1 Wednesday, 20th January, 1999
2 (Open session)
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.07 p.m.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Have the accused brought in,
6 (The accused entered court)
7 JUDGE JORDA: Good afternoon to the
8 interpreters, to the court reporters, to all counsel.
9 We can resume now with the cross-examination of
10 Mr. Jankovic.
11 Is that correct, Mr. Dubuisson?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that is correct.
13 Slobodan Jankovic.
14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, what do you have,
15 about another 30 minutes that you need? So about 10
16 minutes to 3.00 is when you should finish. That is so
17 long as the witness comes right into the courtroom.
18 Well, we are not going to count every single minute,
19 you know. I am talking approximately.
20 (The witness entered court)
21 JUDGE JORDA: Good afternoon, Mr. Jankovic.
22 Please be seated. Let me remind you that you are still
23 under oath and that you are being asked questions by
24 Mr. Cayley from The Office of the Prosecutor, and he'll
25 ask you questions for about a half hour as part of the
2 Mr. Cayley, you may proceed.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon,
4 Mr. President, good afternoon, Judge Shahabuddeen, good
5 afternoon counsel
6 WITNESS: SLOBODAN JANKOVIC
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Cayley: (Cont'd)
8 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Jankovic. I hope you
9 enjoyed a pleasant evening in The Hague last night.
10 A. Thank you.
11 Q. Now, you stated yesterday that one cannot
12 evaluate the range on the basis of crater analysis. Do
13 you recall saying that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the reason for that, Professor, is
16 because it is extremely difficult to accurately measure
17 the angle of impact of a shell, isn't it?
18 A. Well, that depends. No, I didn't say that.
19 I mean, if you have the beginnings of a hole where the
20 projectile has gone in, if you have that -- I don't
21 know whether that existed or whether they exploded. I
22 don't know if there was a crater or if there was not,
23 or there was the beginning of a hole, but if there is,
24 on the basis of the access of that hole you can see
25 where the projectile is coming from. That happens
1 frequently. But I don't think that was the case.
2 Q. So you are stating in this particular case
3 there wasn't a good crater from which to measure the
4 angle of impact?
5 A. Yes, that's how I think.
6 Q. Now, if that was the case and the angle of
7 impact was inaccurately measured, that would vastly
8 change the calculations that you made for the Defence,
9 wouldn't it?
10 A. Well, we are getting into a technical
11 discussion. Just a moment, please. I said that I
12 never saw the effect on asphalt, and in the text I
13 read, that there were very clear radii on the asphalt,
14 which I didn't see that. You can't see that on the
15 photographs either. However, it is true -- let's make
16 a distinction. What I was talking about yesterday was
17 mathematics, and those were exact things. Now we are
18 talking about opinions. It is probable -- I didn't
19 make that kind of a calculation.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, do you want to
21 interrupt the witness? Excuse me, Mr. Jankovic, the
22 Defence Counsel wants to say something. I am going to
23 give him the floor for that reason.
24 MR. NOBILO: I am afraid, because we are
25 talking about technical terms, that the interpretation
1 from French into English was not technically correct.
2 Mr. Jankovic has been talking about dispersion and also
3 the direction from which the shell is coming, and, to
4 the best of my knowledge, as far as the English
5 language is concerned, my learned colleague,
6 Mr. Cayley, has been asking about the angle of fall,
7 whether it can be calculated properly, and Professor
8 Jankovic is answering about dispersion and about
9 setting the right direction. So these are two
10 different things. Of course, Professor Jankovic
11 understands what I am saying in Croatian, so let us
12 please clarify this matter, because the difference is
14 JUDGE JORDA: All right. The Prosecutor has
15 a limited amount of time and I don't want him to be
16 interrupted too frequently. He has about 30 minutes.
17 Mr. Cayley, could you reformulate your question. I'll
18 ask you, Mr. Jankovic, even though it is a very
19 technical subject, to try to answer as close to the
20 question as you can. This is for time reasons, and in
21 terms of equity between the Defence and the
22 Prosecution. Thank you very much.
23 Mr. Cayley, would you please reformulate your
24 question and, as much as possible, try to take into
25 account Mr. Nobilo's questions.
1 A. I heard the questions. Perhaps I was making
2 a rather long introduction.
3 JUDGE JORDA: If you've understood the
4 question and if you can answer it, then go ahead.
5 A. The two things are connected. One cannot
6 answer the questions just by speaking out of the air.
7 It requires a technical analysis and that takes some
8 time. I would have to do some calculations. I would
9 have to look at things. I would have to study things.
10 One cannot give answers just like that, just speaking.
11 But the two things can be connected, one to the other,
12 and I can explain why. But that would take some time,
13 and I don't know -- and it will take time if I were to
14 go into those details.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Well, it's not my time that's
16 being counted here. Mr. Cayley is the one who has to
17 decide about the density of the questions that he is
18 asking. It seems to me that the question he asked was
20 MR. CAYLEY: I thought so, Mr. President, and
21 in fact the witness answered my question. He was
22 trying to explain that when a shell hits the ground, it
23 makes a radii-like pattern. That was the translation
24 that I got. That's what I understood he was saying.
25 In any event.
1 Q. Professor, it is correct, is it not, from the
2 photographs that you saw, that it would have been
3 difficult to accurately measure the angle of impact of
4 the shell on the ground?
5 A. On the photographs you can't see anything.
6 No conclusions can be drawn from those photographs.
7 They are absolutely unusable.
8 Q. Now, if there was an inaccuracy in the angle
9 of impact, that would make your graphs here, frankly,
10 not of very much use to the Court, wouldn't it?
11 A. No, because what I said to you was that I did
12 the calculations on the initial velocity of 735, and I
13 told you that the Croatian army did not have that
14 table, didn't have that charge. However, I presented
15 the results in order to show you that even with those
16 results, the data do not coincide among themselves.
17 They are contradictory. But the most important thing
18 is, I believe, is that the Croatian army did not have
19 those tables and could not use that supercharge. You
20 call that additional charge in your texts. But it was
21 out of the question to do so.
22 Q. Professor, listen very carefully to my
23 question, because at the moment I am talking about the
24 accuracy of the angle of impact. If there was a
25 10-degree inaccuracy in the angle of impact when this
1 shell hit the ground, how would that effect the range?
2 Let's say it hit the ground at an angle of 54 degrees,
3 how would that effect the range of this shell?
4 A. I gave you the tables and the results. I am
5 not speaking, the results speak for themselves. I can
6 take them out, I can show them to you again.
7 JUDGE JORDA: No, no. Excuse me,
8 Mr. Jankovic. If I've understood the question, it's
9 not a question of finding the same results. If I
10 understood the Prosecutor's question, it is, let's say,
11 that there was a 10-degree error, what would the result
12 of that be in respect of the range? The question has
13 to do with the range. I am not sure that the French
14 was correctly translated. I hope it was. It usually
15 is. Is that your question, Mr. Cayley?
16 MR. CAYLEY: That's exactly the question,
17 Mr. President. If the witness could be given Exhibit
18 D526, please.
19 Q. If you could turn, please, Professor, to
20 diagram "I".
21 JUDGE JORDA: Could you put it on the ELMO so
22 that the public gallery can see. These are technical
23 questions, we are talking about the shelling of a city,
24 and there were deaths and there were wounded people.
25 It's a tragic situation. We are talking about "I" now,
1 are we not? Yes, "I."
2 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
3 Q. Now, the estimate given by Witness W is 44
4 degrees. I have asked you if there had been an
5 inaccuracy of 10 degrees in that measurement, whether
6 that would have increased the range. Now, if we look
7 at document "I," we see an impact angle of 53.4
8 degrees. Can you tell the Court what the range would
9 be had the shell hit the ground at 53.4 degrees?
10 A. Well, it's on the chart --
11 JUDGE JORDA: Now, be careful with the
12 question, as I heard it translated into French. Be
13 careful. You said 53.4 twice, 53.4. That's what the
14 calculation is that's been done. You were talking
15 about 44, weren't you?
16 MR. CAYLEY: We can call it 9.4 degrees
17 inaccuracy, if you wish, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, all right.
19 MR. CAYLEY:
20 Q. If there had been a 9.4 inaccuracy in the
21 measurement of the angle, this chart would have
22 applied, wouldn't it, Professor, and the range would
23 have been 16.000 metres?
24 A. Yes. I suppose it would.
25 Q. From this chart, this chart represents the
1 standard OF 462 ammunition with the additional charge?
2 A. What's the question? What's the question,
4 Q. Chart "I" refers to the trajectory of
5 standard OF 462 Russian-type ammunition with an
6 additional charge; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. Let me repeat. Croatia did not have
8 the firing tables, it had the velocity. I did the
9 calculation because in the text that's -- additional
10 charge was what was spoken about.
11 JUDGE JORDA: Let's not mix up things. You
12 are also mixing things. Let's not confuse opinions
13 with technical questions. For the time being you are
14 talking about technical issues. You said, "I don't
15 want to mix opinion with technical issues," so let's
16 not go back to what was said yesterday and see whether
17 or not Croatia had that charge. Please try to answer
18 the question that Mr. Cayley asked.
19 MR. CAYLEY:
20 Q. Professor, if we could look at diagram "C"
21 now, and this is in connection with the M76
22 ammunition. Now, had Witness W inaccurately measured
23 the angle of impact by 4 degrees, 4.1 degrees to be
24 precise, this chart would have applied, wouldn't it,
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The range of the shell would have been 16.000
3 metres, wouldn't it?
4 A. Yes, that's what it says.
5 Q. Professor, do you know what the maximum range
6 of standard OF 462 ammunition is with a full charge, so
7 not supercharged, with a full charge?
8 A. I have some tables in my briefcase. I could
9 take them out and then answer exactly.
10 Q. Please go ahead. The maximum range with a
11 full charge and a low elevation on the barrel of the
13 A. 15 kilometres, 300 metres.
14 Q. So the maximum range of the OF 462 ammunition
15 with full charge is 15.300 metres?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In the testimony that you read that was
18 provided to you by the Defence, have you seen anywhere
19 in that evidence an exact grid reference on a map
20 locating this artillery piece that fired these shells
21 on Zenica?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, you stated that Witness W said that the
24 weapon was 16.000 metres away from Zenica; do you
25 recall that?
1 A. Yes, and with me I have the notes indicating
2 the page and on what line this data is found.
3 Q. Now, I'm right in saying, Professor, that you
4 faithfully abided by that figure of 16.000 metres,
5 didn't you, in making your calculations?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, if you had read Witness W's testimony
8 very carefully, you would have seen that he stated
9 that, in fact, the weapon was about 16.000 metres away
10 from Zenica; do you recall that?
11 MR. HAYMAN: Could we have a page reference?
12 MR. CAYLEY: Page 6.024, lines 6 and 7.
13 A. Yes, also 6.029, line 7 and page 6.091, line
15 Q. Do you recall, Professor, that it stated, and
16 I'll read it for the purposes of the transcript, this
17 is Witness W: "The angle at which the shell landed
18 tells us that the artillery weapon was about 16.000
19 metres away from the town of Zenica." On page 6.029, I
20 think at lines 7 and 8, Judge Riad asked: "How far is
21 it from Zenica?" "This point, Your Honour, is about
22 16.000 metres away from Zenica."
23 Is that the transcript that you read,
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now --
2 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, for completeness,
3 I think it's absolutely necessary to read the portion
4 of the transcript that puts this in context. On the
5 next page, page 6.025, the witness was asked: "Is it
6 your opinion that the shell also had an additional
7 charge, an additional propellant to cover the extra
8 distance?" Answer: "On the basis of our findings, it
9 was assessed that the gunman had to have used a shell
10 with an additional charge." End of answer.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We're not going to
13 argue about the transcripts. The Judges are capable of
14 reading the transcripts. For the time being, we're
15 listening to Mr. Cayley's cross-examination.
16 When you redirect, Mr. Hayman, you can point
17 out what you want to point out. Let me remind you also
18 that, during the deliberations, the Judges are capable
19 of reading the 17.000 pages of transcript. In fact,
20 that's their jobs and that's their responsibility.
21 Let's not begin to argue right now. We have a
22 technical person here, and the cross-examination is
23 being conducted normally.
24 Mr. Cayley, please proceed.
25 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. So you would agree with me that the witness
2 was giving an estimate of the distance?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, had you read Major Baggesen's testimony,
5 Professor, you would have found that he stated at page
6 1.940 that he estimated the range at 14 to 15
7 kilometres in a westerly direction from Zenica.
8 A. Last night, I read those pages, I received
9 them, and if I understood correctly, he said that the
10 range of the weapon was 14 to 15 kilometres. That's
11 what he said, and he said it on page --
12 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Everybody agrees.
13 Everybody agrees.
14 A. Line 21 of --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. I did not catch
16 the page number.
17 MR. CAYLEY: The page number was 1.940.
18 Q. Now, can you show me in the models that
19 you've provided to the Court one of these models which
20 actually shows a range of less than 14.000 metres?
21 A. OF 462, I've got firing tables, and I can
22 answer anything you want to know about that.
23 Q. No. What I'm interested in, Professor, is
24 Exhibit 526. Does one of the models that you have
25 demonstrated to the Court show a range of less than
1 14.000 metres?
2 A. I don't understand the question.
3 JUDGE JORDA: I don't understand it either,
4 Mr. Cayley. Would you please ask it again? I'm not
5 sure I understood it myself.
6 MR. CAYLEY:
7 Q. Professor, in these tables in D526, you show
8 the possible maximum range of a 122-millimetre shell
9 with a number of variables, including the degree of
10 impact, the target height, and the gun height. Is
11 there any one of these tables where the maximum range
12 of a shell in these particular circumstances is less
13 than 14.000 metres?
