next exhibit
9 before I ask you a question, so that --
10 MR. CAYLEY: What is the number of the next
11 exhibit, Mr. Registrar?
12 THE REGISTRAR: The next exhibit will be
14 MR. CAYLEY: Again, I apologise,
15 Mr. President, this is not translated into French or
17 JUDGE JORDA: We are talking about numbers
18 for the time being, so I don't have too many problems
19 with those.
20 MR. CAYLEY:
21 Q. Now, this is the standard D30J Yugoslav
22 variance, and if I could just read. The maximum range
23 when firing a standard high explosive projectile with a
24 full charge is given as 17.300 metres. The D30J can
25 fire the full family of ammunition developed for the
1 Russian D30. The Yugoslavs had under development a M82
2 heat projectile. I don't need to read the rest of
3 that. The Yugoslav and 76 projectile has a maximum
4 range of 17.300 metres.
5 Now, professor, you would agree with me that
6 the Croatian 122-millimetre variance, the D30 HR M94
7 has a maximum range of 20.000 metres, and the D30J
8 122-millimetre howitzer, has a maximum range of 17.300
9 metres. Do you agree with me there?
10 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, could we have a
11 date on these documents that counsel is showing the
12 witness? There is no date legible on them. Where do
13 they come from? What's the date?
14 JUDGE JORDA: Of course. I've frequently
15 asked for the sources of documents and I will not --
16 and I won't fail to ask the same question of the
18 Is this a recent version of the work?
19 MR. CAYLEY: This is a recent publication of
20 Jane's. I do not know the date off the top of my
21 head. I will find out. Placing the D30J howitzer in
22 time, this is a JNA variant. This is a gun that was
23 designed before the breakup of the former Yugoslavia,
24 as far as I understand. I will find out. This was not
25 something developed by the Croatian army, it was
1 developed by the JNA prior to 1983, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Whenever you like,
3 but -- not so that the Defence can conduct its
4 re-direct, but, perhaps, in the final arguments it
5 might want to contest what you've said. Therefore, you
6 should give the exact title, the edition, and I thank
7 you in advance for doing that.
8 MR. CAYLEY:
9 Q. Sorry, professor, the D30J is a JNA variance
10 of the D30. Could you please answer if you don't --
11 A. Yes, I can answer that question. First of
12 all, the Croatian howitzer is the continuation of the
13 Yugoslav one, because the Yugoslav howitzer was
14 manufactured in Travnik. There were many Croatians
15 who worked there. They came to Croatia and they
16 continued --
17 Q. Professor, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I
18 am short of time. Although it's an interesting
19 explanation of where it's manufactured, can you simply
20 directly answer my question. Is the D30J a JNA variant
21 of the D30, 122 millimetre, and was it manufactured in
22 the former Yugoslavia prior to 1993?
23 JUDGE JORDA: Those are two questions. First
24 question: The D30J -- I believe it's D30J? Is that
25 right? Yes.
1 THE WITNESS: If I've understood the question
2 right, the difference between the Croatian howitzer and
3 the Yugoslav howitzer? Is that what it was?
4 JUDGE JORDA: I think the Prosecution is
5 asking a very simple question. Would you reformulate
6 your question, Mr. Cayley, but one question only,
7 that's the first part of the question.
8 MR. CAYLEY: My apologies to the Court. I am
9 watching the clock.
10 Q. Can you answer this question, please, yes or
11 no. Is the D30J the Yugoslav variant of the D30, 122
12 millimetre howitzer?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm sorry, this sounds terribly basic,
15 professor, for a man of your knowledge, but we are not
16 experts. Was that weapon manufactured in the former
17 Yugoslavia prior to 1993?
18 A. The howitzer D30J was a -- it was a howitzer
19 of the former Yugoslavia.
20 Q. The JNA was equipped with this piece of
22 A. I think that it would have been normal for it
23 to have been.
24 Q. And this extract from Jane's artillery
25 confirms that the maximum range of the D30J was 17.300
1 metres. Do you agree with that?
2 A. We can go to the essential on the range, and
3 I can give you the answer. This -- introduction is not
4 necessary. The 20-kilometre range that you see here,
5 this is the projectile range that I constructed. I did
6 it. I told you that the first piece was flown in 1997,
7 and it is the model --
8 Q. Professor, excuse me.
9 JUDGE JORDA: Just a moment, Mr. Cayley. Let
10 the witness -- you asked a question, let him answer.
