1 Monday, 17 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody. Mr. Registrar, will you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is
8 case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's have appearances for today starting with the
11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning Your Honours
12 counsel and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the Prosecution
13 Daryl Mundis and Kyle Wood assisted by our case manager Alma Imamovic.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And for the Defence?
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
16 morning to my learned friends from the Prosecution, to everyone in the
17 courtroom and around it. My name is Vasvija Vidovic and together with
18 Mr. Robson I appear on behalf of General Delic. With us this morning is
19 our legal assistant Lana Deljkic.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I notice the witness is not
21 in court.
22 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to ask
24 for a few minutes to address you before we let the witness enter the
25 courtroom. I have a few questions to raise, and I wanted to state those
1 for the record by your leave.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The first issue has to do with the
4 witness that is to testify tomorrow. It was foreseen that the witness
5 will testify tomorrow. On the 26th of February, 2007, we received an
6 audio recording of this witness's interview from the OTP. It was taken
7 with the -- with an investigator on the 22nd of January, 2007. We
8 immediately noticed that it was an incomplete recording and we asked the
9 Prosecutor to forward a full interview. The Prosecutor told us that there
10 was a mistake made when recording and that one part of the interview is
11 missing due to technical difficulties.
12 A few days ago, that is on the 14th of September this year, I
13 believe it was last Friday, we received the complete transcript or at
14 least what should be the complete transcript of the interview in English
15 and Bosnian. It is clearly visible that a portion of the interview is
17 I personally went through the transcript, and I was able to see
18 the following: At page 8 out of 27, lines 30 to 35 of tape 6601-1-A, the
19 Prosecutor clearly mentions a previous meeting with the witness, and he
20 also states that there were notes taken on that occasion.
21 Then on page 2, line 25 -- sorry, page 2 of 25, tape 6602-1-B,
22 lines 21 to 28, the witness mentions having met an investigator in October
23 2006. And he also states that he expected a -- his statement typed out by
24 the investigator. He was promised such a copy but never got one.
25 On the next page of the same tape the investigator told the
1 witness that he can provide a CD-ROM with his October interview.
2 Your Honour, I would believe you will remember that I raised the
3 issue of all previously given statements by all witnesses. I raised that
4 on several occasions, including at the Pre-Trial Conference. In this case
5 I requested to receive the entire statement as I did in all other cases.
6 However, we still didn't receive that.
7 What I wanted to stress is the following, and it is particularly
8 worrying to me. That is why I raised this issue in the first place.
9 At the very end of the transcript of the interview and the last
10 sentence concluding the transcript of the audio recording we requested,
11 the investigator told the witness the following my English is far from
12 perfect but I wanted to quote that witness: "[In English] We agreed on
13 Tuesday, you can't come tomorrow because I remember that you said -- okay.
14 We can stop it now. We can do these things. It doesn't have to be on the
15 tape these things. First we stop the tape." [Interpretation] And then
16 the time entered for the conclusion of the conversation.
17 We also receive a note stating that there are four tapes that
18 cannot be heard.
19 Your Honour, I am very worried with the things that seem to be
20 taking place and what those things are that are discussed with the witness
21 and were not being recorded. We cannot receive that portion of the tape
22 and, therefore, we cannot prepare for our cross-examination.
23 What is very significant and indicative in this transcript is the
24 following: I know that you received witness statements, and I hope you
25 will be able to see what the modus used is. It is clearly visible that
1 the investigator is arguing with the witness throughout, instructing him
2 to repeat something that's stated in the previous statement.
3 I insist upon receiving this statement, and I wanted to state for
4 the record that I cannot approach any cross-examination of this witness
5 before being given both the transcript and the full audio recording of the
6 missing tapes. In this case and in all other cases such as this one, I
7 cannot begin my cross-examination unless I have all of the relevant
8 material mentioned by the witness.
9 It is the basic right of the accused and his Defence to be able to
10 confront the witness and put that -- any given witness to the -- any given
11 statement to the witness here in the trial. This was not the only case,
12 Your Honour, and for the future I will -- seems I will seek to raise
13 objections to any and every such instances.
14 Another issue is something that has to do with certain comments
15 made by the Prosecutor outside the courtroom. On Friday, at the end of
16 the session I was informed by Mr. Mundis of the existence of an alleged
17 video recording of Delic's address to the El Mujahid detachment. For me
18 as well as for Mr. Mundis, this was something quite customary. Mr. Mundis
19 and I thought we would be able to deal with this question within the
20 framework of the regular existing procedure that is to be put in place
21 during the proceedings. However, the very same day the spokesperson of
22 Mrs. Del Ponte, Mrs. Olga Kavran, gave a statement that has to do with
23 that alleged piece of evidence which was carried by literally all the
24 media in Bosnia, Croatia, and Montenegro as well as Serbia. I received 27
25 phone calls from journalists regarding that. The titles read:
1 "Proof of Delic's guilt," in that statement. That is why I am addressing
2 you now.
3 She comments on the recording which seems to be an alleged proof
4 of Delic's address to the Mujahedin at their farewell. According to her
5 statement, it is said that several witnesses spoke on that in the
6 proceedings. We were all aware of these proceedings. At this moment it
7 is far less significant for me that she gave an incorrect statement.
8 However, what is very detrimental and inappropriate is that the
9 Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, through her spokesperson, provides statements
10 on certain witnesses in this case outside the courtroom. I believe such
11 statements to a great extent damage the integrity of these proceedings.
12 Such comments cause bias and prejudice in the public concerning
13 Mr. Delic's guilt, and far worse they endanger the possibility to have a
14 fair trial.
15 Such a statement on the part of the Prosecutor I am certain
16 managed to reach all the Prosecutor's witnesses in the region since it was
17 carried in the media in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and
18 Croatia. It's been going on for three days. There was not a single TV
19 station that did not broadcast that.
20 Not only is it that such comments can have an impact on the
21 witnesses, it also has additional effects on the public. That is why I
22 wish the Chamber to order the Prosecution to refrain from such comments in
23 the future.
24 I myself behaved in the way so far that any matter regarding these
25 proceedings have to be discussed only in this courtroom. We are not
1 allowed to discuss any evidence publicly.
2 As soon as General Delic heard about his indictment, he came to
3 confront it here in this courtroom. However, we cannot fight what is
4 going on outside the courtroom. Ms. Del Ponte should do what her job is,
5 and she should take care of the people who are to blame for the deaths of
6 hundreds of thousands of people. What we have to do, however, here in
7 this courtroom is to deal with our evidence.
8 Another issue, Your Honour -- I wanted to state another thing for
9 the transcript, and I want to do that each and every time before a given
10 witness comes in. I want to contest the authenticity of document P2761.
11 I had the occasion to speak with the author of this document, and I will
12 address the document much more extensively during cross-examination with
13 the witnesses. For the time being I just wanted to have the transcript
14 record my objection as to the authenticity, and I wish to be able to be
15 given an opportunity to inspect the original of the document.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic. Madam Vidovic, this
18 document P267, has it already been tendered into evidence or is it still
19 to come?
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is document P2761.
21 It is possible, Your Honour. It is P2761. I think it was admitted.
22 However, late last night I had this discussion with the author of the
23 document, and the system was not operational. That's another thing. I
24 have to complain to you by saying that the system that is used by the
25 Defence is inoperative on weekends often, and it was only last night that
1 I learned from the author, because he was absent from Bosnia-Herzegovina
2 for a long time, that there may be issues as to the authenticity. That is
3 why I raise it here before we have the witness. I will double-check,
4 however, on the exact designation of the exhibit. It is possible it has
5 been admitted.
6 My assistant is telling me that she managed to verify already that
7 it is Exhibit 111.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic. That's all I wanted to
9 find out about the document Okay. You have raised three issues,
10 Madam Vidovic. Do you have any specific relief you would like to ask for
11 with respect to either each or all of them? Very briefly. I did hear
12 that you -- you said that with the first issue you will not cross-examine
13 the witness unless for the full statement. The second issue you said the
14 Prosecution must be warned not to make these statements outside, and the
15 other one, of course, is saying you're going to challenge the
17 Of those, do I summarise you correctly? Thank you very much.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour, save
19 for the first request. It also has to do with the fact that I cannot
20 begin my cross-examination without having been given a previous statement
21 which seems to be in existence. It is dated October 2006. The rest is
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Mundis, do you have any response to what we
24 have talked about?
25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Just very
1 briefly with respect to the witness who is scheduled to appear tomorrow.
2 We will make inquiries as to this prior statement that Ms. Vidovic is has
3 referred to and whether or not there is in fact a witness statement or
4 notes and whether that material has in fact been disclosed, and we will
5 inform the Trial Chamber as soon as we're able to make those queries and
6 find out some additional information, and if there is material to be
7 disclosed I assure you it will be disclosed as quickly as possible.
8 With respect to the recorded interview of February 2007 that
9 Ms. Vidovic refers to, that recorded interview took seven tapes and there
10 were seven tapes that recorded that interview. Two of those seven tapes
11 are in fact inaudible. There is -- the quality of the sound on those
12 tapes renders it impossible to provide a transcript, and I believe, with
13 all due respect to my learned colleague, that that is perhaps what she's
14 referring to when she says the transcript is incomplete or there's
15 material that's not available.
16 All seven of those tapes have been disclosed, but I repeat that on
17 two of those seven tapes the quality of the recording renders it such that
18 it was impossible for the transcription and translation departments to
19 hear anything on those two tapes in order to produce a transcript. So
20 that is a technical impossibility for us to provide a transcript or a
21 translation of that transcript simply because the quality of the tape is
22 such that nothing can be heard on two of those seven tapes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just interrupt you on that point? Am I
24 correct to assume that in fact the Defence is not only given a transcript
25 but also the audiotapes?
1 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Your Honour. If a -- if an interview --
2 if the Prosecution conducts a recorded interview, whether it's audiotapes
3 or videotapes, those tapes are provided to the Defence as well as a
4 transcript of that recorded interview and a translation thereof if
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: So if an audio or videotape is inaudible and
7 incomprehensible but it's -- the entire tape is given to the Defence, the
8 Defence should be able to determine for themselves that in fact nothing
9 can be heard from that tape.
10 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You may proceed.
12 MR. MUNDIS: With respect to the second point concerning the
13 emergence late last week of an alleged recording of the accused speaking
14 at the Mujahedin farewell, the Prosecution has nothing further at this
15 point to add, and I think that we'll just leave that as it is at the
16 moment. Undoubtedly there will be further developments with respect to
17 this alleged recording, but at this point in time we have nothing to add
18 other than my understanding that the Prosecutor's spokesperson was
19 referring to the evidence, in fact, that has been led of such a meeting,
20 and we believe that witnesses have testified in open court about the
21 attendance at that farewell meeting of the accused, and I'll leave that as
22 it is.