14 A. First of all, I don't know whether it's 229.
15 I didn't catch the beginning of your question. On the
16 graph that I showed you --
17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes.
18 A. If you can help me, please.
19 JUDGE JORDA: I thought you were talking
20 about letters. You're talking about 526, Mr. Cayley.
21 We have to be clear here. It's a very technical
22 discussion and very important, we all know that. So
23 that 526 has several letters.
24 Just a moment, Mr. Hayman, I'll try to
25 clarify everything. You'll see. Trust me.
1 D526, which is a Defence Exhibit, has several
2 documents, but they are indicated by letters,
3 Mr. Cayley. Could you tell the witness, and here I
4 agree with the witness, he can't answer, what document
5 are you talking about? Is it K? Is it L?
6 MR. CAYLEY: I'll direct the witness straight
7 to the document. It's document N.
8 JUDGE JORDA: All right. That's clear now,
9 so we're talking about document N. Very well.
10 Document N. It's a chart which shows an OF 462 --
11 MR. CAYLEY:
12 Q. What is the range on this particular table,
14 A. 14 kilometres, you can see that.
15 Q. To be exact, 14.220 metres, I think, is your
17 A. 222.
18 Q. Do you agree with me that from B, C, F, D, G,
19 I, and N, this is the lowest range of all of the values
20 expressed in these tables?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE JORDA: Let's move along. Let's move
23 along, Mr. Cayley. That was clear. That was obvious.
24 MR. CAYLEY:
25 Q. You stated to the Court just now that last
1 night you were provided with the testimony of Major
2 Lars Baggesen who estimated the range to be between 14
3 and 15 kilometres; is that correct?
4 JUDGE JORDA: All of that was said,
5 Mr. Cayley. Let's move on.
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, when Major
8 Baggesen was quoted, he said that the range of these
9 122-calibre weapons is 14.000 to 15.000 metres, but
10 that that was the possible range, not that that was the
11 actual range there.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo, you will have the
13 redirect. Please wait until the end of the
14 cross-examination. Just wait until the end of the
15 cross-examination. You will be able to redirect and
16 make any comments you want. Don't disturb Mr. Cayley
17 in his demonstration.
18 Mr. Cayley, try to get to the essentials.
19 The witness said it to you already. We're talking
20 about 14 kilometres, 222 metres. What is the question,
22 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Nobilo has misrepresented
23 Major Baggesen's testimony, but I will move on as
24 you're requesting, Mr. President.
25 Q. Tell me, Professor, what do you know about
1 the characteristics of the D130J weapon. Are you
2 familiar with its handling characteristics? I'm sorry,
3 the D30J. I've just said "D130."
4 A. You're asking the characteristics of the
5 weapon, not of the projectile, that is, the 30J that
6 you're talking about; is that right?
7 Q. Correct, the weapon.
8 A. The weapon.
9 JUDGE JORDA: The gun.
10 A. Without the documentation, it's difficult to
11 speak, but ask me what you want. If I can answer it, I
12 will, if not, well, then I can't.
13 I can only add, if it's of interest for you,
14 it's my father who built it. He built the Yugoslav
15 version. Therefore, ever since I was a child, I've
16 been familiar with it.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I hope that in your
18 childhood you were given other toys, Mr. Jankovic.
19 A. Well, they were little guns.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Well, it's not assumed that
21 because daddy is familiar with the gun, the son is
22 familiar with the gun as well.
23 Ask your question again, Mr. Cayley.
24 MR. CAYLEY:
25 Q. Professor, the D30J is a highly mobile
1 weapon, isn't it?
2 A. Yes. It's known for that.
3 Q. It can be towed behind a vehicle, can it not?
4 A. Yes, that's clear.
5 Q. It's very easy, isn't it, to move it 1.000 or
6 2.000 metres backwards or forwards?
7 A. It's relative when you say "easy." "Easy" is
8 relative. You know, that's just relative.
9 Q. It can be set up quickly to use in action,
10 can't it, as a weapon?
11 A. Well, I don't know how much time it takes to
12 move a weapon. I couldn't tell you that. That's not a
13 technical problem. You'd have to ask military people
14 about that.
15 Q. Would it be quicker to set up a
16 122-millimetre D30J for action than, for example, a
17 155-millimetre howitzer?
18 A. Well, I said to you that I don't know that.
19 JUDGE JORDA: We're getting into hypotheses
20 now, Mr. Cayley. We can't ask the witness to invent
21 scenarios. He's an expert.
22 MR. CAYLEY:
23 Q. If I showed you a video of a D30J, would you
24 be able to recognise it?
25 A. I suppose so.
1 MR. CAYLEY: If the lights could be brought
2 down, please, and the video played.
3 Just to introduce this video, this is a video
4 actually involving Mr. Ivica Rajic and a shelling
5 incident from Kiseljak, but it does very graphically
6 represent the artillery piece which we're discussing
7 within the accused's area of command.
8 Q. Watch very carefully, Professor.
9 (Videotape played)
10 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President?
11 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo? Mr. Cayley, just a
12 moment, please.
13 MR. NOBILO: My colleague is not receiving
14 any interpretation of this text. We don't know when
15 this was recorded and what this man is saying, my
16 colleague doesn't and the Judges don't, which is most
18 JUDGE JORDA: I thought that that was not
19 important. I thought that's not what the important
20 thing was.
21 MR. CAYLEY: It's not, Mr. President. I have
22 a --
23 JUDGE JORDA: That's not important.
24 MR. CAYLEY: I have a copy for Mr. Hayman, if
25 he wants what is stated put into evidence. It is the
1 gun that is important.
2 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, we don't know
3 what the date of the tape is, we don't know where the
4 tape was made, and we're told we can't listen to it and
5 understand what the person is saying to try and date it
6 or put it in a place or a time.
7 JUDGE JORDA: That's not the problem,
8 Mr. Hayman. The problem is that the Prosecution wants
9 to show you the picture of a gun. We haven't seen the
10 gun yet. What the person is saying, for the time
11 being, for the time being, is not very important. If
12 you don't mind, let the video be shown.
13 MR. HAYMAN: With all due respect,
14 Mr. President, the Prosecutor said this photo, this
15 videotape, will place this gun under the command and
16 control of my client. That is what he said --
17 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, let me remind you
18 there is somebody here who is directing the discussion,
19 that is, Judge Jorda with Judge Shahabuddeen. I just
20 said that the videocasette was going to be shown. You
21 will have it. The Prosecution said that it was showing
22 it to show a gun, and you can make your objections when
23 you redirect. Time is running for the Prosecution.
24 Let me direct things here. Don't you think
25 that I also have a certain amount of possibility to
1 direct things and some authority here? Don't you think
2 we're wasting a lot of time? I'm the accountant of the
3 time, if you like, here, as you are. Let the
4 Prosecution conduct its cross-examination.
5 Don't force me, once again, to intervene, and
6 once a decision has been taken by the Judges, I will
7 ask the parties to comply with it.
8 Mr. Cayley, please proceed. We will show the
9 video. The Judges don't need it for the time being.
10 It's the Judges who decide things here.
11 Mr. Cayley, continue with the video and show
12 us the gun. I can't believe that.
13 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I
14 will provide a copy of the videotape to my --
15 JUDGE JORDA: You will get a copy of it.
16 MR. CAYLEY: If the video could be continued,
18 JUDGE JORDA: Let's continue. Yes, please be
20 (Videotape played)
21 MR. CAYLEY: This is the important part of
22 the news report.
23 (Videotape played)
24 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Now, the question,
25 Mr. Cayley.
1 MR. CAYLEY: If the picture can be paused,
2 please. Sorry, can the picture be placed back on the
3 screen? Could the picture of the artillery be placed
4 on the screen?
5 Q. Did you recognise it, Professor?
6 JUDGE JORDA: Yes. This is the fundamental
7 point of the question that Mr. Cayley is asking.
8 Mr. Jankovic, do you recognise the weapon as
9 the Prosecutor has referred to it?
10 A. I don't recognise it. In order to see
11 whether it has the characteristics for the 122 shell,
12 we see the large plate on which everything turns. You
13 can't really see that here.
14 MR. CAYLEY:
15 Q. Do you recognise --
16 A. No, I don't recognise it. No, I don't.
17 Q. Would you recognise it if you saw the
18 double-baffled muzzle brace? It probably won't be
19 translated. The tip of the barrel of the gun is
20 distinctive on a D30J, is it not, Professor?
21 A. Would you repeat the question, please?
22 Q. Is the end of the barrel of a D30J
23 distinctive, the baffle?
24 A. You are talking about the muzzle where the
25 ring is that you use in order to fire? I think I saw
1 that. Well, it could be on the other guns also.
2 Listen, these kinds of things are things that
3 journalists recognise. We technicians, we work with
4 technical data, not with pictures.
5 Q. Now, I've almost finished, Professor. You
6 stated yesterday that Croatia does not have, and indeed
7 you have never seen, range tables for M76 ammunition.
8 Do you recall saying that?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. How were you able to use M76 ammunition from
11 1996 onwards?
12 A. Well, I didn't use it. I didn't understand
13 the question. Are you asking whether I use it today?
14 Well, no, I didn't use it.
15 JUDGE JORDA: It's an ambiguous question,
16 Mr. Cayley.
17 MR. CAYLEY:
18 Q. If you don't have the range tables for a
19 particular piece of ammunition, you can't use that
20 ammunition in an artillery piece, can you?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Now, you stated that Croatia has never had
23 the range tables for M76 ammunition. Do you recall
24 stating that?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. Would it surprise you to know that Croatia
2 has been advertising both its 122-millimetre howitzer
3 and M76 ammunition for sale since 1996?
4 A. Yes, I know that.
5 Q. How is it --
6 A. In Abu Dhabi we provided a brochure about
7 that projector, but without the firing tables. We
8 considered if we could sell it, at that point we could
9 draw up the firing tables.
10 Q. How is a country able to use ammunition that
11 you are selling without range tables?
12 A. Well, the country doesn't do it. It was a
13 company that made the offer. I said that we had the
14 documentation and that we could produce it, and if
15 anybody wants to buy it, at that point we can produce
16 it. I said that now we have the range tables and the
17 possibility of establishing those tables, and we can do
18 it. Let me add again that now we are not interested in
19 that because we have much better projectiles. The one
20 that I had built is much better.
21 Q. Now, lastly, you state that after the war
22 began the Croatian government asked you to become a
23 technician in an institute in Zagreb. What was that
24 institute that you worked in?
25 A. The name in Croatian is Brodaski Institute.
1 That is the institute for ships, ship construction
2 industry, and I worked there until I retired.
3 Q. Did you have any sort of military rank prior
4 to retirement from your service in the Croatian
6 A. In the former Yugoslavia, after my studies in
7 Brussels, I was an officer in that army, and that was
8 until 1962. I left -- '72. I was a
9 Lieutenant-Colonel, I was a Colonel, but then I decided
10 that I wanted a scientific career, not a military one.
11 MR. CAYLEY: I have no further questions,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Let me
14 now turn to the Defence. It is with pleasure now that
15 I give you the floor, and you can use this time as you
16 like, Mr. Nobilo. I hope that the Prosecution is not
17 going to interrupt you as much as you interrupted it.
18 Go ahead, please.
19 Re-examined by Mr. Nobilo:
20 Q. Thank you. I'll try and be more correct in
21 posing my questions.
22 Professor, could you tell us whether you
23 would be able, had you been in Zenica on that
24 unfortunate day, to calculate the angle of fall of the
25 projectile, the one where it hits the ground, that
1 angle? Would you have been able to calculate that had
2 you been in Zenica on that day?
3 A. I think that's not so easy. To answer in
4 principle is difficult. I can tell you what I would
5 have done had I been there. In any case, what
6 surprised me the most is that I would analyse all of
7 the impact sites, not just one, and that way, if I were
8 to get any kind of result, I would have all the results
9 and I would be able to make comparisons and conclude
10 what the average is and what's the dispersion, what is
11 the plausible gap between the results in order to do
12 that study correctly. That's how I would answer, a
13 priori, a posteriori. I can't say anything else.
14 Q. Witness W and Major Baggesen, how many
15 craters did they look at, if you recall by reading
16 through the transcript?
17 A. If I've understood the material correctly, it
18 was based on one. At times they speak about the other
19 impacts here and there, that it fell here or fell
20 there, but I had the impression that the conclusions
21 were drawn from a single impact.
22 Q. Professor, am I right in saying that from the
23 shell and from the crater you are trying to determine
24 the angle of fall, that is one element, but that
25 witnesses tried to determine and calculate from the
1 crater, to determine from the crater the direction from
2 which the shell was launched --
3 MR. CAYLEY: I am objecting at this point.
4 That is a matter that was never addressed, the bearing,
5 the bearing of fire was never addressed in the
6 examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination. The
7 angle of impact and the direction of fire are two
8 distinct matters, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, I think that the
10 questions are so technical, and we are fortunate to
11 have a technical expert here. All right. Continue,
12 Mr. Nobilo.
13 MR. NOBILO: Thank you.
14 Q. The questions intermingle. Could you tell
15 the Court, please, first, whether it is easier to look
16 at the crater and by its aspect to determine the angle
17 of fall, or the bearing of fire, that is to say the
18 direction from which the shell came? What's easier?
19 A. I repeated that I had a lot of craters on the
20 earth, but not on asphalt. On firing ranges, it's
21 almost impossible to say from where and what the angle
22 of fall is of the projectile. It is true that one can
23 apply information using fragments, that is the -- they
24 call it the axe effect, that the walls of the shell
25 disperse and they fly all around the projectile. It's
1 true that the -- it's usually that the rocket remains
2 in one piece and that the base remains in one piece.