11 THE WITNESS: We decided to construct it in
13 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. And the name?
14 THE WITNESS: Shall I continue?
15 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, but briefly. You asked a
16 question, you answered, you made a short commentary,
17 but then we give the floor to the -- there is a
18 projectile that you yourself constructed in 1995, and
19 whose name is?
20 THE WITNESS: M95, because we decided to
21 construct it that year.
22 MR. CAYLEY:
23 Q. Do you agree with the Jane's article that
24 states that the maximum range of the D30J was 17.300
25 metres using a M76 projectile?
1 A. I am familiar with those data, but those are
2 commercial data, and for us technicians it was not
3 relevant, because I have shown you the official
4 document of the army. It is more sure and older than
5 stated in law. According to the various prospectuses
6 in commercial brochures, there are data which are
7 somewhat questionable, and for me it's not precise.
8 What I showed you in the document from Yugoslavia is
9 the one which is -- are the data that I consider to be
10 correct. And that's what I know.
11 Q. Are you saying that Jane's, a world respected
12 publication on military weapon systems, is wrong?
13 A. I am saying that it's different from the
14 original document, and for me the original document is
15 the one that I use.
16 Q. Would you please, professor, would you please
17 answer the question, because you are in disagreement
18 with the figure that I am quoting to you. Are you
19 stating that Jane's, a world respected organisation on
20 information about military weapon systems, is wrong,
21 that the figure that they have quoted for the maximum
22 range of a D30J is incorrect?
23 A. I can repeat my answer --
24 JUDGE JORDA: No, no, no. There is no need
25 to do so.
1 THE WITNESS: Or I can add. Even if I had
2 had that result, if I had taken as an initial data from
3 my -- from a document, nothing would have changed.
4 MR. CAYLEY:
5 Q. Professor, the range that a shell flies
6 through the air depends on what type of shell it is,
7 doesn't it? So different ammunition flies a different
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What type of shells landed in Zenica on the
11 18th of April, 1993? What type of projectile?
12 A. I am not the one who was on site. The only
13 thing I can tell you is that I read the document, I
14 read the text, and in the document they speak about the
15 explosive -- the explosive of 122 millimetres, and
16 that's all can I say, and in order not to repeat
17 everything I have already said.
18 Q. Please bear with me, professor. I'll move as
19 quickly as I can. It would affect the range, wouldn't
20 it, the type of shell that fell in Zenica?
21 A. Yes, of course.
22 Q. Some shells go further than other shells,
23 don't they, professor? Some shells have the ability to
24 travel a greater distance?
25 A. Yes, of course.
1 Q. You have no idea what type of shell fell in
2 Zenica on the 18th of April, do you, professor?
3 A. Only what I read in the -- in that document.
4 Q. You only read that it was 122-millimetre
5 shell, didn't you?
6 A. No. I read that the explosive shell -- and I
7 said that there were two explosives. I am talking
8 about the two explosives. There was the two explosive
10 Q. Now, you spoke about the difference in range
11 between old and modern shells.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You stated that modern shells had the
14 capacity to travel a further distance than old shells?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What type of ammunition were the HVO using in
18 A. I don't know anything about the HVO in
19 Bosnia. I am a professor in Zagreb and had contacts
20 with the Croatian army, and everything that I said is
21 relevant for the Croatian army.
22 Q. So you cannot tell the Judges anything about
23 the type of ammunition that was fired on the 18th of
24 April, 1993?
25 A. Only what I read in those documents.
1 Q. Professor, did you, in the process of your
2 calculations, travel to the site in Zenica to assess
3 the geography and see the impact sites?
4 A. I did not need to. Not at all.
5 Q. Would you agree with me that the best
6 witnesses in respect of an incident such as this are
7 individuals who were present at the time of this
8 shelling and who gave eyewitness accounts to the
10 A. I am speaking about mathematics here, about
11 calculations. I don't know what I could say about
12 witnesses who were on site. I don't know anything
13 about that.
14 Q. You didn't answer my question. Do you not
15 believe that experts who are on site in Zenica, on the
16 day of this incident, military personnel from all over
17 the world, can give a better insight to the Judges of
18 what actually happened?