23 I don't believe that -- that we have any further comments with
24 respect to the third point. The document that Ms. Vidovic is challenging
25 on authenticity grounds is in fact in evidence, and we'll leave that up to
1 the Defence and the Trial Chamber with respect to any future action that
2 they may wish to take with respect to that exhibit.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I notice you are standing up, Madam Vidovic. Let
4 me just get clarity from you. This audiotape or statement that you
5 received from February last year, is it incomplete because you cannot hear
6 part of the tape or is it incomplete because some tapes have not been
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the statement is
9 incomplete for the reasons stated by Mr. Mundis. We cannot hear.
10 However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the one I shared
11 with you.
12 The Prosecutor says: [In English] These things, it doesn't have
13 to be on the tape these things."
14 [Interpretation] In other words, it means that we have what we
15 have, and we'll use the framework provided. However, there are things
16 done that are not on the tape. That is in the February 2007 statement. I
17 want to receive the full statement that had been given October, and the
18 investigator keeps arguing with the witness about that statement. The
19 witness repeatedly says that he wants to see the statement and he is
20 denied. Therefore the problem is the previous statement, I do not believe
21 that the Prosecutor will go beyond the scope of the statement that we
22 received. We both have it. What we have on the transcript we have, but
23 we want to have the notes about what is not in the transcript.
24 The Prosecutor says that they will be discussing other things. I
25 don't know what those other things are that are done with witnesses that
1 are not on the tape and not part of the interview.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just interrupt you. Is it the Prosecutor
3 saying they were discussing other things or is it the investigate? This
4 transcript says Prosecutor and the translation said Prosecutor.
5 Sorry, just read this last paragraph, Madam Vidovic. You're
6 saying the Prosecutor says they will be discussing other things. "I don't
7 know what those other things are that are done with witnesses that are not
8 on the tape and not part of the interview."
9 Did you mean to say investigator or did you -- you've got to be
10 clear who -- who you're talking about.
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was talking of
12 Michael Koehler, investigator of the OTP who says, [In English] We can
13 stop it now. We can do these things. It doesn't have to be on the tape
14 these things."
15 That is the problem. I want to see what those things are. I want
16 a note on that and the previous statement given in October, because the
17 investigator keeps arguing about it with the witness. He also promised to
18 provide it to the witness, and we, the Defence, never received a recording
19 of that statement. That is completely clear.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much,
21 Madam Vidovic. I think I understand your point now.
22 Mr. Mundis, are you able to respond specifically to the statement
23 that is allegedly said -- that says, "We don't have to talk about these
24 things. We don't have to put them on tape," and also about the previous
25 statement that has not been disclosed?
1 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, as I -- as I've indicated earlier, I
2 will -- or I'm in the process of making these inquiries and will get back
3 to the Trial Chamber as soon as possible.
4 I am not aware of any written, signed statement from October 2006.
5 It's possible that Mr. Koehler met with the witness in October, perhaps
6 spoke with him, perhaps took some notes, perhaps then indicated we need to
7 have a more full interview at a subsequent date which was then done in
8 February 2007. That is entirely possible. We will attempt to locate
9 those notes or if there was a written statement that was signed by the
10 witness, we will locate that and disclose it as soon as possible.
11 With respect to the statement about certain things not being
12 needed to be done on the tape, I would need to review the transcript,
13 perhaps the preceding portion of the transcript. I don't know what Mr.
14 Koehler was referring to. Quite often witnesses show up with documents
15 and the documents are then handed over and perhaps Mr. Koehler is
16 referring to that not needing to be on the tape. I simply don't know what
17 Mr. Koehler said in the few minutes preceding that part which Ms. Vidovic
18 has read out to us. I don't have the transcript in front of me. I will
19 make the inquiries and get back to the Chamber as quickly as possible.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: On this first issue, the issue of that statement of
21 the witness, are we likely not to proceed with the witness tomorrow
22 because of these difficulties?
23 MR. MUNDIS: I would -- I would think, Your Honours, that even if
24 there were to be, and I stress even if there were to be any issue
25 concerning perhaps delayed disclosure or disclosure in issue, we could
1 certainly do the direct examination, and if need be bring the witness back
2 at a subsequent time for cross-examination or perhaps depending on -- if
3 there is material to be disclosed, how lengthy it is, perhaps Ms. Vidovic
4 could do her cross-examination the day after tomorrow.
5 Again, the witness is scheduled to be here tomorrow and the
6 following day, so I simply don't know if there is material to be
7 disclosed, and if there is material how much material there is, but we
8 would certainly be in a position to do -- to conduct the direct
9 examination tomorrow and take it as far as we possibly could in the event
10 there was additional material that needed to be disclosed.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: In the event there was any material to disclose,
12 would it make sense for the Prosecution to lead and for Madam Vidovic to
13 cross-examine on a subsequent date or would it be better for the witness
14 just to be postponed and come back on a subsequent date so that both his
15 or her evidence in chief and cross-examination are at one place?
16 MR. MUNDIS: I would be in these circumstances obviously in the
17 Trial Chamber's hands. If the Trial Chamber would prefer to hear the
18 witness in one sitting, we will send the witness home and bring him back
19 at a later point in time.
20 I will indicate that the witness schedule for Thursday and Friday
21 would be unlikely that we could move him up, in which case we would do the
22 witness that's here today. I expect him to go into tomorrow and then we
23 would most likely adjourn early tomorrow, not sit on Wednesday, and then
24 resume on Thursday and Friday.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.
1 It doesn't seem like there is any ruling that is being called for
2 and that the issues have been placed on the record and we can deal with as
3 they unfold.
4 Shall I repeat myself?
5 The transcript seems to have picked me up. I was just saying that
6 it doesn't seem like there is any ruling that is being called for and that
7 the issues have been placed on the record and we can deal with them as
8 they unfold.
9 Shall we leave it at that then, Madam Vidovic, and deal with them
10 as they come up? We will see what develops on the statements is then as
11 stated on the February -- of October 2006, and those statements that are
12 supposed to have been said about not putting things on tape.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, provided that I
14 receive that statement either today or tomorrow or within a reasonable
15 time. Then I would be able to go through the statement for the sake of
16 both the witness and the Chamber. However, I do wish to see that
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: If there is a statement, as Mr. Mundis says. He
19 doesn't know whether there is. He is not aware of the statement of
20 October 2006. So if there is no statement, obviously you will get no
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, to clarify one thing,
23 it is fully clear from the transcript that there is a recording of the
24 conversation between the witness and the investigator in October 2006. I
25 want that recording whether the witness signed it or not. I still believe
1 it is the right of this Defence to hear that recording.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
3 MR. MUNDIS: Again for the record I am not disputing if there is
4 material it will be disclosed. If there isn't, then there's nothing for
5 me to disclose. I'm not disputing the right of the Defence to have any
6 such material that's in our possession. That's not the issue. The issue
7 is whether there is any such material. If there is, it will be disclosed.
8 If there's not, then obviously it's a non-issue, but I will, as I've said
9 several times, we're making inquiries as I stand here, and whatever we
10 determine, if there is material to be disclosed it will be disclosed, full
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
13 Okay. I think we'll end this discussion at that point.
14 Are you ready to call your witness?
15 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, if we could go into private session,
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 2466-2473 redacted. Private session
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Wood.
19 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Examination by Mr. Wood:
21 Q. Mr. Witness, could you please for the record state your name, date
22 of birth, and place of birth.
23 A. My name is Kadir Jusic. I was born on -- in the Veliki Badic
24 village of the municipality of Bosanska Krupa on the 28th of August, 1948.
25 Q. What is your occupation, sir?
1 A. I'm retired now. Before that I was a professional soldier, an
3 Q. And what army were you most recently serving in, sir?
4 A. The last army that I served in is the army of the federation of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and before that in the BiH army.
6 Q. Is that the extent of your military experience?
7 A. Well, I'm referring to the period of 1992 to 1995. Before that I
8 was a member of the JNA, the Yugoslav People's Army, from 1971 when I
9 graduated from the military academy.
10 Q. What was your position in 1995, sir?
11 A. In 1995 I held the duty in the army of BiH in the 3rd Corps. I
12 was chief of staff of the 3rd Corps, of the command of the 3rd Corps.
13 Q. And, sir, if you could tell the Trial Chamber is the municipality
14 of Zavidovici in the area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I'm going to ask you some more questions about the 3rd Corps now.
17 Who was the commander of the 3rd Corps when you joined in 1995?
18 A. In 1995 in March I was appointed chief of staff, and the corps
19 commander was Sakib Mahmuljin.
20 MR. WOOD: And if the witness could be shown Exhibit 2972, please.
21 Q. Sir, do you see that document before you?
22 A. Yes, I can see it.
23 Q. And do you recognise this document?
24 A. I remember that this order came from the General Staff to the
25 command of the 3rd Corps, and this is that order.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it possible to highlight it so that we can be
2 able to read?
3 MR. WOOD: Yes. If it could be scrolled down a little bit. And
4 actually, move to the next page.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let us eliminate one
7 point which is not clear. It entered the transcript as prompted by the
8 Prosecutor about Exhibit 2972. I do believe that this is not an exhibit,
9 because this is a document from the Prosecution, and this number may be
10 assigned to another document, but let it be clear that this is P02972,
11 document P02972.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood. May I remind you that when we talk
13 of exhibits, we refer to exhibits that have been admitted into evidence
14 already. Any document that is not yet admitted into evidence is not an
15 exhibit. So please do not characterise such documents as -- as exhibits.
16 We've talked about it. I know it was in your absence in court here
18 MR. WOOD: Yes, and I appreciate my learned colleagues correction
19 on this point. I am referring in fact to P02972, and I make no
20 characterisation intentionally that this has been as yet admitted.
21 Q. Turning back to the document, if you could -- I draw you're
22 attention, please, to number 1, sir. What is the effect of -- what is the
23 effect of --
24 A. I've seen it.
25 Q. -- what's written under number 1?
1 A. This is an order whereby tasks are being given that will should be
2 carried out with the goal of establishing and re-establishing units, and
3 under this item it is referred to the 35 -- 35th Division command within
4 the 3rd Corps area. So it goes for the tasks that are -- should be --
5 that are to be carried out with the aim of streamlining the operations as
6 per the estimate of the General Staff that there needs to be some tasks to
7 reorganise the units.
8 Q. Thank you, sir. And if we could go to the next page, and if you
9 could read in particular item 2(a).
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are we looking at restructuring and renaming?
11 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
12 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that paragraph, sir?
13 A. Yes, I have. I didn't go through each and every detail, but more
14 or less I know what this is about. The essence is that certain units that
15 had the certain names that indicated their belonging to another corps,
16 primarily the units within the 37th Brigade, they were to be renamed so as
17 to belong to the 3rd Corps. The former 203rd Brigade of the 2nd Corps was
18 to be renamed the 375th Brigade.
19 The figure 2 means that they were attached to the 2nd Corps, which
20 was the initial establishment that was set up when the corps were being
21 formed. When Tesanj and the other units mentioned here were still in the
22 zone of responsibility of the 2nd Corps.