3 Ordinarily, we recognise from what projectile
4 is involved by the large pieces, but when we fire
5 projectiles, ordinarily the base is also found in one
6 piece or split into two, so one can recognise what is
7 involved. But we never tried to go in the other
8 direction, that is using the crater as a starting point
9 in order to know what is the bearing or the angle. I
10 never saw that done. I haven't done any kind of work
11 on that subject to see whether anyone has done it.
12 Q. Professor, in the literature anywhere in the
13 world, have you ever come across the fact that the
14 caliber, the range from which it was shot and the
15 bearing is determined on the basis of a crater without
16 any instruments, just by looking at it and with a
17 compass? Have you ever come across that in the
19 A. No. I never saw that and I don't know.
20 Q. Thank you. You said that the caliber is
21 determined according to the traces of the shell. Could
22 you explain to the Court what, as a rule, is found,
23 what parts are usually found, and how do you know what
24 caliber was used, in practical terms?
25 A. I already said that the walls whose pieces,
1 pieces of different sizes, and ordinarily it's very
2 important to know the size of the piece from a shell.
3 That's why special tests are carried out. The shell is
4 put into sand, into a closed space, you measure the
5 curve of the dispersion of the large pieces. Eighty
6 per cent of the weight of the projectile are pieces
7 that can be said to be large. That's very important to
8 know, because that tells us what the effects of the
9 different pieces are.
10 As I also said, ordinarily the rocket remains
11 in one piece, it's found on the ground, and as well as
12 the base, because it's very thick. It always remains
13 in one piece or almost in one piece, perhaps broken
14 into two pieces, but they were large pieces that can be
16 The other pieces are very dispersed, that is
17 those of different sizes, and I said that it's very
18 interesting, and we always look at -- there are special
19 tests. We look for the dispersion of the pieces to see
20 what is the percentage of the pieces that are large and
21 those that are small, and there's a specific diagram
22 for each projectile. Somewhere in the text I found
23 that they were pieces that were larger or smaller than
24 this caliber should be, which is not impossible.
25 It's impossible to find for all sizes in one
1 single caliber and to take what you want. They say
2 this is a smaller one, this is a bigger one, this is
3 another big one, another small one, but you can't go
4 the other way, as I said.
5 Q. You said that on the basis of these pieces
6 you cannot determine this. How can you determine in
7 the most certain terms caliber? You mentioned the base
8 of a shell. Perhaps I didn't receive the translation,
9 but the fuse, is the fuse usually on the spot?
10 A. As I said, after the explosion, ordinarily, I
11 am not saying always, but ordinarily, in most cases the
12 rocket remains almost in one piece and the base is in
13 one piece or broken into two or three pieces. And
14 therefore the rocket, when it's in one piece, even if
15 -- on the rocket -- because it's indicated on the
16 rocket what it is. That's how we know what it is. On
17 site we know that it's the crater produced by this
18 projector because there were a lot of craters on site.
19 That's the first thing. But when you find the pieces
20 of the base, that is the back part which is very thick
21 and which doesn't break --
22 Q. Just one moment, please, Professor. For the
23 transcript, your expression Upaljac was translated as
24 rocket -- no fuse. Was that correct or not?
25 A. Let me repeat this in the different
1 languages. Upaljac in French is la fuseer. In English
2 it's the fuse.
3 Q. So you spoke about fuse, not rocket, right?
4 A. You see, here we are not talking about
5 rockets, no. We shouldn't say rockets. It's the
6 fuse. In French it's la fuseer and in English it's
7 fuse. It's baza in Croatian and then base in English
8 and French culot.
9 JUDGE JORDA: I think the interpreters
10 appreciate the various possibilities. These are
11 technical terms. I am trying to help them. We can
12 continue, Mr. Nobilo.
13 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. I
14 should like to mention that it was the error of the
15 Defence for not giving the interpreters a list of
16 terms. It is difficult for them to know in advance the
17 different areas and technical terminology that we use,
18 so the Defence Counsel would like to apologise for
20 Q. On the scene itself, according to the report
21 on the spot, made on the spot by the judge, a fuse was
22 found. It was 152 millimetres. Did you see that fact
23 in the material, I mean, that we gave you?
24 A. If I remember, they speak about the fuse and
25 about 155, 152. I am not sure if they speak about
1 150. But I said yesterday, and I can repeat it today,
2 that a projectile, a fuse, is used on several
3 projectiles, and that's characteristic here. That is
4 the fuse RGM2 is used, it is a Russian fuse. There is
5 also the former Yugoslav version, which is UTUI. And
6 that fuse is used as 122, 130 and 152 millimetres, the
7 three completely different projectiles and three
8 completely different systems, but it's the same fuse.
9 So one has to be very careful.
10 Q. Thank you. I have almost completed. Defence
11 Exhibit 230, you have seen that diagram, have you not?
12 Can you tell us, it was the Prosecutor's exhibit, is
13 this trajectory mathematically correct? We can place
14 it on the ELMO.
15 A. It is exact mathematically speaking. The
16 mathematics, what I showed you, and anyone can make the
17 comparisons in order to see what the comparison is.
18 Now, as much as I can see just like this, that it
19 doesn't correspond, if I look at things quickly.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 A. I would need some time in order to know
22 exactly, in order to say this is not quite right, it
23 should be this or it should be that. I would have to
24 look at all of the comparisons and all of the -- but
25 that's not necessary.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Before we say it isn't
2 necessary, is this the exhibit -- the exhibit was
3 provided by whom? It was the Prosecution case, given
4 during the Major's testimony? Is that right?
5 MR. NOBILO: It was Witness W who spoke at
6 greatest length on the shelling of Zenica.
7 JUDGE JORDA: I would like to consult with my
8 colleague for a moment.
9 The Judges are going to decide that after the
10 questions they want to ask, and after the redirect has
11 been completed, the diagram be given to the witness and
12 he will withdraw to a secluded place and perhaps he
13 could come back in order to make a comparison, because
14 we have two graphical comparisons and the witness is
15 saying it doesn't correspond. I don't know what that
16 means when you say it doesn't correspond. For you it
17 means something, Mr. Jankovic. I am not asking for an
18 explanation now.
19 We will have the witness come back so that he
20 can criticise the diagram that he sees.
21 All right. You want to continue, Mr. Nobilo,
22 or have you completed what you wanted to do?
23 MR. NOBILO: Yes, Mr. President, two more
25 Q. The first is the following. We saw Exhibit
1 565, it is the howitzer 122-millimetre D30J, and in one
2 section it quotes the distance, a distance of 17.300
3 metres. You had some facts and figures contained in
4 another document, Prosecutor's Exhibit 564, and it
5 stated 17.133 metres. Now I would like to ask you the
6 following: Regardless of the fact whether it is 17.133
7 range or 17.300 metres, would that vitally affect your
8 findings as to the range of the howitzer?
9 A. Since I have the model with me, and I have my
10 computer, I did the calculations last night, the other
11 calculations, so that I could answer that question. I
12 have the exact data now, with the new figures.
13 JUDGE JORDA: You sort of thought -- I don't
14 understand. You had foreseen this question,
15 Mr. Jankovic?
16 A. No. Well, since yesterday I said that it
17 wouldn't change anything, so I prepared myself in order
18 to defend what I said.
19 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you.
20 A. Therefore, it's diagram "F." The range would
21 not be 15.141, but would have been 15 kilometres and
22 302 metres. For diagram "C," the angle of elevation
23 would not be 30.1 degrees, but 29.4 degrees. And the
24 angle of fall would not be 48.1, but 47.4. On diagram
25 "D" the angle of elevation would not be 27.7 degrees,
1 but 27.5 degrees. And the angle of fall remains the
2 same, but the wind is not 13.5 but 11 metres. On the
3 basis of these figures, I would repeat what I said
5 MR. NOBILO:
6 Q. Thank you, Professor. Tell us one more
7 thing, please. According to your knowledge -- is it
8 more precise, 17.133 metres, is that more precise, or
9 the other figure published for commercial purposes, the
10 17.300 figure? Which figure is more exact, in your
12 A. I do not doubt that the source data is
13 17.133, since I said that that was an official
14 document. The other was a secondary document, and it
15 is the official documents that are the source of our
16 information. I would also like to add an explanation.
17 Very frequently it happens, and it even happened to us,
18 it even happened to me, when we develop a weapon and we
19 calculate the range, and we publish documentation in
20 order to advertise the weapon, and we provide the data,
21 and then afterwards, when the development has been
22 completed, we don't quite have exactly what it is that
23 we wanted.
24 So, for example, I believe that in the same
25 document, for this projectile it said that it had a
1 20-kilometre range, but our tests later on said that it
2 was greater than 20 kilometres. It was 20 kilometres
3 and 50 metres. So that does happen. It's because of
4 this that the firing tables are the most important and
5 most exact documents that exist.
6 The book that I showed you must be in
7 agreement with the firing tables, because this is also
8 an official book as the tables are official. That's
9 all I can say.
10 Q. And now my last question. Any expert, but an
11 expert of course, if any expert were to take these
12 elements into consideration, the ones that you had,
13 would he, by means of calculations, arrive at the same
14 result as you yourself did?
15 A. Absolutely. I will add only a few details
16 that I haven't already said, and that is that I used
17 the Russian aerodynamic coefficient of 1943, and I used
18 the normal projectile, 122 explosive, figures because
19 even in the text, it says that it was the projectile of
20 the normal point, and everything I said is something
21 that every specialist would also say according to
22 calculations reached.
23 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you. Judge
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, counsel would
2 have told you that we are not military experts in court
3 and, therefore, we depend, to a great deal, on expert
4 assistance from persons of your training and
5 background. So do forgive me if I ask you a question
6 or two which may appear to you to be elementary in
8 Let me first ask you this question: Is it
9 the case that the trajectory of a shell need not have
10 the same angle of elevation as the angle of fall?
11 A. It is never not the same. If they are the
12 same elevation, the fall angle is always greater than
13 the angle of elevation.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, would I be right in
15 understanding you to mean this, that the angle of fall
16 could indicate two things, namely, the range of the
17 shell and the direction from which it came?
18 A. The direction -- more or less, yes. There is
19 another effect which comes into play which is
20 deviation, but that's not so important. It's one or
21 two degrees. I wasn't even sure that one should really
22 talk about it here because it's not important. It's
23 not significant enough. But the angle of fall cannot
24 tell you exactly what the angle of elevation is because
25 the angle of fall influences not only the angle of
1 elevation but ordinarily the initial velocity, and from
2 the photographs that you've seen, you can understand
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, it may be
5 that I have misled you. I wasn't asking whether the
6 angle of fall would indicate the angle of elevation,
7 but only whether the angle of fall would indicate the
8 range of the shell and the direction from which it
10 A. Same answer.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Do bear with me,
12 Professor. You are an expert and we are not.
13 Now, I have heard mention before of Jane's
14 publication, but I have to be frank with you, I don't
15 think I've ever consulted it. What is the correct
16 title of that publication; do you know?
17 A. Jane's, you're talking about Jane's
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Jane's publication.
20 A. I am not the one who mentioned it. It was
21 Mr. Cayley. I look at it. I'm familiar with it. It's
22 a source of information, but it's not really
23 scientific. It's got more of a commercial
24 orientation. For a technical person, a scientific
25 person, like myself and for my colleagues, that's not a
1 source of much information.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Again, I apologise to
3 you, Professor, if I suggested that you had mentioned
4 the publication to me, but you had discussed it, and so
5 I was asking for its correct title. Would I be right
6 in supposing that that publication has been going now
7 for some time, perhaps, for some decades?
8 A. No, I don't know. I don't know.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Does the publication
10 consist of advertisements of new weaponry or does it
11 consist of assessments made by experts on the weaponry
12 of various states?
13 A. I said to you, it's not a publication that
14 we, who work in the technical areas, are very
15 interested in. I can tell you what I think about it,
16 but that's simply my opinion, and I'm not sure that
17 everything I'm going to say is right. I know that it
18 is a company in Switzerland, I think, that produces it,
19 and it is especially used for high military officials
20 to see what can be bought, what possibilities exist, in
21 respect of knowing what company or countries produce
22 what. It's expensive. It's a big book. It's filled
23 with information, interesting information for military
24 people, especially for those people who are involved in
25 logistics for the armies.
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it a publication
2 which is relied upon by military authorities worldwide?
3 A. I suppose so.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, the last area of
5 interest to me concerns the testimony of witnesses
6 about the shells which fell on Zenica. Would I be
7 correct in recalling you as saying that the testimony
8 of the witnesses which you read suggested that those
9 shells were explosive shells?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, does the fact that
12 the shells were explosive shells tell you anything
13 about the range of those shells?
14 A. The firing tables, for instance, the one I
15 have with me, there are the firing tables for
16 projectiles, anti-tank, and in the same volume, there
17 are explosive projectiles and then tables for
18 illuminating shells and those also that leave smoke.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Can you have different
20 types of explosive shells such that some types extend
21 over a longer range than other types?
22 A. Yes, I showed you that there were two
23 explosive projectiles of different characteristics and
24 different ranges, but in this table, there was only
25 one. Now, there's the third that I constructed which
1 has an even greater range. We don't have firing tables
2 for that yet.
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Professor, I thank you.
4 JUDGE JORDA: I have some questions, not
5 questions of an expert, and I also apologise, as my
6 colleague Judge Shahabuddeen did, for my lack of
8 Should I understand that you found the
9 evaluations of the witnesses in the statements that
10 were given to you, that you found them somewhat
11 superficial or am I wrong in saying that?