19 A. What I read in this material, these texts,
20 are things that I don't agree with. That's the only
21 thing I can say. I can't give you an opinion about
22 something I don't know. I don't know.
23 Q. Which witnesses did you have the occasion to
24 read make when you made your study of the Zenica
1 A. I read the text of the Major, Witness V and
2 Witness W.
3 Q. Professor, have you ever been involved in the
4 process of crater analysis in your career?
5 A. Yes, very frequently. I looked at craters
6 very often on the firing ranges.
7 Q. Would you agree with me that crater analysis
8 can provide a good indication of the type of
9 projectile, the calibre of the projectile, and the
10 bearing, the direction from which the projectile was
12 A. Yes, I have read many things about that and I
13 prepared myself to reach a similar conclusion. The
14 determination of the calibre and direction and the
15 angle of fall starting from a crater is something I
16 have never seen discussed in scientific or technical
17 literature. Therefore, this is not a problem which is
18 resolved in advance, but rather problems that
19 technicians and people have to resolve on site with the
20 knowledge that they have. Therefore, in practice,
21 through tests on the firing ranges, we record what the
22 effects are, that is, what is the crater produced by a
23 given projectile. We know the projectile that we are
24 using to fire, and through tests we can note what
25 crater it produces in the firing range, and we consider
1 that to be the performance of that projectile of that
3 As regards the contrary, that's a very great
4 problem for which I do not have a solution, but it must
5 be said that when we look at the fragments and the
6 pieces of projectile, we can recognise the projectile
7 that fell ordinarily through large pieces, that is,
8 that very often, the rocket remains in one piece and
9 that the base, the base of the projectile, produces
10 large pieces, and one can recognise those pieces as
11 parts of projectiles. That's possible and that's done,
12 but you have to be careful here as well because the
13 same rocket can use several shells.
14 For instance, the rocket RGM, there's a
15 similar Yugoslav version, that rocket uses
16 122-millimetres, that's the howitzer that we're
17 speaking about. It also uses 130 guns and 152 howitzer
18 guns, therefore, all three, that's one thing, and one
19 has to be careful.
20 MR. HAYMAN: Professor, let me just
22 Mr. President, at the beginning of this
23 paragraph, I think the word "inverse" was translated as
24 "contrary." In the French, I'm pretty sure it was
25 inverse. The professor was talking about whether you
1 could reason in both directions, that is, from a known
2 shell to a characteristic, but then he commented on the
3 inverse, from the characteristic back to the shell. In
4 the English translation, it was translated as "the
5 contrary." I think it's "the inverse."
6 THE INTERPRETER: Converse.
7 MR. HAYMAN: Inverse or converse.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Converse.
9 MR. HAYMAN: It was translated as "the
11 MR. CAYLEY: I have to say, Mr. President, I
12 didn't spot that. All I've spotted is that Mr. Hayman
13 and I have been confused on the transcript, and it's
14 now referring to Mr. Cayley as Mr. Hayman, but that's a
15 small point.
16 JUDGE JORDA: Well, the inverse or converse?
17 MR. CAYLEY: I'll ask the witness.
18 JUDGE JORDA: Let's do it again. Do you want
19 to make a correction? Converse, inverse?
20 A. May I answer?
21 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, specify, please.
22 A. To be very precise, for a given projectile,
23 the tests determine the crater, and we know that the
24 projectile produces this or that crater, and that
25 crater could have been produced by another projectile,
1 but we will never go from a crater to say what crater
2 it was that produced it, but we know that a projectile
3 produced the crater.
4 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Let's move along,
5 Mr. Cayley.
6 MR. CAYLEY:
7 Q. Professor, you studied the testimony of Major
8 Baggesen, and would you agree with me that he assessed
9 the direction of fire as 270 degrees?
10 A. Well, I can't answer that, and I'll explain
11 why. Whenever I look at a crater, I look at the earth,
12 I don't look at the crater on an asphalt surface. We
13 don't do that in technical studies. I have never seen
14 craters of this type, and I can't answer that
15 question. And the photos that I saw were unusable.
16 They were not oriented in such a way that one could say
18 Q. Photographs can only be used for illustrative
19 purposes, can't they, Professor? You cannot calculate
20 range and bearing from a photograph, can you? It's
21 very difficult.