23 Q. As to the units listed in 2(a), sir, is this consistent with what
24 you remember of the structure of the corps in 1995?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Finally if I could go to the second to last page of this document.
2 Can you please tell the Trial Chamber what this is, sir?
3 A. This is the organisational chart of the 3rd Corps. The names of
4 the units as well as the names of commanders and chiefs of staff at the
5 level of the corps, division, and brigades.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I interrupt? Are these two documents the same,
7 the one in English and the other one in B/C/S?
8 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. The -- if I could explain. I
9 believe the structure in the English translation is different just so that
10 the words could be bigger and they could be read more easily, but the
11 Prosecution's confident that what is reflected in the translation is in
12 fact what is in the chart itself.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Wood.
14 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Now, if I could draw your attention to the top box there. It
16 appears to include the name Kadir Jusic. Is that you, sir?
17 A. Yes, that is me. I was the only person with that first and last
18 name there.
19 Q. And what does it indicate that your name's below that of the corps
21 A. That means that the corps commander was the first person mentioned
22 there, and then the chief of staff in terms of hierarchy is the second
23 highest ranking person in the corps.
24 Q. Also, if you could follow the line down there appears to be a line
25 straight from the 3rd Corps Zenica going down to a number of units
1 starting with 303 and going on to 314. Could you explain to the Trial
2 Chamber what it means that the line for these units goes directly to the
3 box marked 3 Corps Zenica?
4 A. That means that those units were directly subordinated to the
5 corps command. Those were the 303rd, 314th, 330th, and the El Mujahid
6 detachment. That was in January 1995.
7 Q. So if we follow that through then, Mr. Jusic, would that -- would
8 it follow then that those units that are listed under the 35th Division
9 box or the 37th Division box are subordinated directly to those larger
11 A. This was not a standard chart. I don't know why it was drawn in
12 this way, whether the solid line should only connect the 35th, to the 35th
13 and the 37th Division. The rest should be separated from the line
14 connecting the corps command and the division command. The other line
15 should be separate as for the units subordinate to divisions.
16 This chart is not done professionally, to the extent that the line
17 referred to should not go directly to the 3rd Corps command. In
18 principle, the 3rd Corps command did not command, and there was no need
19 for it to command to the units which were part of individual divisions.
20 It was the divisional command duty. The line should have only gone to the
21 divisions but not -- and the lines are specified directly under the
22 3rd Corps, however, not the rest. Technically speaking, the chart is
24 Q. Thank you, sir. If we could go back, and with apologies, to page
25 3 of the exhibit, I think we can wrap it up. I'm sorry, page 3 of P02972.
1 And if we could scroll to the bottom of that page with particular
2 attention on the signature line.
3 Mr. Jusic, do you recognise this signature?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Whose signature is it?
6 A. General Delic's.
7 Q. And after this issue -- order was issued, did the 35th and 37th
8 divisions come into being?
9 A. The 35th and the 37th Division had already been formed. This
10 order should be understood as an order attempting to provide for some
11 changes and corrections within the organisational structure. For example,
12 the 319 was a part of the 35th Division. After this order, it was
13 directly linked to the 3rd Corps command. And the Tesanj units were being
14 re-established. Their designation was no longer 2 but rather 3, 317 and
15 so on and so forth.
16 As for item 6 on page 3, I wanted to stress its importance so as
17 not to be misunderstood. That was the situation in January 1995. No.
18 The order was issued in January 1995, and the period mentioned here was
19 the deadline. In item 6 it says: "The written report of the
20 implementation of task from this order shall be submitted to the general
21 staff of the army be to the administration for the organisation and
22 mobilisation of tasks at the latest by the 5th of March, 1995."
23 Therefore, almost three months were envisaged for the
24 implementation of this order.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a clarification.
2 Perhaps it is important for the witness to clarify that with the
3 Prosecutor. I don't know whether the Prosecutor wants to say that this
4 chart is a part of this document to discuss now. I just want to know so
5 that I can be able to prepare for my cross-examination. The chart shown,
6 does it form an integral part of the signed document or not? Perhaps that
7 can be clarified.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
9 Yes, Mr. Wood.
10 MR. WOOD:
11 Q. Mr. Jusic, is the chart attached to that, as far as you know, a
12 part of this original document?
13 A. Your Honours, I cannot state that. I don't remember exactly. I
14 don't know whether the chart was attached to the document or not. In the
15 document it says at the end: "Attachment is RF BH-100.201." I don't know
16 what that means. I cannot recall exactly what it looked like at the time.
17 According to me the attachment should be the war formation of
18 BH-100.201. However, I cannot know exactly whether this chart was a part
19 of this order or not.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess, Mr. Wood, you are going to have to be able
21 to know what -- whether these are two separate documents, because you are
22 going to tender them into evidence --.
23 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and we have got to know what you are tendering
25 in evidence. And are you going to be long on dealing with this point?
1 MR. WOOD: No, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You deal with it and then we can take it.
3 MR. WOOD:
4 Q. As to the chart, Mr. Jusic, does that chart accurately reflect the
5 situation in the 3rd Corps in early part of 1995?
6 A. Yes. With the change I already mentioned concerning the line of
7 command, it never went straight directly from the corps command to all of
8 the other units, but it always goes through division commands.
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, at this time then, the Prosecution would
11 seek to tender into evidence as two separate documents. I believe the
12 testimony of the witness has established the authenticity or at least the
13 accuracy of the information in the chart, and I believe the foundation has
14 also been laid that this is an accurate document signed by Rasim Delic.
15 At this time the Prosecution offers into evidence these documents
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: When the Chamber refers to document P02972 being
20 admitted, what does that refer to? Does it refer to the chart or to the
21 order? And then how does -- how do we refer to the other document?
22 MR. WOOD: Well, in the Prosecution's submission perhaps the other
23 document given what's been said here should be given its own exhibit
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Having come in as what document from the
2 MR. WOOD: Having come in as a part of P -- excuse me, Your
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps what we could do here is
6 assign the chart itself P02972A and the document P02972.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the document will be admitted into evidence
8 as P02972. May it please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number 378.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And the chart will come in as
11 P02972A. May it please be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be Exhibit number 379.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 MR. WOOD: And I see that it is an appropriate time for the break.
15 This is also an appropriate time for the Prosecution to take a break, Your
16 Honour, appropriate time in the examination, that is.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We will take a break and come
18 back at quarter to 11.00. Court adjourned.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
22 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Witness, before the break we were talking about --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Madam Vidovic.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like to apologise
1 to both you and the witness. However, an issue came up concerning this
2 document that needs to be discussed without the witness's presence, and I
3 will explain to you once he leaves the courtroom. I don't think it would
4 be wise for him to hear the argumentation as it might influence the rest
5 of his testimony.
6 This document has been admitted. However, I just wanted to direct
7 your attention to a very serious matter in the document.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Will the witness please excuse us for a short
9 while. Sorry about that, sir.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that the day
13 began on this note. I find myself in a position to keep interrupting, but
14 there was one thing I noticed immediately once the document was pulled out
15 and shown to the witness.
16 It has been admitted into evidence as document 378. It is the
17 same document that had been admitted as Exhibit 165.
18 What I wanted to say is that there is a resurrection, if I may
19 say, of another chart, the additional chart, and now this document is
20 being tendered under a new number and presented to the Chamber. I am
21 convinced that this was of no evil intent on the part of the Prosecution.
22 However, this is a fabrication of sorts, especially since you admit these
23 documents under a certain exhibit number.
24 This is not the only case that I was able to see among the
25 documents of the Prosecutor that they intend to use. I would kindly ask
1 that the documents be used as a copy of the original. We shouldn't
2 compile and put together documents by adding portions which do not belong
3 to the original.
4 Perhaps you can compare 165 and the one that the Prosecutor wanted
5 to show you here today and present to you as a single document.
6 I am very concerned with this pattern of behaviour, and I don't
7 know what room it leaves me to control the fairness of this trial if we
8 keep getting these compiled documents.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you sure, Madam Vidovic, that it is not
10 tendered as separate exhibit from Exhibit 165 precisely because there is a
11 difference between the attachments? Are you saying that in fact the
12 covering document is exactly the same as the one that was tendered as
13 Exhibit 165?
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is exactly the same.
15 It is the strictly confidential document of the General Staff. It is
16 4/19-3 of the 12th of January, 1995, admitted as Exhibit 165. The only
17 difference is the ERN number of the Prosecution.
18 This document, Exhibit 165, is completely identical to the one of
19 today, 378, save for the unexpected appearance of the chart. I saw these
20 documents as originals --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have made that point, Madam Vidovic. All I
22 wanted to know is was it not because there is this difference in the
24 Let's hear what your opposite member has to say in response.
25 Mr. Wood, are you able to respond to that?
1 MR. WOOD: Your Honour, the Prosecution had no intent to introduce
2 the same exhibit twice. I did notice when I was preparing for this
3 witness that this document was on the exhibit list twice. I didn't check
4 to see whether it had been admitted under -- I think it was P01935. So I
5 apologise for that, and the Prosecution has no objection to withdrawing
6 one of these. Obviously there need not be two of them. But the
7 Prosecution also believes that the chart stands on its own.
8 As these things are gathered in archives, they're ERNed in a
9 certain range and it was the Prosecution's understanding that this was an
10 attachment to the document. But Prosecution also believes that even if
11 it's not that this chart does stand on its own as a separate exhibit
12 because the witness looked at it, and he said that this is the structure
13 of the 3rd Corps as he recalls it in 1995. In that way, Your Honour, the
14 Prosecution believes that this does stand on its own and that it can be
15 given its own exhibit number.
16 Again, the Prosecution has no intention to burden the record with
17 duplicates of the same document, and we would with the Court's leave move
18 to withdraw one of them. Certainly there need not be two of them.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: If in the document of January 1995 had a certain
20 attachment under Exhibit 165, why does the attachment differ under Exhibit
21 378? That's the nub of the objection, I think.
22 MR. WOOD: Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Whether you can withdraw one of the two is neither
24 here more there. The nub is whether -- is why the charts are different.
25 MR. WOOD: I can't explain that, Your Honour. I -- except to say
1 that as these things, like you say, are gathered in the archives
2 they're -- they're gathered together and then scanned and given an ERN
3 range. When I looked at this document, it -- it seemed to me and I
4 believe it was even ERNed that way, that the chart was a part of it,
5 because the ERN is sequential. I can't say for certain whether that chart
6 is a part of this order. But as I say, Your Honour, I believe that in a
7 certain sense that's not a relevant point because the chart stands on its
8 own as an accurate reflection of the 3rd Corps structure in 1995. As to
9 why it's attached there, I can only surmise that it's because of the way
10 it was gathered in the archive when the investigator went there.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think the problem is that when Exhibit 165 was
12 admitted, it did not have any attachment. It was only the order of 12th
13 January itself, and I suppose that the problem that the Defence has is now
14 that suddenly this same exhibit pops up again now with an attachment, and
15 so I understand the Defence's objection to imply that they're nervous
16 about whether they get the whole story the first time the document is
18 So the real reason that -- the real question is why wasn't the
19 annex presented when this document was offered the first time?