12 A. Would you explain what you mean by
14 JUDGE JORDA: Well, in other words, not very
16 A. Yes, I agree with you.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Have you ever worked with NATO
18 officers, western officers, to exchange your
19 experiences, experiments, your conclusions?
20 A. Yes, quite frequently.
21 JUDGE JORDA: Your knowledge, in fact, which
22 is quite great, was it ever made available to Croatia
23 in the conflicts? Were you ever asked to put your
24 knowledge on the side of Croatia?
25 A. Well, I cooperated with the Croatian army
1 from the very start.
2 JUDGE JORDA: Are you able to draw up firing
3 tables yourself?
4 A. Yes, I am.
5 JUDGE JORDA: Should I understand that you
6 refused to draw up the firing tables for this shell for
7 which you said that there was no firing table?
8 A. No, no, no, that was not the problem. We
9 didn't have the firing range. We didn't have
10 instruments. Even if we had had a firing range, there
11 was an embargo, and we could not get them, so we didn't
12 have them. We didn't have the assets that we needed in
13 order to do what would be needed in order to set up the
14 firing tables.
15 JUDGE JORDA: This is the first time in your
16 statement that you're talking about instruments because
17 I have to say that throughout your statement, you spoke
18 only about the lack of a firing range. I have not been
19 in the army for a long time, but I do remember that the
20 firing ranges -- it seems to me that in a country like
21 Croatia, won't you be able to find firing ranges?
22 That's why I really don't understand.
23 A. Well, I'm always afraid about going into too
24 many details. Even when we talk about firing ranges,
25 you have to make different types. There is one thing,
1 the technical firing range, and then the other thing is
2 those that can be used for units, but the technical
3 firing ranges requires a great deal of instruments
4 which are very expensive.
5 You, first of all, have to make exact
6 measurements for the impact points on all the
7 coordinates. You have to measure the initial velocity,
8 even the velocity along each point on the trajectory.
9 You have to measure the atmosphere. You have to
10 measure the wind and the temperature in respect of
11 velocity, et cetera, temperature of the powder. There
12 are many things and they have to be organised.
13 In the former Yugoslavia, there were firing
14 ranges but they were all on the Serbian side. Near
15 Samac, there's a large firing range which is very
16 well-equipped. There's another one on the coast.
17 Well, it doesn't matter where.
18 JUDGE JORDA: But when did Croatia find
19 itself with a firing range?
20 A. Well, the first one was, I'm not sure, but it
21 was, at that time -- it didn't have instruments. The
22 first ballistic one that we were able to set up was
23 with the shell that I spoke to you about. That means
24 at the beginning of 1997. At that point, we had the
25 minimum necessary in order to set up the firing range.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Therefore, Croatia was never
2 able to procure the firing tables for those weapons?
3 A. No, as far as I know, it was not.
4 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I do not have any
5 other questions.
6 We're going to take a break. We're going to
7 ask you to do a little bit of work. Let me tell you
8 the rules so that everything will be clear. This work
9 will not give rise to any question, any question from
10 the Defence or from the Prosecution. The witness will
11 be a kind of an amicus curiae, further to Rule 70, I
12 believe it is, that is, that he will come back to give
13 us a short explanation, I hope, that is, of the
14 criticism that he has of the charts that had been
15 provided by Witness W. This will be put into the
17 We're not going to go back to a polemic about
18 what the witness said about this or that point. The
19 Judges are asking for this additional information, so
20 long as we're fortunate enough to have this expert with
22 Now we're going to take a break. About how
23 much time would you need, Mr. Jankovic?
24 THE WITNESS: Not very much time.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. Let me suggest
1 something. We will give the interpreters a bit of a
2 break. Let me suggest that we resume at 4.00. The
3 witness will work, and if you agree, before we begin
4 with the cross-examination of the previous witness, we
5 will have Professor Jankovic speak to us once again,
6 and we thank him for coming back.
7 Is something wrong, Mr. Registrar?
8 THE REGISTRAR: No, not really a problem. I
9 had a question for the Prosecutor. Does he want 524
10 through 526 to be tendered as evidence?
11 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, please. Thank you.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman doesn't agree, I
13 suppose, about the video. I'm frightening Mr. Hayman
14 now, I see. No, you don't have to be afraid. You know
15 how to defend your interests. You hold the interests
16 of your client very close to your heart, and we are
17 very loyal to justice, but all of us are loyal here. I
18 expressed what I wanted. I thought that the Prosecutor
19 simply wanted to show the image of a gun.
20 So you don't agree with the entire video or
21 just the one point?
22 MR. NOBILO: The entire video. We don't know
23 what the source is. It seems to us that it's made up
24 of two clips. We also received information that these
25 guns are shooting at Kiseljak, and the text says that
1 Rajic is threatening Sarajevo. So there's quite a bit
2 of confusion involved, and we couldn't even see the
3 cannon properly, by the way.
4 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Cayley, could you give us
5 some clarification? I would like to have this little
6 problem resolved. Of course, I could consult with my
7 colleague to do so.
8 MR. CAYLEY: First of all, Mr. President, is
9 there any objection to 564 and 565, which is a public
10 document? These are extracts from Jane's 1996.
11 JUDGE JORDA: No objection?
12 MR. NOBILO: No objections. No objections.
13 JUDGE JORDA: The video?
14 MR. CAYLEY: The video, I will find out
15 exactly what the origin is and I will tell the Court.
16 It hasn't been altered in any way. There's been no
17 jiggery-pokery, as my learned friend suggests. It's
18 simply an extract from Belgrade TV. We're most
19 interested in the artillery piece. If my learned
20 friend wishes, we can narrow it down and simply have
21 the gun, which the witness couldn't identify anyway,
22 admitted into evidence.
23 JUDGE JORDA: All right. I'm sure this will
24 reassure Mr. Hayman and Mr. Nobilo, if you were to cut
25 up the video and do away with the interview part. I
1 suppose that's possible, is it not?
2 MR. CAYLEY: I'm perfectly happy to do that.
3 THE REGISTRAR: All right. We can have a
4 still of the video, if you like. We can make a still,
5 starting with the video, but only the part showing the
7 JUDGE JORDA: All right. You will give the
8 Judges and the Defence the specific information. Does
9 that satisfy you?
10 MR. NOBILO: We all agree. Thank you.
11 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Everybody is
12 satisfied now, so we can take our break until 4.00. Is
13 that all right, Mr. Registrar?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. However, this document,
15 the photograph, will be 567.
16 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We can resume at
18 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
20 JUDGE JORDA: All right, Professor. Thank
21 you for having returned.
22 So that things are very clear, the witness in
23 this part of the testimony, we can say is the
24 Tribunal's witness based on Rule 98 of the Rules of
25 Procedure and Evidence. We are bringing him in as Rule
1 98 and it's a correction of -- having conferred with my
2 colleague, we authorise each of the parties to make
3 some comments, if they wish to.
4 You had, Professor, the diagram, which was
5 attached to the testimony of one of the witnesses. We
6 don't have it with us, but it can be put on the ELMO.
7 THE REGISTRAR: All right.
8 JUDGE JORDA: It's on the ELMO. The public
9 can look at it. Now, you have an element about which
10 you can make any comments that you consider appropriate
11 to make, and the Tribunal thanks you for doing so.
12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I redid the
13 calculation and I compared the trajectory with the
14 trajectory of the -- that is, we are not sure where we
15 were in disagreement. There were two projectiles. I
16 suppose it would be of interest to speak about the
17 projectile that the Croatian army had, the OF 462, or
18 would you like me to speak about both of them?
19 JUDGE JORDA: Perhaps both, since you studied
21 THE WITNESS: Well, then we need some more
22 time. I only did it for one. For the second I would
23 need more time. It would be too dangerous just to do
24 it off the cuff. There could be mistakes. One needs
25 to concentrate.
1 JUDGE JORDA: About how much time would you
3 THE WITNESS: Well, if you would allow me the
4 time that it would take for the other witness, I could
5 make some preparations, and I could ask you exactly
6 what it is that you are asking data for. I can tell
7 you what the height is --
8 JUDGE JORDA: What was the hypothesis of the
9 witness who had spoken? What we are interested in is
10 the contradiction that you see with the diagram. What
11 is it? I don't really remember. What was it,
13 THE WITNESS: Well, I have everything in my
14 head. He did not say what projectile was involved.
15 It's because of that, that I was always speaking about
16 two projectiles.
17 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, very well.
18 THE WITNESS: I can make a comparison of the
19 figures of the two projectiles.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I think that would be
21 good. Can you assess about how much time you are going
22 to need?
23 THE WITNESS: About an hour. About an hour.
24 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Very well. All
25 right. We'll ask you to withdraw and we'll hear the
1 next witness. Thank you.
2 So that everything is clear, Professor
3 Jankovic will come back at a time that we will set, at
4 least an hour, and he will come to make his
5 contribution to the diagram.
6 In the meantime we will continue with the
7 cross-examination of an unprotected witness and whose
8 cross-examination has been postponed until today. I
9 believe Mr. Harmon is going to do it and it's
10 Mr. Tadic, the Minister of the Federation? Is that
11 correct, Mr. Harmon?
12 MR. HARMON: Yes. Good afternoon,
13 Judge Jorda, Judge Shahabuddeen and counsel. Yes, I
14 will be conducting the cross-examination of Mr. Tadic.
15 JUDGE JORDA: Take your time, Professor
16 Jankovic. Take your time.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it's too dangerous to do
18 that quickly without a --
19 JUDGE JORDA: Well, you speak about danger so
20 much, and you are an expert in explosives. That's what
21 begins to worry us. All right. Wish you good work.
22 We will now have Mr. Tadic brought in to the
24 (The witness withdrew)
25 JUDGE JORDA: So that everything is clear,
1 let me remind you that Mr. Tadic came yesterday. He is
2 the former Minister of Justice of the Federation. As
3 regards the procedural matters, the Trial Chamber
4 decided that the cross-examination would be postponed
5 until this afternoon.
6 How long will this cross-examination take,
7 Mr. Registrar, if you base it on the direct
9 THE REGISTRAR: About two hours and 10
11 JUDGE JORDA: Two hours and 10 minutes of
13 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, if we start
14 running late, 10 or 15 minutes late, could we work
15 longer tonight, because Mr. Tadic was supposed to
16 finish yesterday and then we asked him to stay for an
17 extra day today, and he postponed some of the things he
18 had to attend to. If we only reach about 10 to 15
19 minutes before the end of his statement, could we stay
20 longer tonight so that he could finish tonight,
22 JUDGE JORDA: That depends upon how much time
23 it takes, but we also take into account the
24 interpreters. Ordinarily we should have another
25 break. So I really don't know. That will depend upon
1 the Prosecutor, who has the right to use two hours, and
2 I suppose that he's not going to finish by then.
3 Because, in addition to that we've got to hear the
4 Professor again.
5 All of you understood that once we speak
6 about shells and trajectories, it takes a lot of time.
7 Therefore, I don't think he will be able to leave
8 tonight, unfortunately.
9 Usher, please have the witness brought into
10 the courtroom.
11 (The witness entered court)
12 JUDGE JORDA: I really can't answer,
13 Mr. Nobilo. It doesn't depend on me.
14 WITNESS: MATO TADIC
15 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Tadic. Thank you. Let me
16 remind you that you are still under oath when you are
17 asked questions. I'm very sorry, you may not be able
18 to leave this evening, Mr. Tadic. I know that it's not
19 pleasant for you, but we'll see. Maybe, but I have my
20 doubts. Without wasting any more time, we'll give the
21 floor to Mr. Harmon.
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Harmon:
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
24 Mr. Tadic.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. My name is Mark Harmon and to my right is
2 Andrew Cayley, and to his right is my other colleague
3 Mr. Kehoe.
4 Let me go directly to the examination. Could
5 I have Prosecutor's Exhibit 22 placed on the ELMO,
7 Mr. Tadic, there is a map that is to your
8 left on the machine, we refer to as the ELMO, and in a
9 moment, I hope, on the screen there will appear an
11 Now, yesterday on direct examination you said
12 that in 1993 you were in the Posavina, and you remained
13 in the Posavina throughout 1993. I would ask you,
14 please, to point out first of all the Posavina on this
15 particular exhibit and then, secondly, you said you
16 were in the Orasje area, or the Orasje pocket. Could
17 you point out to the judges where is the Orasje
19 A. This is the Posavina. I am indicating it
20 right now. It is the Bosanska Posavina, the northern
21 part of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orasje is here,
22 approximately, where I showed it to you.
23 Q. You are pointing on the exhibit, above the
24 letter "A" in the word Posavina, is the location of
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, while you are orienting us in this
3 particular exhibit, would you point out the
4 municipalities of Kiseljak, Vitez and Busovaca,
6 A. You see, this is where Vitez is, the place
7 that I pointed to just now, and then Busovaca is over
8 here, and then Kiseljak.
9 Q. The territory that separated the Posavina
10 from Vitez, Kiseljak and Busovaca municipalities was
11 territory that was occupied by the Republika Srpska in
12 1993; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. Yes. Most of this area was under
14 occupation by the army of Republika Srpska. Part of it
15 was also covered by the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. Okay. Were you in the HVO in 1993, 1992 and
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What position did you hold in the HVO,
20 Mr. Tadic?
21 A. Yesterday I tried to explain, in 1992, in
22 April, on the 28th of April, I got out of Sarajevo and
23 I reached Brcko. That is also Posavina. And,
24 regrettably, I managed to spend only a single night in
25 Brcko, and then I went out to the southwestern
1 territory. We were there together, the Bosniaks, the
2 Muslims and the Croats, and we set up a joint defence,
3 that is to say it was called the 108th HVO Brigade, and
4 it was also the civilian government that was formed
5 too. I never had any posts in the army, but I was a
6 member of the so-called Crisis Staff. That was a
7 civilian element, a civilian component, and we operated
8 as a government in wartime in an area that was not
9 occupied yet.