22 A. I didn't understand what you said. I said
23 that, according to the copies of the photographs that I
24 looked at, I can't say anything about the direction on
25 asphalt, and especially because, in practice, I have
1 never seen a crater produced on asphalt.
2 JUDGE JORDA: If you prefer to speak in your
3 own language, of course, Professor, you can, because
4 you seem to say that you don't understand what
5 Mr. Cayley is saying, and I'm very sensitive to the
6 fact that you're speaking in French. Perhaps it would
7 be better for you to speak in your own language, and
8 then the interpreters will interpret, but you can do as
9 you like. I'm only making a comment to try to
10 facilitate things, if you say you didn't understand
11 what you were asked.
12 THE WITNESS: It's to understand the
13 question. It's not a question of the answer.
14 JUDGE JORDA: No, no, I understand, but
15 perhaps if you were to keep your answers --
16 THE WITNESS: There were many technical
17 terms. The interpretation sometimes takes a little
18 longer to come out. That's all. I'm only trying to
19 understand the question well.
20 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Do as you like. Do
21 as you like.
22 Mr. Nobilo?
23 MR. NOBILO: I just wish to say the
24 following: We talked to the witness, and he said that
25 he wanted to answer in French, and the Defence thought
1 that this was necessary, and this is obviously so.
2 With all due respect to the interpreters, who
3 do a splendid job as far as legal terms are concerned,
4 but I must say that the translation into Croatian is
5 not perfectly clear, so it's important for you, as the
6 Presiding Judge, to get it all right in French, and if
7 the Defence doesn't get it all right in Croatian, it's
8 of lesser importance.
9 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Continue.
10 MR. CAYLEY:
11 Q. Professor, it is far easier to make an
12 assessment from a crater on range and bearing if you
13 are actually present, compared to purely using
14 photographic material; do you agree with that?
15 A. Excuse me. You said two things, that you
16 want to make an evaluation on the basis of a crater, an
17 evaluation of the range and the direction. The first
18 question is not possible to answer. One cannot
19 evaluate the range on the basis of the crater. I don't
20 believe one can. That's my opinion.
21 Q. You misunderstood my question, Professor --
22 A. And the second question that you asked --
23 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me for interrupting.
24 You didn't understand the question. We want to move
25 things forward. You see, there is a comprehension
1 problem here. Prosecution counsel is asking you
2 whether it's easier to make an evaluation from a
3 photograph or from on-site observations. That's the
5 A. As I said to you, I had to understand the
6 translation properly.
7 MR. NOBILO: Yes, Mr. President, exactly, but
8 he also added the range and the direction, and then the
9 professor said that the range cannot be ascertained on
10 the basis of the crater at all, and probably he's going
11 to continue now.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, first let's try to
13 understand the questions so that we can understand the
14 answers better. Please do not give an additional
15 interpretation of what your witness is saying. He's
16 big enough to know what he has to say.
17 All right. Ask your question again,
18 Mr. Cayley.
19 MR. CAYLEY: We'll break it down and put it
20 in a more straightforward fashion.
21 Q. In terms of crater analysis, Professor, is it
22 easier to make observations of a crater on the site or
23 from photographic material?
24 A. On-site.
25 Q. Now, you studied the testimony of Major
1 Baggesen, didn't you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You would agree with me that he came to the
4 conclusion that the angle of fire was 270 degrees.
5 That was his testimony, wasn't it, Professor?
6 A. Yes. I read that.
7 Q. He also assessed the size of the artillery
8 shell as being a 122-millimetre shell, didn't he?
9 A. I don't remember.
10 Q. Let me remind you. Again, these transcript
11 references may not be correct because I, apparently
12 having spoken to my learned friend, Mr. Hayman, have a
13 slightly different edition than he. On page
14 1.939: "We discussed and we concluded that it had to
15 be medium artillery, that is, 122-millimetre
17 Do you recall reading that, Professor?
18 A. No. I had the material starting with page
20 Q. So you didn't consider the
21 examination-in-chief of Major Baggesen in giving your
22 presentation today to the Court?
23 A. I prepared starting from page 2.112.
24 Q. Would it surprise you to know, Professor,
25 that you don't have all of Major Baggesen's testimony?