20 MR. WOOD: That I'm not sure, Your Honour. As I said, there's --
21 there's a real possibility that these are two separate documents that were
22 joined together through the investigation process when one was given a
23 sequential ERN number to the order itself. The Prosecution does not
24 believe that it detracts from the authenticity or the accuracy of the
25 information in the 12 January order, and again both of those documents,
1 each of them can stand on its own. Each has been admitted, and each is an
2 accurate reflection, the witness has said, and plainly other witnesses
3 have said, of the information from 1995.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: May I just make a short intervention at this
5 point, because I recall that some weeks ago I invited the parties to agree
6 on a chart, if possible, showing the organisational structure of the
7 3rd Corps and the -- the connections or the relations between the 3rd and
8 the 2nd Corps, and so obviously when this chart now pops up on our
9 screens, my interest is to know whether this will comply with my
10 invitation to the parties. Is this what I will get from my earlier
11 invitation, or are the parties still working on agreements on what the
12 organisational structure was of the 3rd Corps?
13 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution submits that this is a separate issue.
14 I did not introduce this or show it to the witness with the intent of
15 superseding or going beyond what the Trial Chamber had ordered. I showed
16 this to the witness as a historical document, as a document that reflected
17 the situation in 1995. That was done independently of --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. I look forward to --
19 MR. WOOD: -- the Chamber's invitations.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- to your submissions. Thanks.
21 Very briefly, Madam Vidovic, I seem to have understood you
22 slightly differently from how Judge Harhoff understood you. I thought you
23 said that there was an attachment to Exhibit 165, only the attachment
24 differs from the attachment of today. Judge Harhoff seems to say that
25 Exhibit 165 didn't have an attachment, but today there is an attachment.
1 Which is the correct position? Very briefly.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the understanding of
3 Judge Harhoff is correct. Exhibit 165 did not have any attachments and
4 now we do have an attachment with another exhibit number.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Do you have any response to the
6 explanation by the Prosecution as to how this may have happened and any
7 suggestion as to how you think the Chamber should resolve the matter?
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question seems to
9 be cleared in my view now. However, the other document has not been
10 exhibit -- or, rather, the attachment is not being exhibit as an integral
11 part of the document. The reason why I wanted to draw your attention to
12 this is a very serious one as you will see for yourselves. This is not
13 the only document that will appear in this precise way. This is what I
14 wanted to draw your attention to, as well as you -- and the Prosecutor's
15 attention. They should be careful when showing copies of originals. They
16 shouldn't compile any documents, but the copies should be true to the
18 I have no objection to splitting these two documents and admitting
19 them as such. As for any other issues, I can clear them with the witness
20 during cross-examination. I believe it will become much clearer at that
22 I hope I've answered your question.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Except that there's a refrain that keeps coming up
24 which is causing me concern. You suggest -- you're saying that you wanted
25 to draw the attention to -- that you wanted that the Prosecution not to
1 compile documents. I'm not quite sure what you mean by them compiling
2 documents, Madam Vidovic. And you say that in relation to getting copies
3 and not -- and not originals.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what I'd like to say
5 is the following: I will take Exhibit 965 as an example, and this has
6 already been tendered. This was General Delic's order signed by him, and
7 it ended here at the end of this document. This is what was disclosed to
8 us as that document at the time.
9 Either the Prosecutor at that time, as Judge Harhoff concludes,
10 did not disclose the entire document as they should have, or somebody, not
11 this Prosecutor but somebody from the OTP, annexed this appendix to this
12 document which is not an integral part of that document, which is
13 irregular. It is inappropriate, and it's worrying.
14 At any rate, when I say that parties, not only the OTP but also
15 the Defence, we have -- are duty-bound to present a copy of an original
16 and stress that this is a document, but we should not add something that
17 we should wish to see attached to this document as an attachment. This is
18 what I wanted to relate.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. And I gather -- the
20 translation told us that you were referring to Exhibit 965. I want to
21 believe you were referring to 378.
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is Exhibit 965? We haven't reached 965 in our
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I referred to --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: 165. Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic. I
2 heard you that you say you don't object to Exhibit 379 being tendered
3 separately. I don't think there's any ruling that is required of that.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to withdraw 378 or 165?
6 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution moves to withdraw Exhibit 165, Your
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, the Prosecution wishes to withdraw
9 165. Are you happy with that?
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, well, let's see is
11 how -- what -- what happens. But I would like to hear from the learned
12 friend what they think this document is, whether that which was tendered
13 under 165 or what they wanted to present to the witness today. I would
14 like to hear from the learned friend what they think this document is, and
15 for that reason I cannot accept or say that I'm satisfied at this moment
16 with this proposal.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why doesn't it satisfy you, Madam Vidovic? What
18 are you asking for? Just in one sentence. Do you want -- we have --
19 we've got duplicates here of the same document as tendered as an exhibit.
20 We obviously have to cancel one. Which one do you want to cancel?
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, because of the future
22 situations that may occur, I don't want to pre-judge anything, of course,
23 but because of the possibility that in the future I may refer to certain
24 issues of a fair trial, I would like this Exhibit 165 to remain as
25 exhibit, and I want the 3 -- and a new number together with the
1 attachment, 378 and 379, I wish both of them to remain as exhibits.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, I believe that for
3 the sake of equity it would be better to withdraw the document which was
4 tendered today, because otherwise we will be left with this ambiguity the
5 regarding the -- this alleged document. So I think it would be adequate
6 for the Prosecution to ask us to withdraw document 378.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can I offer a third interpretation, because,
8 Mr. Prosecutor, if you withdraw 165, it seems to me that implication of
9 doing that is that actually the chart does belong to the order of
10 12 January. However, if you leave 165 as it is but withdraw 378, then the
11 implication of that move is to suggest that the two documents have nothing
12 to do with each other and that the chart stands for itself. So that's my
13 first observation.
14 And I understand that your move to withdraw 165 actually implies
15 that you are of the opinion that the two documents always belonged
16 together and that when the document was admitted way back as 165, it
17 should have had had the chart but it didn't and that was a mistake. So
18 now you move to have admitted the order as 378 with the attachment of the
19 chart as 379. That's one issue.
20 The other issue you is if we actually do remove Exhibit 165, then
21 does that necessitate a renumbering all the exhibits from then up until
22 now? In other words, if we end up removing 378, does the chart then
23 become the new Exhibit 378?
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [No interpretation]
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Judge. I'm not getting any --
1 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. My mistake. I didn't -- pressed the
2 wrong button. The interpretation's mistake.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we get an interpretation of what was said so
5 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, yes. Judge Lattanzi said "I should not
6 agree that the exhibit tendered today," and then she will continue.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So the decision made today
8 following the clarification provided by the prosecuting -- Prosecution
9 according to which he thought, but he wasn't sure, this is my own
10 interpretation, but he thought that the chart that was shown to us today
11 was attached to the document, document which is actually a copy of Exhibit
12 number 165, the decision made was not to admit it as an annexed document.
13 So these are two separate documents. I think that this is not challenged.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic has moved that both these exhibits
15 stay, because as she says, she may have to refer to them later, and I
16 think in fairness they should both stay, because -- I'm not quite sure
17 whether -- what effect withdrawing any one of them will have on the
18 testimony that was tendered about that document, because if they're
19 withdrawn, then all the testimony that was tendered around that document
20 must also be redacted, and I don't see how we can do that. So I tend to
21 agree with Madam Vidovic, and I will rule, therefore, that both exhibits
22 will stay.
23 You may proceed, sir.
24 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may be seated, and once again I'm very sorry
2 that we keep taking you in and out of the court. This is how things
3 happen. Thank you very much for your understanding.
4 You may proceed, Mr. Wood.
5 MR. WOOD:
6 Q. Mr. Jusic, as chief of staff of the 3rd Corps, what were your
7 primary duties and functions?
8 A. I understood my functions as chief of staff as follows: They were
9 not regulated to specifically anywhere, but on the basis of what I knew
10 from my professional military upbringing and education and training and
11 what was required by the circumstances of me to do. I was in charge of
12 providing the training of the corps staff, to plan and to execute training
13 of the corps. I was charged with regulating and controlling the level of
14 training of my subordinate units, to control and maintain the battle
15 readiness of subordinate units, to plan, organise the preparation for
16 combat operations. And another major task was to organise the work and
17 life in the command post. By this I mean the corps command.
18 These would be the main tasks. Many others deriving from those
19 major tasks, and of course the tasks handed down to me by the commander.
20 Q. What was your role in respect of military security?
21 A. Literally security is a separate department or sector which is
22 directly connected to the commander, and this was so in formal in
23 practical terms. I as chief of staff did not have, so to speak, any
24 contact points nor any jurisdiction over the military security organ.
25 Q. And what was your function in respect to military intelligence in
1 the 3rd Corps?
2 A. The Military Intelligence Service was a separate entity within the
3 corps command, in all corps commands, and in all other commands, and it
4 was also directly connected to the commander in legal terms. It could be
5 said that the chief of staff and assistants of the commander were in a way
6 equal in their standing with regard to the commander, but the commander
7 would relate or delegate certain powers to the chief of staff in the case
8 of the absence of the commander, which means the chief of staff would
9 regulate certain issues in the commander's absence, but these powers would
10 be limited.
11 And intelligence service was autonomous within the command of the
12 corps. It was subordinated directly to the commander of the corps, had no
13 contacts with me whatsoever apart from cases when combat operations were
14 planned, when we would jointly prepare the combat plan and the orders.
15 They would prepare their documents, and I as chief of staff, would take
16 over their documents, and this was the very gist of our relationship. I
17 could not change anything or alter anything in those documents and in
18 their work, nor -- I could only highlight maybe some mistakes or something
19 like at that.
20 Q. In practical terms, Mr. Jusic, how much of your time in 1995 in
21 the 3rd Corps was devoted to planning operations?
22 A. Well, at that time in 1995 we conducted, as far as I can remember,
23 three major operations. One -- the first one planned by the corps command
24 on the basis of an order by the General Staff. That was the lifting of
25 the blockade of Sarajevo. The planning started in May, at the beginning
1 of May. That operation was conducted, as far as I can remember, in June
2 and July.
3 The second operation, or second combat operation and the planning
4 thereof, was work in conjunction work in conjunction with the 7th Corps to
5 liberate Donji Vakuf.
6 And the third operation in 1995 that I managed in terms of
7 preparing the combat documents and preparation was the Farz operation to
8 liberate Vozuca and to lift the blockade of the Zenica-Tuzla road.
9 Q. If I could ask you a few questions about these earlier operations.
10 The operation to lift the blockade of Sarajevo, what was the outcome of
11 that operation?