10 After Brcko, where I spent two or three
11 months, I went to Bosanski Brod, which is also in
12 Posavina, and after Bosanski Brod fell, I went to
13 Orasje. In Orasje I was entrusted with the task of
14 setting up civilian authorities.
15 Q. When you were in Orasje, were you a member of
16 the HVO?
17 A. Not in the sense of belonging to military
18 units. I told you that I never belonged to the HVO in
19 that sense. However, you must realise that as the
20 Croatian Defence Council, the HVO came into existence,
21 the same name covered both the civilian and the
22 military components. The civilian component had its
23 own separate part, in the sense of the executive and
24 legislative and judiciary branches, whereas the
25 military part had its own set-up.
1 JUDGE JORDA: A little bit more slowly.
2 THE WITNESS: All right.
3 MR. HARMON:
4 Q. I take it, Mr. Tadic, from your testimony
5 that for a small portion of time, which you've told us
6 about, you were a member of the military component of
7 the HVO, then became a member of the other component of
8 the HVO?
9 A. I never wore a uniform.
10 Q. Okay. I take it, likewise, you were never a
11 member of the military police of the HVO?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you have occasion to visit the Vitez,
14 Kiseljak or Busovaca municipalities in 1993?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you visit those same municipalities in
18 A. In 1992, yes, in passing. As I was going
19 from the south of the country towards the Posavina,
20 towards the municipality of Brcko, the southwest part,
21 which was under HVO units controlled, and these were
22 joint forces at the time of Croats and Bosniaks, and as
23 we were passing with convoys of food and logistics,
24 generally speaking.
25 Q. So I take it your answer is that you
1 transited through one or all of those municipalities on
2 a single occasion in 1992 on your way to the Posavina;
3 is that correct?
4 A. I went along the road that existed then.
5 That is to say, that that road went through populated
6 areas only in part, but most of it went over mountains,
7 et cetera. So we managed to travel only where there
8 weren't combat operations and where the situation
9 permitted this to be done. So I travelled several
10 times until the month of October.
11 Q. Now, yesterday you testified that when you
12 arrived in the Orasje area, and I am quoting you from
13 page 6 of your testimony of yesterday, lines 8 and on,
14 that essentially in the entire year of 1993 your task
15 was to set up the work of the courts and the
16 Prosecutor's offices and the legal authorities and to
17 set up civilian institutions of the parent authority
18 from -- and I don't have the date here -- at the end of
19 February or the beginning of March, 1994. So that was
20 your responsibility while you were in Orasje area. My
21 question to you, Mr. Tadic, is: Were you setting up
22 these legal authorities and these civilian institutions
23 for the authorities of Herceg-Bosna or for the Republic
24 of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
25 A. Yesterday I tried to explain that I came to
1 that area at the end of April, after I had established
2 civilian authority in the territory of Brcko, together
3 with others, and I already helped set up the military
4 authorities, because I was the first one to write
5 certain rules and regulations for the military police,
6 but they were relevant only to the 100th Brigade of the
7 HVO, Brcko, and then after that I went to Bosanski
8 Brod. I think this was June or July, 1992.
9 At that time the HVO council for Bosanska
10 Posavina acted as an independent party and at that time
11 I had the task of establishing civilian and military
12 judiciary authorities in the territory of Bosanska
13 Posavina. I elaborated the necessary acts and I took
14 them to Zagreb, and part of the government of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina was there at the time.
16 Q. Your answer is very lengthy. I am limited in
17 the amount of time I have, and my question was very
18 specific to you. Were you setting up the courts and
19 the prosecutors' offices for the authorities of
20 Herceg-Bosna in 1993 or were you setting these
21 authorities up for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
22 A. In 1992, I was establishing these authorities
23 for the authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina; in 1993,
24 within the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
25 Q. In 1993, you were setting up those
1 authorities for the authorities of Herceg-Bosna. My
2 question to you then, Mr. Tadic, is, who directed you
3 to do that in 1993?
4 A. On the 6th of January, 1993, I was appointed
5 assistant head of the justice department within the
6 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna --
7 Q. Let me --
8 A. -- and I was detached in Posavina, and my
9 task there was to establish the judiciary. It hadn't
10 been operating at all until then, and it hadn't been
11 operating from April 1992.
12 MR. HARMON: Could I have the assistance of
13 the usher and have this exhibit marked as a
14 Prosecutor's Exhibit, please?
15 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'm going to show you a document,
16 and I'll give you a preview of it while it's being
17 marked and before it's presented to you.
18 This is from the Narodni list, and it
19 indicates your appointment as the assistant head, and
20 it indicates, and I'll let you take a look at this
21 yourself, that this appointment went into effect on the
22 6th of January, 1993 and that you were appointed by
23 Dr. Jadranko Prlic who was the president of the HVO
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'm going to ask you to identify this in just
2 a moment.
3 A. Yes, yes, that is exactly what I said.
4 THE REGISTRAR: This is 568.
5 MR. HARMON:
6 Q. Let me just very briefly ask you, when it's
7 shown to you, to confirm that this is the decision
8 announcing your appointment in the Narodni list.
9 A. Yes, yes, this is a decision dated January 6,
11 Q. Your official title was what on this
12 particular appointment?
13 A. Assistant Head of the Department for Justice
14 and Administration of the Croatian Community of
16 Q. Now, thereafter, after you received this
17 appointment, Mr. Tadic, you set about drafting various
18 laws or various regulations dealing with the courts and
19 dealing with civilian institutions of Herceg-Bosna, did
20 you not?
21 A. No, no, I didn't do that. I was only one of
22 the persons working on that team, so I was not head of
23 the justice department. I was assistant head of the
24 justice department. The justice department had a head
25 of its own and three assistant heads, and I was one of
1 these three assistant heads.
2 Q. Thank you for that clarification. My
3 question to you, Mr. Tadic is, did you work as an
4 assistant head of the justice department on drafting
5 laws and regulations relating to Herceg-Bosna?
6 A. Yes, yes, to the extent to which I was asked
7 to do so and to the extent to which I could have done
8 so under the circumstances.
9 Q. Now, in drafting the laws that you did for
10 Herceg-Bosna, did you consult with the legal
11 authorities from the Republic of Croatia?
12 A. Republic of Croatia? No, no. I don't know
13 if somebody else did, though.
14 Q. Now, yesterday in your testimony, you
15 discussed, in brief, the workings of the various
16 courts, and in your testimony at page 61, and I'm
17 referring to lines 11 through 17, you were asked the
18 question of whether or not the military court in
19 Travnik and the military prosecutor's office functioned
20 normally in the course of 1992 and 1993. Part of your
21 answer in response to that question was: "And
22 regardless of the fact that I was not in Mostar, I was
23 at the time in the northern parts of Bosnia, in
24 Bosanska Posavina at the time, I was in constant
25 contact and communication because I was detached ..."
1 I won't read the rest of your answers -- well, let me
2 read the rest of your answer: "... and my duties were
3 to go to Posavina to set up the legal system there."
4 Now, according to your answer, you were in
5 constant contact and communication, was that with
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Were you in constant contact and
9 communication with the Vitez municipality?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Were you in constant contact with the Travnik
12 judicial authorities?
13 A. No.
14 Q. How did you get your information about the
15 status and the workings of the Travnik judicial
16 authorities if you weren't in contact with them in
18 A. Quite naturally, from Mostar.
19 Q. So apparently Mostar was in contact and had
20 the ability to communicate with the authorities in the
21 Vitez municipality in respect of the status of the
22 judicial authorities; is that your conclusion?
23 A. How Mostar obtained information, that, I do
24 not know; however, I often went to Mostar, and people
25 from Mostar would come, and then we would discuss the
1 subject matter related to the functioning of courts,
2 and I know it was very, very difficult to establish
3 judicial authority. After all, until the end of 1992,
4 we did not even manage to get military courts to
5 operate at all. I think only in Mostar there was a
6 military court that was in operation, not in Orasje,
7 though; in Orasje, only in March 1993, although the
8 decree was passed in 1992.
9 Q. Mr. Tadic, when did the Travnik district
10 military court in Vitez and in Travnik commence its
12 A. I think it was in 1993. I cannot tell you
13 the exact date or month, but this can be checked, I
15 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's
16 Exhibit 456/73, please, shown to the witness?
17 Q. Mr. Tadic, would you take a look at that
18 document? This is a document that is dated the 31st of
19 August, 1993. In the upper left-hand corner, you can
20 see that the time this communique was issued was 1630
21 hours, and it is a communique from the Croatian
22 Community of Herceg-Bosna from the command of the
23 Central Bosnia Operations Zone, and I would like to
24 direct your attention to a portion of this particular
25 document, and on the English translation, it references
1 the Travnik district military court that was based in
2 Vitez pronouncing certain sentences against certain
4 Do you see that portion that I'm referring to
5 in the BCS version?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You can see from that particular document,
8 which is a communique from the information office of
9 the Central Bosnia Operations Zone, that the Travnik
10 district military court in Vitez was functioning, at
11 least on the 31st of August, 1993, by virtue of the
12 fact that it describes an indictment and certain
13 sentences that were passed in respect of various people
14 identified in the communique; is that correct?
15 A. I never denied it. I said that it started
16 operating as of 1993, not 1992, and when exactly in
17 1993 it did start operating, that, I cannot say, but
18 this is not controversial.
19 Q. Now, can you furnish us with any additional
20 information about the functioning of this particular
21 military district court in the Vitez municipality? Are
22 you able to assist us?
23 A. I don't know. I didn't understand your
24 question. What specific information do you have in
1 Q. Can you identify, for example, the prosecutor
2 of that court? Can you identify the judge or judges of
3 that court? Can you tell us how they functioned and
4 any additional clarity on when they functioned?
5 A. It would be very difficult for me to give an
6 accurate answer because I said yesterday to the
7 Honourable Judges that my task, first and foremost, was
8 to establish the system in Bosanska Posavina, and I
9 knew the names of people there because I worked with
10 them, and the rest I knew from the justice department
11 where I was assistant head, and I also knew the
12 problems that we discussed there.
13 Now I cannot recall the names of the persons
14 involved. I do know a few people who were there on the
15 ground, for example, Marinko Jurcevic, but what he
16 exactly did at that time, I cannot tell you for sure.
17 Until the present day, he is a cadre. He is a judge
18 or, rather, I think he's a cantonal judge for Central
19 Bosnia at present.
20 There are some other people too whom I had
21 known from before the war from that area and who were
22 working in courts, and now whether they held these
23 particular posts at that time, that can be checked
24 too. It was published, so I don't think there should
25 be any controversy involved.
1 Q. Mr. Tadic, let me go to a different subject
2 there, and that is, can you tell me when Bosnia and
3 Herzegovina was recognised as a sovereign state? What
4 was the date of that recognition?
5 A. The 6th of April, 1992.
6 Q. Who was the head of the government of that
7 particular sovereign state in 1992?
8 A. Mr. Jure Pelivan.
9 Q. Did Alija Izetbegovic become the head of that
10 state, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
11 A. Alija Izetbegovic was the president of the
12 presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina before
13 the proclamation of independence and sovereignty and
14 afterwards as well.
15 Q. Now, I won't go into great detail, but the
16 Republika Srpska, headed by Radovan Karadzic, broke
17 away from the legitimate government authorities in
18 Sarajevo, didn't they?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Would you say that the entity known as the
21 Republika Srpska was a legitimate state?
22 A. No, I never maintained that, nor did we
23 discuss that point, either in this Trial Chamber or
24 anywhere else.
25 JUDGE JORDA: Focus your questions on the
1 examination-in-chief, please.
2 MR. HARMON: All right.
3 Q. Mr. Tadic, when did Herceg-Bosna come into
5 A. You must differentiate here two things.
6 First, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was
7 established, and to tell you quite frankly, I don't
8 know the exact date of that because I was not in those
9 political structures at the time, and in 1993, I think
10 it was on the 18th of October, to be precise, the
11 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established.
12 Q. The 18th of the October of which year?
13 A. 1993.
14 Q. Now, did either the Croatian Republic of
15 Herceg-Bosna or the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
16 receive international recognition as a separate entity?
17 A. No, because it did not ask for it.
18 MR. HARMON: Now, can I have Prosecutor's
19 Exhibit 38, tab 22 shown to this witness, please?
20 Q. You are a lawyer by training, and I believe
21 you told us yesterday that you received your legal
22 degree in 1977 and were also a minister of justice of
23 the federation.
24 Now, tell us, if you could, in 1993, what was
25 the constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
1 what role did it play in the national affairs of that
2 legitimate state?
3 A. The constitutional court of the Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina was established according to the
5 regulations of the constitution of the Republic of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Its role was to assess the
7 constitutionality and the legality of the laws and
8 other legal acts which were enacted in the Republic of
10 Q. In fact, Mr. Tadic, on the 18th of September,
11 1992, the constitutional court of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina rendered a decision in which it annulled
13 the decision on the establishment of the Croatian
14 Community of Herceg-Bosna that was adopted on the 18th
15 of November, 1991, did it not?
16 A. I did not take part in that, nor did I, to be
17 quite frank, ever read it. I have never even seen it.