1 A. Well, I don't know.
2 Q. Do you not think you would have been able to
3 give better observations to the Court if you had had
4 the complete transcript of Major Baggesen's testimony
5 about the Zenica shelling?
6 A. I've given my opinion based on what I read.
7 I didn't need anything else.
8 Q. So you're stating to the Judges that you
9 believe that you can give your expert opinion on the
10 incomplete testimony of an expert eyewitness to the
11 shelling of Zenica?
12 A. I don't know how to answer that.
13 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the witness has
14 answered this, and now repeating these questions makes
15 no sense. If the Prosecutor wishes to do so, he can
16 quote Major Baggesen, and then he's going to present
17 his opinion, but why repeat it time and again?
18 JUDGE JORDA: No, I don't think that's
19 right. I think that the Prosecutor is following a
21 Continue, Mr. Cayley. I think it is almost
22 6.00, but continue for a few more moments, and then the
23 case will continue tomorrow. Go ahead.
24 MR. CAYLEY:
25 Q. Do you believe that you would have been able
1 to give a better opinion to the Judges had Mr. Nobilo
2 provided you with the complete testimony of Major
4 JUDGE JORDA: No, he answered that question,
5 Mr. Cayley. Now there I agree with Mr. Nobilo. He
6 answered. He said that the elements that he had were
7 enough for him in order to give an answer. Move to
8 another question, please.
9 MR. CAYLEY:
10 Q. Did you read the part of Major Baggesen's
11 testimony where he assessed the range to be 15
12 kilometres; do you recall that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you think it would have been helpful to
15 you in your testimony here today had you been provided
16 with that piece of evidence that Major Baggesen
17 provided to the Court?
18 A. I didn't need anything more than what I
19 already had.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. Mr. Cayley, you received
21 that answer already. The witness is satisfied with the
22 materials that he had and that he read. You can
23 cross-examine him on those things that he read.
24 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, this is actually
25 a different point. This is a different piece of
1 information which the witness did not have, and I think
2 it's a fairly serious matter, if a witness is coming in
3 here to comment upon evidence and he's commenting on an
4 incomplete file of evidence.
5 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. All right. Excuse me.
6 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, at this point, we
7 can --
8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I'll let you make
9 your evaluation. All right. Go ahead.
10 MR. CAYLEY: The point that I'm making,
11 Mr. President, is that it appears the witness had not
12 been provided with all of the evidence of Major
13 Baggesen. Now, he --
14 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, we know that now. Go
15 ahead. Go ahead.
16 MR. CAYLEY: I'm simply stating to the Court,
17 and perhaps it's a matter for final argument, that I
18 think that that is a fairly serious matter, since he is
19 only commenting on written evidence that he has been
20 provided with.
21 MR. HAYMAN: Well, since we're discussing
22 that matter, Mr. President, Major Baggesen did not
23 undertake a ballistics study. Witness W did. Major
24 Baggesen did not undertake a ballistics study. He did
25 not. He made no mathematical calculations.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President --
2 MR. HAYMAN: It's apples and oranges, and
3 counsel can argue in closing argument, but if we're
4 going to argue the issue, then let's have both sides
5 argue it because we have something to say about that
7 JUDGE JORDA: No, no. First of all, we're
8 not trying to accuse anybody of anything here.
9 We will resume tomorrow at 2.00. I would
10 like to point out to Mr. Cayley that it's three times
11 now that we -- there are two things. First of all, the
12 witness did not have all of the testimony, and you can
13 draw all the conclusions you like from that, but the
14 second thing is we know that the witness found enough
15 material in what was given to him in order to do his
17 From that point on, you can continue.
18 Perhaps you can ask one or two questions on this
19 subject before we end for this evening.
20 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I'm probably
21 going to be moving to another witness's testimony, so
22 now would be a convenient time to pause.
23 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I think so too. We
24 can resume tomorrow at 2.00 for the continuation of the
25 cross-examination. First, we'll begin with the
1 cross-examination of this witness, Mr. Jankovic, before
2 we move to the cross-examination of the previous
4 All right. The Court stands adjourned. We
5 will resume tomorrow at 2.00.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
7 6.02 p.m., to be reconvened on
8 Wednesday, the 20th day of January, 1999
9 at 2.00 p.m.