12 A. The outcome was not a positive one. I think the 3rd Corps managed
13 to liberate a part of an area from the -- in the region of Nabovic
14 [phoen]. That's north-east of the town of Ilijas some 10 square
15 kilometres. As a whole the operation was a failure.
16 Q. And as to the second operation you mentioned in conjunction with
17 the 7th Corps, what was the outcome of that operation?
18 A. The operations aimed at liberating Donji Vakuf was started by the
19 7th Corps, and after the cessation of our operations around Sarajevo,
20 after the failure there, the 3rd and 7th Corps started working together
21 with -- towards Donji Vakuf, but that was unsuccessful as well.
22 Q. So you mentioned this third operation devoted to liberating the
23 Vozuca pocket. Is that the first such operation that is devoted to that
24 military objective that you worked on, Mr. Jusic?
25 A. The operation to liberate Vozuca and to lift the blockade of the
1 road, well, I was involved in that operation for the first time as chief
2 of staff of the 3rd Corps. I organised the planning for that operation,
3 and I took part directly in it. And this was the first time that I did so
4 in capacity as chief of staff.
5 There were previous combat operations along at that axis with the
6 same objective, to improve the operational and tactical position of our
7 units, and if possible the goal was to extend that target to lift the
8 blockade of the road, but those operations were of limited success.
9 Q. And if -- if you recall, Mr. Jusic, when were these previous
10 operations that you refer to aimed at the Vozuca pocket?
11 A. I apologise. Towards the Vozuca pocket. Hmm. Well, the label
12 "Vozuca pocket" was adopted, but only the operations against the
13 Vozuca-Zep -- or the Vozuca pocket continued throughout the war, from the
14 beginning of the war, if we accept that defence actions of the BH army are
15 also combat operations. These were aimed at improving the tactical and
16 military position of our unit and with the possible aim of lifting the
17 blockade, they started in 1994 and continued in 1995 until the beginning
18 of the Farz operation. There were several of them. One of them was in
19 July, at the time when the corps command was engaged in the operation
20 aimed at lifting the siege of Sarajevo. That operation in June was the
21 result, the fruit of the planning of the 35th Brigade command and the
22 actions of its units.
23 MR. WOOD: If I could have the witness shown please P02355.
24 Q. Do you see that map on the screen before you, sir?
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. And I realise it's -- it's not zoomed in very much, but in general
2 terms can you tell the Court what this document is? And if you need to
3 have it -- a closer look at any particular part, just let us know.
4 A. If I could ask for the part to be zoomed in on the text
5 "Odobravam" or "I approve."
6 Q. So for the record that would be the top left-hand corner of the
7 document. If we could zoom in on that.
8 A. Top left corner. Could you zoom in on the list of units. It says
9 here "Vozuca pocket." Slightly to the left. And could you zoom in on
10 that slightly to the left towards the west and slightly lower. Lower.
11 Towards the bottom. Towards the bottom.
12 It is very difficult to see, but I know which document this is.
13 This is a map --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interrupt. The interpretation said
15 can we zoom towards the west, and it looks like we went towards the east.
16 No, go to the west. You are going to the east now. That's better. Is
17 that what the witness wanted?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, it's not.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I don't know where --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Towards the top. I'm referring to
21 the sides on the map. So we should move the map westwards. That means
22 left on this monitor. And maybe slightly lower. Scroll towards the lower
23 edge of the monitor. Even lower. I can't see is half of the pocket here.
24 Yes. Now it's okay.
25 No doubt this is the plan or the schematic of a decision by the
1 commander of the 3rd Corps to conduct the Farz operation. This was
2 prepared in the command of the 3rd Corps during the planning period.
3 MR. WOOD:
4 Q. So if we could focus in on the bottom right-hand corner. And
5 there's some text there. Can you tell the Court what that text is and
6 what it means, Mr. Jusic?
7 A. This is a standard procedure in the preparation of maps or in the
8 preparation of plans on the maps whereby the commander of the corps, after
9 the map had been prepared, and of course after an oral decision by him,
10 that commander would sign the plan or the map, and would apply a rubber
11 stamp of the corps. It was signed by the brigadier Sakib Mahmuljin as the
12 commander, and of course his rubber stamp is attached.
13 Q. And could you tell the Court, sir, if you can, about that stamp?
14 Who would be in possession of that stamp?
15 A. In the 3rd Corps command there were several rubber stamps. One
16 small round rubber stamp was in the possession of the commander. A larger
17 rubber -- round rubber stamp was in the -- in the trans -- sorry, in an
18 office which would receive mail, documents, and certify them. Mainly all
19 documents would go through this intake office, and the documents would be
20 rubber stamped except for documents such as this one, a plan of combat
21 operations, where the commander would apply the rubber stamp, or some
22 documents personally prepared by the commander.
23 Q. And if we could zoom out again. A little bit more.
24 Mr. Jusic, there's some text there in larger type or handwritten
25 at the -- about the top third of the document. Can you tell the Court
1 what that is and what it means?
2 A. It says: "Plan of attack operations of the 3rd Corps between the
3 10th of September until the 10th of October." There's no year, and the
4 procedures did not provide for that. There was no need for the year to be
5 mentioned. However, this map, as any other map, would always be
6 accompanied by an order with a full date.
7 Q. And if we could focus finally on the top right-hand corner. I'm
8 sorry, the top left-hand corner.
9 There's some more handwritten text there. Could you tell the
10 Court what that is and what effect it has on this map?
11 A. According to the standard procedures, this was the standard way to
12 approve of a plan or a decision. The approval in this case, or as in
13 every other case, is always done by a superior officer of the superior
15 In this case it was commander army General Rasim Delic, who was in
16 charge of the General Staff. That means that after all of the documents
17 pertaining to the attacks have been reviewed by the various bodies of the
18 General Staff, the Chief of the General Staff compiles a plan and then
19 let's the commander know that everything is okay and that it can be
21 After the commander has signed, the plan is complete. What
22 follows is the planning and actual preparation in order to implement the
23 various aspects of the plan.
24 Q. Could the operation go forward without the signature of the
25 commanding officer, in this scheme Rasim Delic -- in this case Rasim
2 A. In an operation of such importance as this one could not have gone
3 without his approval.
4 Q. And how does a commander indicate his approval for going forward
5 in an operation?
6 A. As part of the plans for an operation, there are many different
7 documents, orders, and plans made by the competent bodies of the command
8 covering different aspects of the operation. Those plans also envisaged
9 the time of activities, their plan, and implementation, as well as taking
10 up positions, reconnaissance, preparation. And also in the corps
11 commander's order there should also be the date when the operation should
13 By signing this the commander of the General Staff approves all of
14 the documentation as planned.
15 Q. The Prosecution offers into evidence, Your Honours, Exhibit P2 --
16 I'm sorry. Number P02355.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do so, Mr. Wood, and for the sake of
18 completeness, can the witness also tell us what is written on -- in small
19 print on the top right-hand corner of the document.
20 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. That is definitely something that
21 can be put to the within. I believe that we do have a translation of all
22 the text on this if I'm correct, on this map.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but you have been asking him to tell us what
24 is --
25 MR. WOOD: Certainly.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- various text means but you haven't asked him
2 about this, and I'm asking that you ask him about that.
3 MR. WOOD: It's true. Just for Your Honours' sake, information,
4 there will be a translation, but I'll put that to the witness as well.
5 Q. Mr. Jusic, can you tell us what the text in the box at the top
6 right-hand corner of this document is and what it means?
7 A. Your Honours, it is also a part of the standard procedure when
8 putting together a map or a plan. It says: "Defence of the Republic."
9 It is clearly prescribed what a map should contain so that it would be
10 complete. It says: "Defence of the Republic. Military secret," and the
11 degree of secrecy is determined. It says here "Strictly confidential."
12 In the armed forces there were various levels of secrecy. There
13 was the official secret, the internal secret, the confidential, strictly
14 confidential, and state military secret.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Jusic. All we
16 wanted to know is what is written here. Thank you so much.
17 Okay. The document is admitted into evidence. May it please be
18 given an exhibit number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, exhibit number 3880.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 MR. WOOD:
22 Q. One further question that I want to put to the witness about this
23 exhibit, now exhibit, is Mr. Jusic, what does the "F" indicate in the box
24 at the top right-hand corner of the document?
25 A. That is precisely what I wanted to address. The "F" is short for
1 Farz. It was the code-name of the operation that was approved by the
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jusic. If we can zoom out again.
4 MR. WOOD: For the benefit of the Court, this has been admitted as
5 an exhibit, but the Prosecution believes it will be helpful to have
6 another copy of this map entered in as an exhibit once the witness has a
7 chance to make certain markings on it to illuminate certain aspects that
8 the Prosecution believes are important to this case. Just to advise the
9 Court that I will ask him to make marks on this map at this point, but
10 obviously the Prosecution wants the original map to be entered into
11 evidence and it has now.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
13 MR. WOOD:
14 Q. Now, Mr. Jusic, if we can -- if we could have the map zoomed in a
15 little bit. Sort of in the bottom third. That's good.
16 Now, Mr. Jusic, can you explain to the Court what is meant by the
17 dotted line that you see on the screen in front of you on the map?
18 A. I see three dotted lines. One of them in the middle on the tip of
19 the pocket in the eastern part of the map moving straight up. It's a
20 double dotted line with certain semi-circles in different spots. That was
21 the line of separation between the zones of responsibility of the 3rd and
22 2nd Corps. It was the line of their competencies, including intelligence,
23 security, and so on and so forth of two respective corps. That is one of
25 Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir.
1 But it might be helpful for the record if the witness be handed a
2 pen so he can make that mark on the map to indicate the line of division
3 between areas of responsibility between the 2nd and the 3rd Corps.
4 A. The line, 2nd and 3rd Corps from this point on. I think this
5 elevation is called Krvavac. Should I continue with the line?
6 Q. Please, Mr. Jusic.
7 A. Basically it went from the elevation called Krvavac through --
8 through the middle of the pocket to the top of Mount Ozren and further up
9 to Doboj. That is the line of division.
10 In this case, it means that it was also the line of the
11 respective -- of the zone of responsibility of the 35th Division, since it
12 was the unit to the north-east of the corps.
13 Q. Okay. I'll ask you a little bit more about the 35th Division in a
14 minute, but I believe it might be helpful to the Trial Chamber if you
15 could indicate maybe in a different colour, in blue, perhaps, the border
16 of what you're referring to as the Vozuca pocket, or explain what markings
17 on the map that are on it now indicate what are the borders of the Vozuca
19 A. There are such designations on the map. They are also marked with
20 two dotted lines.
21 The outside line to the east and to the west, the darker one. I
22 think it should be blue. That is the front end the forces of the army of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The inside line that should be red represents the
24 front end of the Chetnik forces.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood, which are these lines that the witness is
1 talking about? He made one straight line, and now he's talking about
2 lines and we don't know which lines he's talking about.
3 MR. WOOD: Well, I don't mean to put words in the mouth of the
4 witness, Your Honour, but I believe what he's talking about is --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. Ask him to mark.