18 You must understand that the constitutional court of
19 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, just as the other
20 legal institutions, disintegrated in 1992. The Croats
21 and Serbs withdrew from those legal institutions.
22 Q. Let me also inform you then, if you haven't
23 seen this document, Mr. Tadic, that the decision of the
24 constitutional court of Bosnia and Herzegovina also
25 annulled the following inter alia, the decree on the
1 organisation, operation of jurisdiction of the judicial
2 authorities in the event of a state of war or an
3 immediate threat of war in the territory of the
4 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, which was adopted
5 on the 3rd of July by the presidency of the Croatian
6 Community of Herceg-Bosna. It also annulled the decree
7 on the armed forces of the Croatian Community of
8 Herceg-Bosna which was adopted on the 3rd of July, 1992
9 by the presidency of the Croatian Community of
11 Now, are you saying, Mr. Tadic, that you've
12 never heard of this decision?
13 A. Your Honours, Mr. President, there are some
14 other questions involved here. I did not come here to
15 politically expound on the Croatian Community of
16 Herceg-Bosna. I really did not read those decisions,
17 nor was I interested in them. I had quite a different
18 realm of activity.
19 JUDGE JORDA: He's asking, Mr. Tadic, whether
20 you knew it. That's all.
21 A. I said that I never saw them. I did hear
22 about that but I did not read it.
23 JUDGE JORDA: Please continue, Mr. Harmon.
24 MR. HARMON:
25 Q. In fact, we can see, can we not, Mr. Tadic,
1 from Prosecutor's Exhibit 568 that you were appointed
2 as an assistant to the justice ministry some few months
3 after the constitutional court of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina had annulled the legislation dealing with
5 the organisation and operation of judicial authorities
6 in Herceg-Bosna; isn't that correct?
7 A. It is correct that I was appointed on the 6th
8 of January, 1993.
9 Q. Furthermore, Mr. Tadic, you then proceeded to
10 assist in drafting legislation for an organisation, the
11 existence of which was not recognised by the sovereign
12 state of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
13 A. I don't know what the question is now. Am I
14 being tried because I participated in that work?
15 Q. Mr. Tadic, you're not on trial, and if you
16 think that the questions are intended that way, please,
17 don't take them in that spirit, Mr. Tadic.
18 My question to you is very clear, however.
19 After the decision of the constitutional court of
20 Bosnia and Herzegovina that was issued on the 18th of
21 September, 1992, you were appointed as an assistant
22 justice minister, and you assisted in the drafting of
23 laws for an entity which was known as the Republic of
24 Herceg-Bosna; isn't that correct?
25 A. No. First of all, it was not the Republic of
1 Herceg-Bosna. Secondly, it was not a ministry, a
2 justice ministry, but it was a lower form of
3 organisation. It was what we called a department, and
4 it is correct that I was appointed on the 6th of
6 Q. All right. We won't belabour the issue. I
7 think the record is clear on its own.
8 Let me discuss your testimony yesterday, and
9 your testimony yesterday was one that covered at length
10 the various laws and some of the laws that related to
11 criminal procedure, that related to the work of the
12 military district courts, the decree on the military
13 prosecutor, and other laws and regulations relating to
14 the military police.
15 Now, Mr. Tadic, in summary, your testimony
16 was that Blaskic had no competencies to initiate
17 investigation, he had no competencies to direct the
18 civilian or military police, nor did he have any
19 competency over the prosecutors of the military
20 district courts. Now, I would like to explore with
21 you, Mr. Tadic, the competencies that Blaskic did have
22 under the legislation that you testified about, and let
23 me begin with certain Defence Exhibits.
24 Can I have Defence Exhibit 521 shown to the
25 witness, please.
1 Mr. Tadic, let me first of all direct your
2 attention to the decree on the district military
3 prosecutor's offices. I would like to direct your
4 attention to Article 6 of that particular decree. Now,
5 under that particular article, the district military
6 prosecutor's offices could receive from military
7 personnel, including military commands, and my
8 translation says: "Criminal charges and other request
9 and statements concerning matters under its
10 jurisdiction for the purpose of taking such action as
11 it is authorised to take."
12 I don't know, Mr. Tadic, could you tell us,
13 first of all, what criminal charges the district
14 military prosecutor's office could accept from military
16 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, we are dealing
17 precisely with the term that we discussed yesterday and
18 drew your attention to, "criminal charges." "Krivicna
19 prijava" was translated as "criminal charges." I
20 maintained that that is not the proper translation, and
21 yesterday we discussed this point and we said that a
22 better term would be "complaint," because "charge," a
23 "criminal charge" associates in our minds, indicates a
24 formal criminal indictment, whereas citizens and
25 military commanders can only bring in criminal
1 complaints. So I would like this to be cleared up
3 MR. HARMON: I have no objection to that,
4 Mr. President. I am reading off a translation that was
5 provided to me by the Defence.
6 Q. So, my question, Mr. Tadic, and you can
7 perhaps assist us very briefly by explaining what is
8 meant by the term "criminal charges?" Does that mean a
9 formal charge that was presented to the military
10 prosecutor by the military commander, or does that mean
11 a complaint that was made by the military commander and
12 given to the military prosecutor?
13 A. I considered that I clarified this matter
14 yesterday somewhat. In our system, according to the
15 law on criminal procedure, a criminal charge, prijava,
16 is just the initial material on the basis of which the
17 internal affairs organ, that is to say the police,
18 proceeds, or the public prosecutor proceeds on the
19 basis of that material. It is not a formal charge.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I said yesterday, I explained when a citizen
22 can make a formal charge vis-a-vis the courts.
23 Q. In addition to what we just discussed, the
24 commander of a military zone could also provide to the
25 military prosecutor statements he had gathered,
1 evidence he had gathered, information he had gathered
2 about the commission of certain crimes, could he not?
3 A. Yes, he could have, either to the prosecutor
4 or to the military police.
5 Q. Thereafter, as I understood it, the
6 prosecutor could initiate charges or an investigation?
7 A. Yes, and bring in an indictment.
8 Q. Now, let me turn, if I could, to Article 27.
9 I am referring to the decree on the military courts,
10 district military courts. Do you have that particular
11 provision in front of you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You testified about that particular provision
14 yesterday, and amongst the obligations that were
15 created by Article 27 on a commander of a military unit
16 was the obligation, and I am quoting a portion of the
17 first paragraph: "Shall gather all information which
18 may be of use for the conducting of criminal
19 proceedings." Is that correct?
20 A. Yes, Article 27, paragraph 1, speaks about
21 this and says that the commander is duty-bound to
22 undertake all measures for the perpetrator of a
23 criminal offence by virtue of his office ex officio,
24 should be prevented for hiding or escaping, to preserve
25 the traces. We are therefore dealing with the
1 perpetrator of the criminal offence, that is to say
2 known individual.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Tadic, this is a mandatory
4 provision, is it not? The commander is obligated to
5 turn this information over to the prosecutor, isn't
6 he? It's not discretionary, the use of the word
7 "shall" imposes a mandatory obligation on a commander
8 to turn information about a crime over to the
9 prosecutor so the prosecutor can conduct proceedings in
10 accordance with the law?
11 A. Here it is obligatory, mandatory, to pass it
12 onto the prosecutor or the military police, and if you
13 read further on, you will see the other provisions
15 Q. We will get to those other provisions in a
16 moment, Mr. Tadic. So you agree that it's a mandatory
17 provision, and the provision requires that the
18 commander turn over not just evidence, but information
19 that's available about the crime?
20 A. Yes, when the perpetrator is known.
21 Q. Now, let me come to that particular point,
22 Mr. Tadic. Yesterday, when you were asked to opine on
23 what this particular provision meant, you were asked a
24 question by Mr. Nobilo: "Does this mean that the
25 perpetrator has to be known?" And your answer was,
1 "Yes." And you gave us an example, an example of a
2 particular --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- person who had committed a homicide, who
5 was known, who was arrested, and you said under those
6 circumstances the commander was obligated to turn over
7 that information to the military prosecutor. Let me
8 ask you this question.
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Let's assume, Mr. Tadic, that there is a
11 very, very serious crime committed about which the
12 commander knows. The perpetrator isn't known
13 immediately. What obligation does the commander have
14 to turn over to the prosecutor information that would
15 be of assistance to the prosecutor in the conduct of a
16 criminal proceeding?
17 A. First of all, this provision does not speak
18 about a case of this kind, that is to say that the
19 commander will turn over to the prosecutor material,
20 when we are talking about an unknown individual.
21 However, the commander will ask, request the competent
22 authorities to investigate that case, to collect
23 evidence, to uncover the perpetrator, and to have this
24 transferred to the public prosecutor all material for
25 further proceedings.
1 Q. So you recognise, Mr. Tadic, that the law
2 requires a commander, under Article 27, to turn over
3 information that he knows about the commission of a
4 crime, even if he does not identify the perpetrator?
5 A. Yes. But in that case he does not have to
6 submit this to the public prosecutor, but to the
7 security service or, rather, the crime investigation
8 service that then processes it.
9 Q. You told us yesterday, Mr. Tadic, that the
10 military police could conduct investigations, but so
11 could the military prosecutor, he could initiate and
12 conduct investigations, could he not?
13 A. I don't know what you mean by
14 investigations. If it is a formal act, then it can be
15 conducted only by the court, but in certain cases the
16 court, according to law, has the authority to allow
17 certain investigated actions to be carried out by the
18 crime investigation service or, rather, the military
19 police in this specific case. So, formally speaking,
20 the public prosecutor or anyone else cannot conduct an
21 investigation in our case, only the court of law can.
22 All of this is called preliminary actions.
23 Q. So by virtue of the duty that was on the
24 commander at the time in 1993, if the commander was
25 aware of the commission of a crime under the laws that
1 existed, he had an obligation to turn over the
2 information about that crime to the military police
3 authorities; is that correct?
4 A. Yes, to the military police, to the crime
5 investigation service.
6 Q. Your testimony is he had absolutely no
7 obligation whatsoever to turn over that information to
8 the military prosecutor?
9 A. He could have turned them over, but he did
10 not have to.
11 Q. Let me ask you this question. You testified
12 also yesterday about the law of criminal procedure in
13 the former Yugoslavia, and you testified about Article
14 73, which was found in the rules and the regulations
15 relating to the military police, and you testified that
16 essentially all citizens were duty-bound under the
17 former Yugoslavia to assist the police, and that
18 included enterprises, they were duty-bound to assist
19 the police, were they not, and the courts?
20 A. That provision primarily speaks of helping
21 the authorities discover certain matters, that is
22 helping the crime investigation police, that is to say
23 where action is taken ex officio. That is not to say
24 for all acts. Citizens were not duty-bound to report
25 any act. That is exactly what the law stipulates too,
1 in which cases yes and in which cases no.
2 Q. Were they duty-bound to assist and cooperate
3 with the prosecutorial authorities of the state in the
4 former Yugoslavia?
5 A. The public prosecutor could have asked for
6 certain data. First of all, he could have asked the
7 police for these data, the state institutions,
8 enterprises, and from citizens only exceptionally.
9 However, this did not carry weight as evidence in a
10 court of law. If the public prosecutor were to call me
11 in as a citizen, and if I were to make a statement to
12 him, that cannot be used as evidence in a court of
13 law. I was public prosecutor for years and I never
14 resorted to that.
15 Q. Well, let me come back, Mr. Tadic, to Article
16 27 that we've just been discussing a moment ago and let
17 me turn to the second paragraph in that particular
18 article that indicates that. I am quoting from my
19 translation: "The commander of the unit or
20 establishment shall immediately inform the district
21 military prosecutor or his immediately superior
22 commanding officer of the data referred to in paragraph
23 1 of this article."
24 Now, that provision is mandatory as well; is
25 it not?
1 A. Yes. Yes. It is in the context of paragraph
2 1 that we already discussed.
3 Q. So the reason why it's important, obviously,
4 to immediately, and I emphasize the word "immediately,"
5 inform the district military prosecutor, is so the
6 district military prosecutor can take the appropriate
7 legal action in a timely fashion; isn't that correct?
8 A. Again, it is important to know that the
9 public prosecutor cannot formally initiate an
10 investigation. He can only ask the court to go to the
11 crime scene, to carry out that kind of an
12 investigation, an on-site investigation, because the
13 public prosecutor in our case cannot conduct an
14 investigation. He is only present. But he can take
15 other measures. For example, he can ask the crime
16 investigation service of the military police to find a
17 rifle, a pistol, another object that was used during
18 the commission of that crime.
19 Q. He can ask the appropriate authorities to
20 conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the
21 elements of the crime; can he not?
22 A. Not an investigation, but they should collect
23 data that will help him to decide whether he is going
24 to ask the court for an investigation, because it is
25 only the court that carries out an investigation.
1 Q. Now, let me turn to the third provision of
2 this particular article, or the fourth provision, I
3 should say, referring to a military commander holding
4 the post of company commander or an equivalent or
5 higher post or an authorised official of the department
6 of the interior and the security department or the
7 military police. "May arrest a member of the military
8 in cases envisioning detention under the Law on
9 Criminal Procedure." Yesterday you talked to us about
10 the law of criminal procedure in the former Yugoslavia,
11 which I understand was adopted by Herceg-Bosna,
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Are you familiar with Article 191 of the law
15 of criminal procedure of the former Yugoslavia?
16 A. Yes, that article speaks of the reasons for
17 deciding on detention. It has several paragraphs, 1,
18 2, 3, 4, that were used for deciding on detention under
19 different circumstances or in different situations.