6 MR. WOOD: Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ask him to mark the different colours.
8 MR. WOOD: I'll do that, Your Honour.
9 Q. If you could, please, Mr. Jusic, to mark the ABiH lines in blue.
10 A. Is this blue? To the north of Zavidovici, below the Blizna
11 [phoen] facility or elevation, down to the Krivaja River towards Makorsko
12 [phoen] hill and the hill called Krvavac. Then following the line of
13 division to the 2nd Corps. These are the forces the army of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And right now I'm designating the forces of the 2nd
15 Corps, and the line keeps going up northwards and to the east.
16 This was the Vozuca pocket, this area here, was referred to as
18 Q. Perhaps it could be helpful if you could scroll the map up and you
19 can continue that line for as long as it goes. Oh, I'm being told that's
20 technologically not possible. So let the reflect, then, that the witness
21 has marked the ABiH lines in blue and that he's marked the line of
22 division between the 2nd and 3rd Corps in a vertical dotted line in red.
23 Now, if -- yes. If -- if a different colour could be chosen,
24 Mr. Jusic, I would like you to mark the VRS lines or the enemy's lines on
25 the Vozuca pocket as you explained to the Court earlier.
1 A. In principle the Chetnik lines were quite close to the lines of
2 the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The distance was between 300 and 5 or
3 600 metres. In certain places even less. Especially in this part here
4 towards Opaljenik. I will complete the line of the Chetnik forces.
5 This is their front end, their forward end. It represents the
6 lines dug by both sides, the trenches, their fighting positions. In
7 certain cases it would be used to attack, in others to defend.
8 In addition to these lines there were some other elements in
9 individual units which I need not designate right now. Those would refer
10 to artillery positions, command positions, et cetera.
11 The red line --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the black line
13 designates the Chetnik positions.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jusic.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just for our own clarification, you said the red
16 line indicates what?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I reply?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It represents the line of division
20 of responsibility, the zones of responsibility between the 2nd and the
21 3rd Corps of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
23 MR. WOOD:
24 Q. So for the -- for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, then, this red
25 line would have gone through the middle of the Vozuca pocket and
1 essentially through what you would consider to be enemy territory.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I reply to that?
4 MR. WOOD:
5 Q. If you could, sir, yes.
6 A. In this part this line went through the middle of the territory of
7 the Vozuca pocket. To the north it went on towards Doboj up to the border
8 with the Republic of Croatia. This division, the zones of responsibility,
9 was put in place by the General Staff so as to be able to plan and monitor
10 the situation in various zones of responsibilities of the various corps.
11 This made it easier for them and the corps to know what their zones of
12 responsibility are and what are the areas they are in charge of.
13 Q. I would like you to mark a few more places on this map, places
14 that may familiar to the Trial Chamber. First of all, could you mark
15 where Zavidovici is on this map. If you could wait just one moment,
16 Mr. Jusic.
17 If you could circle where Zavidovici is, Mr. Jusic. And just
18 because we only have three colours, I'd ask that you do it in blue.
19 A. [Marks] Z.
20 Q. And if you could --
21 A. Zavidovici is inside the blue circle.
22 Q. And if you could put a 1 by that just for the benefit of the
23 record, sir.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, to correct the
1 transcript. Page 57, lines 3 -- 4, 5, and 6. Perhaps this can be
2 clarified with the witness. The witness clearly stated that -- that it
3 would be -- it was easier for the corps to know what their zones of
4 responsibility are and the areas that they were responsible for. I fail
5 to understand the answer as recorded in lines 5 and 6. Perhaps that can
6 be clarified with the witness as he referred to the responsibility of the
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
9 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
10 Q. As to the vertical red line on the map --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to respond to --
12 MR. WOOD: Yes. I'll ask him a further question to clarify this.
13 Q. Did the ABiH control of the territory within the black line on
14 this map, Mr. Jusic?
15 A. No. No.
16 Q. So the --
17 A. You mean inside the black dotted line? No, no. It was its task
18 to control the rest of the territory that was not controlled by the
19 Chetniks. The red line continues southwards and northwards representing
20 the division of the zones of responsibility between the two corps.
21 Of course when it moves through the Vozuca pocket they had no
22 control there, but outside they were responsible in terms of security,
23 intelligence, morale, and so on and so forth.
24 Q. So I see that on the right-hand side of the map there's a 2K, on
25 the left-hand side of the map there's a 3K. What do those indicate?
1 A. To the right-hand side 2K means the 2nd Corps. To the left-hand
2 side, 3K is the 3rd Corps. Starting from the red line, to the right there
3 was the 2nd Corps. To the left it was the zone of responsibility of the
4 3rd Corps. But to repeat that this is but a part of the line dividing the
5 zones of responsibility. It moves further to the south and to the north.
6 It is a complete line that was dividing each of the corps.
7 MR. WOOD: In the absence of any further confusion expressed by
8 the parties or the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution will move on at this
9 point. Does that clarify matters?
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you clear, Madam Vidovic?
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That suffices, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MR. WOOD: And I do appreciate Madam Vidovic raising that as an
14 issue to make the record more clear.
15 Q. Now, if we could go on to marking certain other locations. I'm
16 going to ask you to mark some locations that we haven't discussed yet but
17 will later, and that is only because this map once it's marked it will be
18 captured as a singe exhibit, so if you'll bear with me.
19 So, Mr. Jusic, if you could mark on the map where the Vozuca is
20 that gives the Vozuca pocket its name. If you can mark that in blue and
21 put a number 2 by it.
22 A. On this map I can only do it off the top of my head concerning the
23 things that I remember. I know that Vozuca approximately is here.
24 Perhaps I can put it in a circle and then mark it with a 2.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Jusic. Now, you mentioned a place called Paljenik.
1 Can you put a mark on the map where Paljenik is and put a number 3 beside
3 A. Paljenik is here. And the number 3.
4 Q. Could you please put a mark on the place Podsjelovo and put a 4 by
5 that mark -- a circle and a 4 by that mark.
6 A. Podsjelovo is here. I can't see the exact marking but
7 approximately here and there is a 4.
8 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to have you go to the --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: What's the name of this place?
10 A. Podsjelovo.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doesn't look anything like what is written on the
13 MR. WOOD: I see that's been corrected, thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, a few other locations and then we can move on. Mr. Jusic,
15 could you please circle the place where the location of IKM Klek is.
16 A. Klek was an observation point and later it became a forward
17 command post. It was here. Should I put a 5?
18 Q. Please, is sir.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. At this
21 moment I do not understand, and probably you don't either, what the
22 forward command post at Klek is. First of all, the Prosecutor needs to
23 establish the basis of the existence of such a forward command post and
24 then they can put follow-up questions, but we and you need to understand.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Mr. Wood, I got the impression you are
2 MR. WOOD: If I could explain myself, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
4 MR. WOOD: I don't mean to be. Again, the reason I'm asking the
5 witness to mark all these place on the map is so that they can all be in
6 one place --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: But has he testified about IKM Klek?
8 MR. WOOD: He has not.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the point. That's the basis of the
11 MR. WOOD: I understand and it would be ideal for me to show him
12 the map, and then have him testify, and then mark certain places as the
13 testimony comes up and then testify again and mark certain places.
14 Unfortunately, I'm not --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: He must testify not Mr. Wood testify.
16 MR. WOOD: I understand. Unfortunately I'm not able to do that
17 because once this image is captured, he's not able to put more marks on
18 the map.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But then he must testify with this image here
20 and --
21 MR. WOOD: Okay.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- and then establish the basis for putting a mark
23 called Klek.
24 MR. WOOD: I will ask him some questions, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right.
1 MR. WOOD:
2 Q. Can you tell us what is Klek, Mr. Jusic? Or let me rephrase the
3 question, what it was -- specifically, what its significance was to
4 Operation Farz?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see the point I'm trying to make to you,
6 Mr. Wood, is that these names of various places should not be heard for
7 the first time during this witness's testimony through your mouth. They
8 must be heard through his mouth. You've got to -- you've got to
9 establish --
10 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you for your guidance.
11 Q. During Operation Farz, where was the 3rd commander located,
12 Mr. Jusic?
13 A. Parts of the 3rd Corps command, most of them were at the area of
14 Luka. Kamenica, Luka, at the -- or close to the Gostovica river.
15 Q. And since we've mention that, could you please put a mark on the
16 map where that is and put a number 6 by it.
17 A. [Marks]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I want to ask one thing. Is that 6, is it
19 Kamenica, is it Luka, is it Gostovica?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Luka. Luka is a toponym. It is a
21 settlement within a larger settlement of Kamenica. Gostovica is the river
22 at that goes through the Luka settlement.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the Luka settlement. Thank you. You may
24 proceed Mr. Woods except that do indicate when it's convenient for you.
25 MR. WOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. Now, you said part of the 3rd Corps command was at Luka during the
2 execution of Operation Farz. Where was the 3rd Corps commander himself
3 located during the execution of Operation Farz?
4 A. During the conduct of the Farz operation the commander of the 3rd
5 command was situated at the Klek facility. This was the operation post of
6 the 35th Division.
7 Q. And is that indicated by number 5 on the map, Mr. Jusic?
8 A. On -- this is designated as 5 on the map.
9 Q. Now I just have one further location. If I could ask you, sir.
10 We saw earlier that the El Mujahid was subordinated to the 3rd Corps. Did
11 that unit take part in this operation?
12 A. El Mujahid detachment did take part in this operation as a
13 resubordinated unit of the 35th Division.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, an objection. Is the
16 Prosecutor trying to bring the El Mujahid into the story surrounding this
17 map? Is this what the learned friend from the Prosecution is trying to
18 do? I do not understand this line.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Wood.
20 MR. WOOD: I think maybe with my next question that will become
21 more clear, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but you have an objection before you. You've
23 got to deal with the objection before you can ask the next question.
24 MR. WOOD: Well, the witness did say that the El Mujahid
25 detachment did take part in this operation as a resubordinated unit of the
1 35th Division. He has also indicated that the 35th Division area of
2 responsibility is on this map, and I can have him indicate that as well.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying.
4 Madam Vidovic is objecting to the very fact that you have asked him about
5 El Mujahid detachment. Now you're asking it was resubordinated to the
6 35th Division which -- yes, he did say so. But this was after you had
7 asked him. You said, "Now, I just have one further question. If I could
8 ask you, sir, you saw earlier that the El Mujahid was subordinated to the
9 3rd Corps. Did that unit take part in this operation?"
10 I imagine the appropriate question to ask would be what units
11 participated in this operation.
12 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll ask that question.
13 Q. Mr. Jusic, could you --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I suggest that you ask that question after the
15 break, and we shall take the break, please. Court adjourned and come back
16 at half past 12.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Wood.
20 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Before the break, Mr. Jusic, I'd posed a question to you, what
22 units participated in Operation Farz.
23 A. In the Operation Farz units within the 35th Division took part.
24 The 7th Muslim; 375 Brigade; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Manoeuvre Battalion, and
25 3rd Sabotage Reconnaissance Detachment. I think I've listed them all as
1 far as my memory serves me.
2 MR. WOOD: Just one moment, Your Honour.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. WOOD:
5 Q. Mr. Jusic, you mentioned and marked the location for Paljenik on
6 this map. I believe that's at number 3; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. How did Paljenik feature in the plans for Operation Farz?
9 A. As per our estimates, Paljenik was the gateway to enter the Vozuca
10 pocket. It was well-fortified and an organised firing system that
11 protected it from both sides and from the rear. So artillery and combat
12 units defended it and it was very well fortified in engineering terms, at
13 the top.
14 Q. If you could tell the Trial Chamber, please, sir, generally
15 speaking, what does the word "Paljenik" mean in Bosnian?
16 A. Paljenik in linguistic terms has an association of something burnt
17 down, which used to burn, which was set alight. When one says paljenik or
18 something burnt down, the association is with a bare area without any
19 major plants. One associates it with a burnt-down woods.
20 Q. Did this name have any relation to the physical characteristic of
21 the mountain called Paljenik?
22 A. Its slopes are very steep, maybe even more than 60 degrees in
23 places. Further more, it's very steep, more than 60 degrees, from the
24 direction of Zavidovici. It wasn't entirely wooded. There were meadows
25 without any trees and without any woods. In places there were clusters of
1 trees, smaller, shorter trees.
2 On the summit itself stood -- was some 50 metres wide, the ridge
3 itself, and in depth it was fortified in engineering terms, which could be
4 seen from the side of the observation post that we had.
5 Q. What was so important about obtaining the Paljenik objective?
6 A. It was important because Paljenik was above a road through a gorge
7 between Paljenik the Krivaja river, and the opposite bank. If we take
8 into account that the Krivaja river flows along the south-west/north-east
9 direction. So from the western -- I correct myself. South-east towards
10 north-west. So from the western side the steeps were very -- the slopes
11 were very steep, and the road passing below Paljenik was the main road
12 connecting Zavidovici with Banovici and Tuzla further on. And this was
13 its importance. This is the only road where you could transport your
14 mechanisation. Other roads could be travelled on foot, but this road
15 could be defended by infantry so that the opposite side could not move
16 their machinery along it. Other roads were impassable for larger
18 This position was well-protected by the Chetniks, and it also
19 provided security and defence for other Chetnik lines because it was a
20 dominant summit. And there were some anti-aircraft cannons and
21 machine-guns that could provide fire to the positions left and right of
22 Paljenik, and this was proven by our operation.
23 When it fell, very soon the other lines were abandoned. In other
24 words, captured by us.
25 Q. What unit was assigned to achieve the Paljenik objective?
1 A. The 35th Division was tasked with capturing Paljenik.
2 Q. What specific units within the 35th Division were tasked with
3 achieving the Paljenik objective?
4 A. The commander of the 35th Division relayed that task to El Mujahid
5 detachment, and -- and the units of the manoeuvre battalions. I believe
6 that the 3rd and the 4th were in that area.
7 Q. Now, if we could go back to the map really quickly. You mentioned
8 that the El Mujahid detachment was involved in achieving the Paljenik
9 objective. Do you know, sir, where it is the Mujahedin had their -- the
10 El Mujahid had its camp?
11 A. I know where they had their camp, although I never visited the
12 camp. Neither did I visit any locations of the 35th Division's units for
13 the purpose of effectuating this operation.
14 I know of the location of the El Mujahedin camp because it was
15 close to the road running between the forward command post of the corps
16 and Zavidovici, and I passed along that road two -- on two or three
17 occasions during the preparation of that operation, during reconnaissance,
18 et cetera.
19 Q. If you could, sir -- I see that you're reaching for a pen. If you
20 can mark in blue where this camp was, and if you could put a -- indicate
21 that with a number 7.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I presumed that the
24 Prosecution would try to do this. Before us we have a map which explains
25 the plan of the Farz operation, what we here marked are military
1 facilities as prepared by the 3rd command corps and pursuant to the
2 witness's testimony, but this -- this map does not show this camp as such
3 and this is reworking the map. If the Prosecutor wanted to insert some
4 facilities on this map which have nothing to do with this operation, then
5 he should have used another clear map or unmarked map. What he's trying
6 to do now is they are inserting facilities, camps, that did not exist as
7 per this plan for the Operation Farz.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. If you understand, just respond.
9 MR. WOOD: Well, Your Honour, this is a map of the area. It shows
10 the Vozuca pocket, which is important. The witness has said that the camp
11 of the El Mujahid detachment was very close to the IKM Luka which he has
12 indicated as number 6 on the map, and I believe it would be of great
13 benefit to the Trial Chamber to know the proximity of that camp to the IKM
14 considering the allegations in this case.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic, and I just want to say that I
16 don't understand --
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- the nub of your objection, just --
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document which we
20 had before us, and I will show it to you in a much clearer form, it's been
21 given to me by the OTP. Well, this document is a map and part of the
22 planning for the Farz operation, and it has marked out the facilities that
23 were done by the 3rd Corps at the time. But I'm deeply convinced that
24 inserting such camps and facilities would be reworking the map.
25 I don't want to negate the Prosecutor's right to show you where
1 the camp was situated, but not on -- on the map of the Farz operation
2 because the original Farz operation map did not show this camp. This
3 would be reworking a document. I fail -- I did not want to object until
4 and as long as the Prosecutor moved within the framework of this map, but
5 now they are inserting a new facility which was not there and not done by
6 the 3rd Corps at the time of the planning.
7 If they want to highlight the position of the camp, they should
8 bring a new, unmarked map, a geographical map, and do so.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have a problem understanding your objection, and
10 I'll tell you why. My problem is I don't have a copy of that map. I
11 don't know whether the other Judges have a copy of that map. I don't know
12 what is on that map and what is not on that map. All I'm told is I'm
13 being shown a map here, and places -- things are being marked on the map,
14 and I didn't see any markings before the markings that were made by the
15 witness today, and my assumption is that witness is taking us through to
16 show us where various things were during this Operation Farz.
17 Now, our telling me and telling the Chamber that you have the map
18 and the map was prepared for the operation. So you know more about this
19 map. We don't know more -- anything about the map, and I'm not quite sure
20 I follow your objection, because -- I see the witness here trying to the
21 best of his knowledge trying to locate where various things were situated
22 during the operation, not during the planning.
23 Maybe the other Judges might help me.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand where you find it
25 murky. I did not want to confuse you. I have this map in colour. It can
1 be seen clearer. But you can see in front of you that this goes for a
2 Farz operation map. There's the key in the -- on the right-hand side, and
3 the signature of commander Mahmuljin can be seen here now, but you saw it
4 before that. This map is entitled "Plan of the attacking operation from
5 10th of September to 10th of October," and now this is a concrete piece of
6 evidence. But now the Prosecutor is trying to insert elements into that
7 exhibit that do not exist in this document, because he's inserting things
8 which fall outside the framework of that exhibit.
9 I'm not denying the Prosecutor the right to show on a clear map
10 where the camp of El Mujahid was situated, but not on this map which is
11 part of the plan of the 3rd Corps for that particular operation. I think
12 that this goes for an irregular reworking of a document.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Vidovic, we were told that the El Mujahid
14 detachment did take part in the operation. Is that right?
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] As I understood, the witness did
16 confirm that they did take part within the framework of the 35th Division,
17 but the activities of the 35th Division are not highlighted and marked on
18 this map, and this you will realise and you can ask the witness about that
19 in terms of tasks, et cetera. Because, Your Honours, if the map is being
20 admitted as a document pertaining to a combat action, then it must stand
21 as it is. It cannot be reworked. I grant that the Prosecution can use a
22 clean map, but if they are trying to insert elements onto the map of the
23 Operation Farz, then I very strongly object to that being done.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: But I -- I do not see this as an attempt to rework
25 the map. The map stays as it is. What I actually do find useful is to
1 see where that detachment was located, just as we have the 3rd Corps
2 command at Luka. We have the Klek position. We have Zavidovici, and we
3 have the mountains, Podsjelovo, and Paljenik. These are useful points of
4 reference to keep together for the Chamber, and I don't see this as in any
5 way interfering with the authenticity or the meaning of the original map.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just add to what Judge Harhoff has just
7 said. I can't understand how a clean map unrelated to this operation can
8 give us the context in which the Mujahedin operated, if it did operate, in
9 this operation if we are now going to put it on a clean map which is not
10 the same map as the map that was used here, you know.
11 Obviously, the Prosecution has the map which had the plan of the
12 operation, and then the plan was implemented. Now, this witness is
13 testifying not about the plan only. He's testifying about the plan, the
14 implementation, and everything that went with it, and he's going to tell
15 us where to his knowledge the various units that fought were located on
16 the map. And of course the relevant unit that is at issue in this matter
17 is the Mujahedin. So I don't -- in other words, I still don't understand
18 the basis for the objection.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Your Honours. Let's
20 deal with what Honourable Judge Harhoff said. I said that I did not
21 object as far as the mentioned facilities and elements were marked clearly
22 on the map like Paljenik and the others. This is the plan of the
23 3rd Corps map. Then we have a plan and map for the 35th Division where we
24 will see the role and actions of the El Mujahedin detachment. But what
25 I'm objecting to is that elements are being inserted in -- into a map that
1 did not -- were not done by the 3rd Corps. We will later on see a map
2 with El Mujahedin highlighted, but this map, this is very relevant for us
3 because this map is allegedly approved by General Delic, and we -- it is
4 important for us to demonstrate what was it that General Delic approved.
5 And although I don't want this to be -- I'm not very comfortable with this
6 being discussed in front of the witness, I'm not sure whether he should be
7 hearing this, but this is the reason for my concern.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is just the problem. The problem is that you
9 are -- you have knowledge that we don't have. Now you're telling us of
10 another map that will be coming. We'll see that map when it comes, and
11 there's nothing stopping the Prosecution showing us again on that map
12 where the El Mujahedin was if it is relevant for that purpose. But I
13 can't understand why we can't be shown on this map where the various units
14 were that are relevant for purposes of this trial.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: And we might, can I add, admit this map with the
16 notion that the position of the El Mujahedin was not originally put on the
17 map by General Delic.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: So the objection is overruled.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This would resolve the matter, Your
21 MR. WOOD: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Jusic, if you could, please, with the blue pen mark where the
23 camp of the El Mujahid detachment was located and put a number 7 next to
24 that mark.
25 A. The base of the El Mujahid detachment was along this road from
1 Luka to Zavidovici. I saw them because I passed along that road.
2 Q. And if you could please put a number 7 by that, Mr. Jusic.
3 A. [Marks]
4 MR. WOOD: At this time the Prosecution offers this exhibit into
5 evidence, Your Honour, this document into evidence.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Sorry. Just before we admit this document,
8 when you marked number 7, Witness, I understood you to say the base of the
9 El Mujahid detachment was along the road from Luka to Zavidovici, and you
10 marked that. What do you mean by "base"?