20 Q. If, Mr. Tadic, a crime prescribed the death
21 penalty, custody was required to be ordered against a
22 person if there was a reasonable suspicion that he had
23 committed such a crime; isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When one explores the statutory scheme,
1 criminal procedure scheme of the former Yugoslavia a
2 little further, those crimes that require mandatory
3 custody, in other words, for which the death penalty is
4 available, included the crimes of genocide, war crimes,
5 crimes against the civilian population, the wounded and
6 the sick, prisoners of war, murder of an enemy who had
7 surrendered or laid down his weapons; isn't that
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So under Article 27 of the document that we
11 are referring to, a commander could arrest an
12 individual, in fact it was required to arrest an
13 individual if there was a warranted suspicion that he
14 had committed a crime such as war crimes, crimes
15 against the civilian population, the wounded and the
16 sick, prisoners of war, murder of an enemy who had
17 surrendered or laid down his weapons; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, if the person is known and if there is
19 nothing else concerned, because then that person has to
20 be handed over to the competent authorities.
21 Q. Now, let me just be a little bit more precise
22 and a little bit more concrete, Mr. Tadic. Colonel
23 Blaskic was required to arrest a person if there was a
24 warranted suspicion that that person had committed one
25 of those crimes which I just described under this
1 provision; isn't that correct?
2 A. He could have, but someone from the crime
3 investigation police could have too, because in this
4 paragraph reference is made to both.
5 Q. I understand, but I am asking you not about
6 the military police, I am asking you about Colonel
8 A. He could have.
9 Q. Okay.
10 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, it's almost a
11 quarter after 5.00. I would like to give the
12 interpreters a little 10-minute break and we could
13 resume, say, in 10 minutes.
14 We have to know whether to resume with the
15 witness, which would mean that the Professor would have
16 to come back tomorrow morning. What do you think?
17 These are Defence witnesses. What's your opinion?
18 MR. NOBILO: We suggest that we finish with
19 this witness. The Professor can come back tomorrow, if
21 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, Your Honours, I
22 besiege you, I was supposed to be in Sarajevo today and
23 I postponed that until tomorrow. My flight is tomorrow
24 at 11.15. I truly have to go. Tonight we can work
25 until 10.00, if need be.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I appreciate your
2 availability toward justice, and I render tribute to
3 that, but justice has a certain cadence. We'll try,
4 Mr. Tadic. If you agree, Professor Jankovic will come
5 back tomorrow. And I apologise to the interpreters.
6 We'll take a 10-minute break and then we'll see what we
7 can do. Thank you.
8 --- Recess taken at 5.15 p.m.
9 --- Upon commencing at 5.30 p.m.
10 JUDGE JORDA: We can resume. Have the
11 accused brought in, please.
12 (The accused entered court)
13 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, please continue.
14 MR. HARMON: Thank you very much,
15 Mr. President, Judge Shahabuddeen.
16 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday, you discussed Defence
17 Exhibit 522 which were the regulations on the military
18 police, this is an exhibit, and this particular edition
19 is from Mostar in April of 1994. Was there a set of
20 regulations for the military police in 1992?
21 A. In '92, I'm not quite sure.
22 Q. Was there a similar set of regulations in
24 A. In '93, yes, there was.
25 Q. Have you done a comparison between the
1 regulations that existed in 1993 and the regulations
2 that are Defence Exhibit 522, those regulations in
3 April of 1994, and if so, can you tell us what
4 differences there are in the two versions?
5 A. I never compared them.
6 Q. Now, let me change the topic, Mr. Tadic, and
7 let me direct your attention to some of your testimony
8 yesterday and some of your answers yesterday.
9 I'm referring, first of all, to page 23 of
10 the transcript starting at line 2. You were asked a
11 question by my colleague, Mr. Nobilo: "Mr. Tadic,
12 please tell the Court who can give instructions either
13 to the civilian or to the military police and to take
14 certain action to conduct pre-criminal proceedings to
15 interview a person? So who are the persons who can
16 give such instructions to the police according to
17 law?" And your answer was essentially -- well, your
18 answer was: "First of all, we must take, as a point of
19 departure, the fact that the police has a hierarchy of
20 its own and it has its own bosses, so to speak, and
21 they say what is going to be done and they give
22 guidelines. That is one part of it. And the other
23 part that can exist, according to the Law of Criminal
24 Procedure, and it is the public prosecutor in this
25 particular case, and he is duty-bound, in a way, to do
1 so. If he asks the police to work out such a report,
2 and if he studies this report and if he assesses that
3 some things remain unclear and, therefore, a procedure
4 cannot be continued ..." and then it goes on and on and
6 So essentially what you have referred to is
7 the police, the public prosecutor, and eventually, your
8 answer concludes that there are three entities, the
9 investigative judge, the public prosecutor, and senior
10 police officers who can direct the investigations,
11 among other things.
12 Then on page 25, you were asked a question,
13 and I'm reading part of this question: "The commander
14 of the Operative Zone, Colonel Blaskic, could he order
15 the military police to take fingerprints, for example,
16 to interview persons, to question certain persons, or
17 to do anything else by way of pre-criminal proceedings,
18 anything of this nature?" And on line 19 and 20 of
19 your long answer, you said, "... so Mr. Blaskic did not
20 have these powers."
21 Lastly, let me direct your attention to a
22 question and answer that was given and is found on page
23 43 starting at line 12. My colleague, Mr. Nobilo,
24 asked you the following question: "The Law on Criminal
25 Procedure, does it allow the commander of the Operative
1 Zone to command the military police in terms of what
2 are going to be the investigative or pre-investigative
3 actions they will take," and your answer was, "No, that
4 is not within his authority."
5 Now, when you gave those answers, Mr. Tadic,
6 you were talking about the statutes and the regulations
7 that you had been describing; isn't that correct?
8 A. Yes. I had in mind the Law on Criminal
9 Procedure and the regulations which must correspond and
10 be in conformity with that law.
11 Q. Did Colonel Blaskic have de facto powers
12 which exceeded those powers which were articulated in
13 the various decrees and laws and regulations which you
14 described for us in detail?
15 A. I don't know that.
16 MR. HARMON: Could I have Prosecutor's
17 Exhibit 456/74 through 77, please? Mr. Usher, if we
18 could please start with Exhibit 456/75, if that could
19 be shown to the witness, please.
20 Q. Mr. Tadic, 456/75 is an order that was issued
21 by Colonel Blaskic on the 4th of September, 1992, and
22 that date appears in the upper left-hand corner of the
23 document you have in your hand; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, that document, as you can see on the
1 right-hand upper portion of the document, is an order
2 directed to the commander of the regional military
3 police by Colonel Blaskic; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, would you very quickly review the body
6 of that text, the four provisions that are in there,
7 because I want to ask you some questions about that?
8 Mr. Tadic, this is an order from Colonel
9 Blaskic to the commander of the regional military
10 police asking -- ordering the military police to go
11 with a patrol and arrest an individual by the name of
12 Mladen Cosic and take him to prison; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The second provision, Colonel Blaskic orders
15 the military police to do a number of things. The
16 first thing he orders the military police to do is to
17 prepare all the necessary documents for this particular
18 individual, as well as evidence. So he asks the
19 military police to prepare documents and evidence;
21 A. That's what it says.
22 Q. He identifies, does he not, the specific
23 charges for which he wants evidence prepared,
24 specifically, vandalising the premises of the Kiseljak
25 police station, unlawfully entering the Kiseljak HVO OS
1 barracks, and, thirdly, abusing personnel while they're
2 carrying out their duties.
3 My first question to you, Mr. Tadic, are
4 those criminal charges?
5 A. First of all, these are not criminal charges
6 because a criminal charge is something else. These are
7 specific orders to the military police, and we can
8 discuss whether, in conformity with the law, as they
9 stand here, and I'm seeing this for the first time now,
10 whether they could have been issued by Colonel Blaskic.
11 Q. Mr. Tadic, instead of saying "criminal
12 charges," I get used to the terminology in my own legal
13 system. Are those criminal offences, vandalising
14 premises, unlawfully entering a particular premises,
15 and abusing people? Are those criminal offences,
16 either in the former Yugoslavia or in Herceg-Bosna's
17 scheme which adopted the rules of the former
19 A. Yes, I understood you better this time
20 around. So you wish to differentiate between "offence"
21 and a "criminal act"?
22 Q. An offence and a completed criminal charge.
23 A. Yes. An offence, therefore, is a milder form
24 of lack of respect for regulations, and to simplify
25 matters, let me say the following, as I was taught to
1 do: A criminal act or charge is a more serious act,
2 and, of course, a charge as a formal act goes towards
3 the court, a court of law, and it can be issued by a
4 public prosecutor for criminal acts. Everything else
5 is a complaint. It is difficult to translate that,
6 perhaps, but it is all the material on the basis of
7 which a requirement is made for an investigation to be
8 launched or to issue an indictment on that basis.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Tadic, in light of your answer
10 yesterday that it was not within the authority of
11 Colonel Blaskic to command the military police in terms
12 of what are going to be the investigative or
13 pre-investigative actions that they take, would you
14 please tell the Court what legal authority Colonel
15 Blaskic had to issue this order?
16 A. Well, the Law on Criminal Procedure did not
17 authorise him to partake of this kind of order. We
18 mentioned Article 27 a moment ago of the regulations
19 governing military courts, and this is an exception.
20 Q. So this is, is it fair to say, an authority
21 or a competence that Colonel Blaskic took upon
22 himself? He exceeded the statutory authorities that
23 were available to him?
24 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, I apologise. Our
25 learned colleague interrupted the witness in his
1 continuity. He wanted to explain fully the problem of
2 disciplinary measures and everything else, so please,
3 would he allow the witness to explain fully what he
4 wants to say?
5 JUDGE JORDA: I had the impression that the
6 witness was expressing himself.
7 Have you not been able to express yourself
8 fully, Mr. Tadic? I had the impression that you
9 expressed everything that you wished to. Did you want
10 to add something to your answer?
11 A. There was one section that I didn't finish
12 speaking about, and that is the competencies of the
13 commander, disciplinary, to punish and discipline
14 individuals, and for that to determine measures,
15 amongst others, prison sentences. He could issue this
16 up to a period of 60 days, in that he could order a
17 disciplinary sentence of up to 60 days' imprisonment.
18 MR. HARMON:
19 Q. Mr. Tadic, we're going to get to the rules
20 military discipline a little later, so if you would
21 please refrain from discussing those rules of military
22 discipline only and unless it's required to qualify or
23 clarify an answer. I'm going to come to that subject
24 matter later in my examination.
25 My question to you sir is, what was the legal
1 basis for Colonel Blaskic to issue an order to the
2 military police telling them what to do, how to gather
3 evidence, and what charges or what offences they should
4 bring or investigate?
5 A. I do not see any legal basis here to which he
6 referred. It does not exist in this act.
7 JUDGE JORDA: At one point, Mr. Tadic, you
8 say that the legal basis is the military power, that
9 is, of military discipline, and then you say something
10 else. Could you express yourself clearly? You're
11 dealing with legal specialists here. Let's not get
12 into overly complicated issues. Very simple question,
13 what legal basis did Colonel Blaskic do that? If this
14 is an exception, please say so. That's a very simple
15 question. You can answer.
16 A. This was an exception. According to the Law
17 on Criminal Procedure, he could not have issued this
18 order, except according to the rules for disciplinary
19 action which is within his competence.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you for that.
21 MR. HARMON:
22 Q. Now, let me show you the next exhibit which
23 is 456/76, and you will see, Mr. Tadic, that this is a
24 document, in the upper left-hand corner, that is dated
25 the 4th of February, 1993, and it is number 01-2-05,
1 and if you turn to the second page, you'll see -- I'm
2 sorry, the first page of the BCS version -- that it has
3 been issued by Colonel Blaskic. I'd like to direct
4 your attention, please, to the paragraph, item number 6
5 in that particular document.
6 JUDGE JORDA: The question, please,
7 Mr. Harmon?
8 MR. HARMON: Yes.
9 Q. Mr. Tadic, it's difficult to read, but have
10 you had an opportunity to read paragraph 6?
11 This is an order from Colonel Blaskic, and as
12 you can see in paragraph 6, it is directed to the
13 officer in charge of the Zenica Jure Francetic Brigade
14 military police, and it is an order to have a soldier,
15 who sold a rifle to Muslim members of the military
16 police of the Zenica brigade, arrested.
17 My question to you is, what is the legal
18 authority that Colonel Blaskic had in February of 1993
19 to order the military police to arrest somebody?
20 A. They are the regulations regulating
21 disciplinary action, military disciplinary action,
22 within the frameworks of the military units.
23 Q. So you're referring to a set of regulations
24 that you didn't talk about yesterday, that is, the
25 rules of military discipline?
1 A. Yes, there are rules.
2 Q. Okay. Let me turn your attention to 456/74,
3 the next exhibit. This is a short item, Mr. Tadic.
4 Take a minute to read it. Have you had a chance to
5 read that, Mr. Tadic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This is a document, it is issued by Colonel
8 Blaskic, it is dated the 24th of October, 1992?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In this particular document it indicates
11 that: "Mensur Alic, major of the JNA, is currently in
12 Trogir. If you take the road to Travnik, arrest him,
13 and if he resists, execute him." I have two questions
14 for you: First of all, what is his authority under the
15 law that existed on the 24th of October to have this
16 person arrested? He is not a member of the HVO, he is
17 a member of another organisation, the JNA, so what is
18 his authority to have this person arrested?
19 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President.
20 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Nobilo.
21 MR. NOBILO: The question contains an
22 assertion that does not emanate from this document,
23 namely, that this document was issued by Colonel
24 Blaskic. It was never proved. The document is not
25 signed, nor was it recognised by anybody, nobody has
1 knowledge of this document. And I think --
2 JUDGE JORDA: I believe this was tendered.
3 MR. HARMON: It was, Mr. President, 456/74.
4 If Mr. Nobilo wants to dispute this, he has an
5 opportunity to dispute it later in this case, but I
6 have a limited amount of time, Mr. President, and I
7 object to constantly being interrupted with objections
8 that are quite obvious. The objections and the remedy
9 of this --
10 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, continue, Mr. Harmon.
11 Mr. Nobilo, try not to interrupt too often.
12 You know that interruptions are always annoying to
13 those who are being interrupted. I am here in order to
14 make sure everything stays in order here.
15 Mr. Harmon, continue. The witness also has a
16 time constraint.
17 MR. HARMON:
18 Q. Mr. Tadic, what is the legal authority that
19 Colonel Blaskic had to issue this order on the 24th of
20 October, 1992?
21 A. If he did issue this, if Mr. Blaskic did
22 issue this, then he overstepped his competencies, and
23 did not have authorisation to do so based on the law.
24 Q. My second question, Mr. Tadic, is what is his
25 legal authority to give an order to have an individual
2 A. He did not have the authority to do so.
3 Q. Now, let me turn to 456/77. Have you seen
4 this document before coming in to testify before today?
5 A. No, not a single one of these documents.
6 Q. Mr. Tadic, you will see from this document,
7 in the upper left-hand corner, it is an order that was
8 issued on the 11th of October, 1993, and, at the
9 bottom, you will see that the person who issued that
10 order is Colonel Blaskic. Furthermore, you will see
11 that in the right-hand side of this document that this
12 order was issued to, amongst others, the 4th MP
13 Battalion, which is the 4th Military Police Battalion.
14 I direct your attention to paragraph 1, which reads as
15 follows: "Undertake the following disciplinary
16 measures against any soldiers and their immediate
17 commander who desert defence lines. (a) Execution of
18 the unit soldier." My question to you, sir, is what
19 was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to issue an order
20 to the military police to have a soldier who deserted a
21 defence position executed?
22 A. He did not have such authority.
23 Q. Now, could I have the next exhibit, which is
24 Defence Exhibit 368. Mr. Tadic, have you seen this
25 particular Defence Exhibit before coming in here to
2 A. No.
3 Q. Take a moment to read it. I will direct your
4 attention, first of all, to the date in the upper
5 left-hand corner, the 31st of May, 1993, at 0945
6 hours. You will see on the right-hand side, below
7 that, this has been issued to the commanding officer of
8 the 4th Military Police of Battalion Vitez, and to the
9 assistant for SIS. This is an order issued by Colonel
10 Blaskic from -- it's obvious from the face of this.
11 Take a moment to read this very quickly. I would like
12 to ask you some questions about it.
13 Mr. Tadic, my first question is: This is an
14 order, or my first observation is this is an order to
15 the military police to conduct an investigation into a
16 case and to take disciplinary measures against certain
17 identified individuals identified in the predicate
18 paragraph. What was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority
19 to direct the military police to take disciplinary
20 measures against military police members?
21 A. Mr. Blaskic could have taken disciplinary
22 action as commander, and the military police was
23 supposed to carry this out in operative terms, that is
24 to say to escort the person in question to the place
25 where the disciplinary action would be taken, that is
1 to say to bring the person in, had the person tried to
2 escape, et cetera.
3 JUDGE JORDA: (No translation) -- when you
4 answer, Mr. Tadic.
5 MR. HARMON:
6 Q. My question, Mr. Tadic, is this: What is
7 Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to order the military
8 police to take disciplinary measures against military
9 police members?
10 A. That should be seen in the context of the
11 regulations, the military rules that the army had.
12 Q. So are you saying, Mr. Tadic, that Colonel
13 Blaskic had the authority to order disciplinary
14 proceedings against military police members?
15 A. Within disciplinary measures, yes.
16 Q. Let me ask you one additional question.
17 Again, in light of your testimony that Colonel Blaskic
18 could not command the military police in terms of what
19 they are going to investigate, how do you reconcile
20 this order with your testimony yesterday?
21 A. Quite easily so. The Colonel, and any
22 commander, had certain daily operational powers in
23 terms of the military police. The commander of the
24 military police had other powers, and the military
25 police had an independent organisation within the
1 Department of Defence, later the Ministry of Defence.
2 What Mr. Blaskic did, that is a different matter. The
3 extent to which he abided by the rules or not, the
4 extent to which he was compelled to do certain things
5 or not, that I really do not know.
6 Q. Let me turn your attention to Prosecutor's
7 Exhibit 456/59. While we are waiting for that
8 document, Mr. Tadic, let me just return to the previous
9 exhibit. If you just put that down for just a minute,
10 Mr. Tadic, and return to the previous exhibit. Are you
11 saying that in respect of Defence Exhibit 368 Colonel
12 Blaskic exceeded his authorities or he was within his
13 authorities in respect of this particular order to the
14 4th Military Police Battalion?
15 A. Partly, yes.
16 Q. Please explain your answer.
17 A. I thought that I had already explained it.
18 It says in the Rules that the commander does have
19 certain daily operational powers, and that the
20 commander of the military police has other powers, on
21 the other hand. Why such orders were issued to the 4th
22 Battalion of the military police by Mr. Blaskic, and
23 why he did not go through the command of the military
24 police, that I do not know. He is the only person who
25 can answer that.
1 Q. So are you saying that by issuing this order
2 to the commanding officer of the 4th military police to
3 conduct the investigation and to take disciplinary
4 measures against the culprits, he was exceeding his
5 authorities? I want to try to define precisely what
6 part of this order you believe he exceeded his
7 authorities in and what part he was within his
8 authorities, because to me, at least, that's not
10 MR. HAYMAN: Asked and answered,
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, the question was
13 asked, that's correct, but I think that's because you
14 were preparing for the following question. Is that
15 right, Mr. Harmon?
16 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, if you are
17 satisfied that there has been a clear answer given in
18 respect of this document, I am satisfied. I don't have
19 -- please, Mr. Hayman, let me finish, will you.
20 MR. HAYMAN: I haven't said a word, counsel.
21 I stood up.
22 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, it's not clear to
23 me what the answer is, but if you are satisfied, then I
24 will move onto a different document.
25 JUDGE JORDA: I had the feeling that you had
1 asked the question, and that you wanted him to repeat
2 it again. That was the feeling I had, and I did
3 somewhat agree that you had asked the question.
4 Starting with 368, was that the -- I see that
5 Mr. Hayman is still standing. Do you have an objection
6 you wish to make, Mr. Hayman?
7 MR. HAYMAN: The witness said that the
8 accused should have gone through the head of the
9 military police in Mostar, and he doesn't know why he
10 didn't do that. It is point blank, he said it, he has
11 been asked the same question three times, and we think
12 that this is repetition.
13 JUDGE JORDA: I thought, Mr. Hayman, that I
14 had agreed to your objection, that you don't have to
15 repeat me for the third time, repeat your objection.
16 Mr. Harmon, please continue. A few more
17 moments, but I think that the interpreters might be
18 getting tired. I would like to move to Exhibit
19 456/9 --
20 MR. HARMON: 59, Mr. President. 456/59.
21 Q. Now, take a look at that, please. Have you
22 seen this document before?
23 A. No.
24 Q. This is an order, and it's an order dated the
25 10th of May, 1993, at 1705 hours. Unfortunately, the
1 addressee has been blacked out. It relates to the
2 events that occurred in the village of Ahmici, and it
3 has been issued by Colonel Blaskic. Now, take just a
4 minute, please, and read that document. Mr. Tadic,
5 first of all, let me direct your attention to paragraph
6 2, because I think we can figure out to whom this
7 document was addressed and what those black lines
8 covered up. Normally, where those black lines are is
9 the addressee of an order; isn't that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You will see in paragraph 2 that Colonel
12 Blaskic orders the assistant for SIS of the Operative
13 Zone, Central Bosnia, as the person who is responsible
14 for the task that is identified in the first paragraph,
15 that is gather all information about what took place in
16 the village of Ahmici. My first question to you is:
17 What was Colonel Blaskic's legal authority to designate
18 the assistant for SIS to conduct this investigation?
19 A. I think that he did not have legal grounds
20 for doing so.
21 Q. Now, when a crime has been committed about
22 which the commander of an operation zone knows about,
23 but doesn't know or allegedly doesn't know the
24 perpetrators identities, am I correct, Mr. Tadic, that
25 the proper investigative agency to whom the order for
1 an investigation should have been directed was the
2 military police?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, in any of the enactments that you have
5 described to this Court, any of the regulations that
6 you have described to this Court, is there any
7 discretion given to the commander of the Operative Zone
8 under the circumstances which I have described? Does
9 he have any discretion to give it to somebody else, the
11 A. I am not aware of that. He was supposed to
12 investigate this and an order should have been issued
13 to the military police, and then there is the security
14 service too. How this will be organised is a question
15 of operations.
16 Q. Now, let me show you Defence Exhibit 343A.
17 343. I'm sorry.
18 While we're waiting for that exhibit,
19 Mr. Tadic, when a commander of an operations zone knows
20 about a crime, a serious crime, that's been committed
21 within his area of operation, how soon after he
22 acquires the knowledge of the commission of that crime
23 is it that he's required by law or by regulation to
24 turn over the request to investigate that crime to the
25 military police?
1 A. Well, as soon as possible.
2 Q. Now, would you take a look at Defence Exhibit
3 343, and you can see from this document, this also is
4 an order, it is an order dated August the 17th, 1993.
5 It is issued by Colonel Blaskic, and it is issued to
6 the assistant for SIS, "Attention: Mr. Ante
7 Sliskovic," and it orders, again, to take further
8 steps, further investigation, in respect of the killing
9 of civilians at Ahmici. You will see from the text
10 that Colonel Blaskic orders that SIS continue with
11 collecting information in respect of that crime.
12 I take it, again, Mr. Tadic, there's no legal
13 authority that you can identify that would have
14 permitted Colonel Blaskic to direct that SIS conduct an
15 investigation into the crimes at Ahmici?
16 A. Colonel Blaskic could have and should have
17 asked the military police to do so, and the SIS service
18 was within the military police.
19 Q. Well, then perhaps you can clarify for me,
20 was SIS a military police agency?
21 A. I know that for a certain period of time, it
22 was. How this developed later, I was not part of it,
23 so ...
24 Q. When did you know that SIS was part of the
25 military police? What time period are you referring to
1 you, Mr. Tadic?
2 A. I'm referring to the period from the
3 beginning of 1993, 1992/1993.
4 Q. Was SIS the normal organisation that would
5 conduct investigations into criminal offences such as
6 the killing of civilians?
7 A. By its very structure, the SIS was supposed
8 to deal with security matters, intelligence and other
9 affairs, and the crime investigation police was
10 supposed to do things related to crimes; however,
11 someone from that domain should be questioned at length
12 about this.
13 Q. Let me ask you one last question, Mr. Tadic,
14 in this area. Was there any statutory or regulatory
15 authority to permit Colonel Blaskic to identify which
16 part of the military police should conduct an inquiry
17 into criminal offences?
18 A. There were rules saying that this was to be
19 done by the crime investigation police.
20 Q. Which is separate from SIS?
21 A. I just told you now that, for a certain
22 period of time, all of this was together. The rules
23 that we elaborated on here are from 1994, and then it
24 was clearly stated that the crime investigation service
25 was an independent agency within the military police.
1 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Harmon, you have about 30
2 minutes left. I think that the interpreters have
3 worked for many hours this afternoon, as we all have.
4 We will resume tomorrow morning.
5 Mr. Tadic, you'll have to stay in The Hague.
6 I'm very sorry.
7 THE WITNESS: Until tomorrow?
8 JUDGE JORDA: But all of us are in the
9 service of justice. My colleague and myself both thank
10 you. I cannot ask for 30 minutes, because that would
11 mean that there is the redirect time, the time for the
12 Judges' questions. The interpreters have worked a long
13 time, as we have.
14 We will resume tomorrow at 10.00.
15 Mr. Harmon, please respect the time limit
16 that's been given to you tomorrow morning.
17 MR. HARMON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you to the interpreters,
19 and I adjourn the Court.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm not satisfied with this.
21 JUDGE JORDA: You don't like this solution.
22 All right. Could you explain yourself? Is that
23 because you have to leave? I suppose that's why.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, that is my only
25 problem. Tomorrow at 11.15, I'm supposed to be on that
1 flight. I stayed for that purpose today because I knew
2 that I was supposed to be testifying on a certain
3 matter, and I was here yesterday too.
4 JUDGE JORDA: If you like, you can come back
5 at another time. The Judges cannot accommodate
6 themselves with simply having everything finish
7 quickly. Justice cannot make accommodations for
8 individuals. It can put itself in the place of others
9 and other witnesses, and that's what we try to do. If
10 you can't come back tomorrow, then you have to come
11 back another time. If not tomorrow, then another
12 time. You choose.
13 The Judges will resume tomorrow at 10.00 with
14 Mr. Tadic. If, in the meantime, Mr. Tadic cannot do
15 so, he will so inform the Registry, and we will call
16 him back, pursuant to Rule 98, for the 30 other
17 remaining minutes, the redirect time, and the Judges'
18 questions. That's how justice moves. I don't have to
19 teach this to a former minister of justice. You would
20 agree with that. You have the choice. The Judges
21 cannot discuss it any further.
22 We will resume tomorrow at 10.00.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
24 6.17 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,
25 the 21st day of January, 1999 at
1 10.00 a.m.