11 Let me explain what I mean. Are you telling us of where they were
12 located during the operation, or are you telling us of where they used to
13 stay when they are not in operation?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling you about the place
15 where they resided from the moment when they were resubordinated to the
16 35th Division, and I think that happened in March or April 1993. So this
17 was their base where they were billeted at. This is not the place where
18 they engaged in combat operations. They engaged in combat operations
19 elsewhere. This is where they stayed, where they ate, where they rested,
20 trained. And I think that you use the proper term "camp."
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see the question also related to camp. Thank you
22 very much.
23 MR. WOOD: So again, Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders this
24 into evidence, seeks to tender it into evidence.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. The document is admitted into evidence. May
2 it please be given an exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 381.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 MR. WOOD: Mr. Jusic, there's been some talk of the El Mujahid
6 detachment. Could you please, if you recall, tell the Court who was the
7 commander of that unit?
8 A. I remember it was Abu Maali who commanded the El Mujahid, and --
9 and the proper term was El Mujahedin.
10 Q. And do you know of any other members of that unit by name, sir?
11 A. I got to know another member. His name was Ajman, and I think
12 that his duty was a security officer in that unit. I'm not certain. I
13 can't be certain. I never saw a single document related to that, and I
14 encountered them on maybe two or three occasions in all.
15 Q. Now, you said a little bit about Paljenik and that that was a key
16 to the operation. If you could tell the Court first of all again was --
17 well, from your testimony, we know that the Paljenik objective was
18 achieved. Can you tell the Court how that came about?
19 A. I can tell you from my memory how this operation unfolded from its
20 beginning to its end generally speaking, but I'm not sure whether your
21 question concerns specific facilities, specific features, specific units
22 or not.
23 Q. Yes. I'll ask a clarifying question. What I would like you to
24 explain to the Court is specifically how the Paljenik feature, that
25 specific feature, how was that achieved during the operation of Operation
2 A. I will try and answer. On the 10th of September, the operation
3 began. The time when it began was 6.00. The sign, the mark to move along
4 the entire line was when artillery opened fire, artillery of the army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, as they engaged in-depth targets. When I say
6 artillery operation, I mean artillery of all calibre, including mortars of
7 different calibres and howitzers, although there were only three
9 At the same time, infantry launched its attack. The feature of
10 Paljenik, as I know, was attacked by the El Mujahedin unit, and it was
11 also a part of their planning. I know they started on time, at 6.00. I
12 know that because of the intensity of firing from infantry weapons at the
13 feature, and it could be heard from a distance.
14 The feature was taken in a very short time. It took them only
15 about half an hour. And the sign that it was taken was the cessation of
16 firing at that feature.
17 My war experience tells me that when there is firing there is
18 combat and vice versa.
19 Later on I learnt that it was in our hands.
20 Q. Now, when you say that -- earlier you said the El Mujahid
21 detachment had been resubordinated to the 35th Division. When you say
22 resubordinated, from which unit was it resubordinated to the 35th
24 A. As we could see from the chart, it came from the 3rd Corps. It
25 was directly linked to the 3rd Corps command up until the minute of
1 resubordination, once the decision was made.
2 Q. And do you recall, sir, when this decision for resubordination was
4 A. I think it was made before the operation at Paljenik. I don't
5 know the exact date, but probably in May or in April.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Of which year?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1995. 1995.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thanks.
9 MR. WOOD:
10 Q. Where were you situated during the operation of Operation Farz,
11 the execution of that operation?
12 A. Based on commander's decision and orders at the beginning of the
13 operation on the 10th in the morning, early in the morning, I left for an
14 observation post that was in the area of attack of the 7th Muslim Brigade.
15 It was at elevation 923. From Vozuca or from the separation line it is to
16 the west, some 500 metres from the front line.
17 Q. So if I understand your testimony correctly, then, it would be
18 about 500 metres left of the line parallel with Vozuca?
19 A. I don't have a map here to indicate it, but it was on a plane with
20 a view of the forward command post at Luka, viewing it on the map. So if
21 you pull -- draw a straight line between the two, the line would simply go
22 to the east, towards the hills, and the lines of separation were some 5 to
23 600 metres from the observation post.
24 Q. Now, on the map that -- the map for Operation Farz, we saw that
25 there was a 3K and a 2K. You've been speaking about what the 3rd Corps
1 was doing. Did the 2nd Corps have a role in relation to this operation?
2 A. The 2nd Corps played a similar role from the east to the Vozuca
3 pocket as did the 3rd Corps. The 2nd or 3rd Corps, in the course of
4 preparation and planning for the operation, established contact and they
5 cooperated. They met on two or three occasions, and on one occasion parts
6 of their respective commands got together, their commanders and parts of
7 the staff, at the Klek feature. I don't know exactly what date it was,
8 but in the second half of the month of August 1995.
9 The 2nd Corps simultaneously with the 3rd Corps worked on their
10 plan. We arranged what the line was that was supposed to be reached by
11 the forces of the 2nd and the 3rd Corps respectively. The line was the
12 Krivaja river. This is where they got together. Therefore, it was
13 necessary for them where to meet and what the sign would be as well as to
14 establish what the time is when the operation should begin. From that
15 point on the 2nd Corps worked independently on their part of the
17 Q. And how much territory was liberated as a result of this operation
18 or these two operations in conjunction with one another?
19 A. I cannot recall exactly how many square kilometres it was, but
20 around 30. That was the side of the Vozuca pocket and a northern part,
21 north to the Vozuca pocket.
22 In those three days of the 10th, 11th and 12th, that was the
23 territory taken. Then there was an interruption in combat operations, and
24 then the operations resumed on the 15th of September, 1995. I think in
25 the initial stage the area was about 30 kilometres, and then in the next
1 part until the truce, or the Dayton Accords, that is, another 30 square
2 kilometres of territory were liberated. I don't remember exact figures,
3 but this is so more or less. Around 30 kilometres in one stage and 30 in
4 the other stage of operations.
5 Q. How would you characterise the communication with the General
6 Staff during and after the execution of Operation Farz?
7 A. During the Farz operation, at the place where I was, I didn't pay
8 much heed to that type communication. Thinking about it now, I think
9 communication was regular, as if nothing was happening. Perhaps on one or
10 two occasions there were -- there were reports sent from the 3rd Corps to
11 the General Staff, irregular reports. Other than that, communication was
12 standard. Radio relay communication between the 3rd Corps and Zenica and
13 Kakanj, Sarajevo -- or, rather, Tuzla. That was standard communication
14 that existed before, during, and after the operation that went by radio
16 MR. WOOD: If I could have the witness shown Exhibit 2249 -- or
17 I'm sorry, document 2249, P02249.
18 Q. And if I could draw your attention in particular, sir, to page 20
19 of that. If we could go to page 20. That is the one that bears the mark
20 01810470. And that is -- at the top there's an entry 14/15 September,
22 Do you see that in front of you, sir?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Now, can you explain to the Court what this document is?
25 A. I know that this is a page of an entire log in which duty
1 operations officers made notes as to what they could observe when they
2 handed over duty to the next duty operations officer. I didn't used to
3 read that log, but judging by what I can see, what I can see on the
4 screen, I can tell you that the duty operations officer was Jakub.
5 He describes the hand-over of duty between him had and the
6 previous duty operations officer. There are some other elements, some
7 other information stating that in the morning around 9.30 General
8 Hadzihasanovic visited the command together with President Izetbegovic on
9 their way to Travnik and Donji Vakuf.
10 There are some other bullets here, but I don't know whether
11 there's any need for me to read all of them. Perhaps you can be more
13 I have never seen this document, but undoubtedly this is a page
14 from the log that was at the corps command as to any observations by duty
15 operations officers. It was at the operations centre with the duty
16 operations officer.
17 Q. And why was it important for the information in this document to
18 be accurate?
19 A. I cannot answer that question, because in essence all important
20 information should be noted down. This was a document drafted by the
21 operations officer, and he's merely letting the commander know what he
22 could observe. To the corps commander, that is. He tells him about the
23 things that happened during his shift. Whether he individually decided on
24 the important things to report on I cannot say, but I think what we have
25 here, events and information that even the commander must have known by
1 that time. Usually the commander would have a look at these observations
2 in the morning, but I presume the commander would already be familiar with
3 such information.
4 The log was kept since that was standard procedure for duty
5 operations officers to write down their observations, to have -- to keep
6 track of events which took place during his shift.
7 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution offers this document into evidence,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
10 please be given an exhibit number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 382.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MR. WOOD:
14 Q. Finally, Mr. Jusic, I just have one final question. With regard
15 to the map again that you saw before, the one that was entered into
16 evidence in an unmarked state, you said that there was some text at the
17 top left hand with the name "Rasim Delic" written there. Did Rasim Delic
18 sign this map?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. WOOD: The Prosecution has nothing further at this time, Your
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Madam Vidovic.
24 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Jusic. My name is
1 Vasvija Vidovic, and I will cross-examine you today on behalf of General
2 Rasim Delic.
3 First I wanted to put some general questions to you that you were
4 not asked by the Prosecutor. However, you did mention some of those
5 things in the statement you gave to the investigators, investigators of
6 the Prosecution. Do you remember having given a statement?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. Mr. Jusic, you're one of the few officers of the army of Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina who in the former JNA held the rank of lieutenant colonel;
10 is that correct?
11 A. I think there were seven or eight of us in total in the army of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina who held the rank of lieutenant colonel and higher.
13 There were several colonels as well, and maybe one or two generals.
14 Q. Therefore, in the whole of army of Bosnia-Herzegovina there were
15 seven or eight highly educated officers holding that rank or higher. Is
16 that so?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You performed many duties in commands and units of the former JNA;
19 is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You completed the Command Staff Academy in Belgrade?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. That is the elite academy, is it not? The best academy there was
24 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
25 A. It was the only such an academy in the former Yugoslavia, in
1 Belgrade, at the centre of military schools. Once completed, that level
2 of education would put you in the position of up to the commander of a
3 brigade -- division - interpreter's correction - and one could be promoted
4 to the rank of Colonel at the most.
5 Q. While you were a member of the 3rd Corps, as I understood, the
6 corps commander was Sakib Mahmuljin. Is that so?
7 A. While I was chief of staff in the 3rd Corps, commander was
8 Sakib Mahmuljin.
9 Q. Can you tell us when exactly you became a member of the 3rd Corps?
10 A. I became a member of the 3rd Corps in 1993, in April, after I was
11 at the -- at the staff duty in the operations TO staff in Visoko.
12 Therefore, in April 1993.
13 Q. Therefore, my conclusion is that you knew General Mahmuljin well,
14 General Sakib Mahmuljin.
15 A. I didn't used to know him very well before I arrived in the
16 command of the 3rd Corps in 1993.
17 Q. That's what I had in mind. You had an occasion to meet him and to
18 know him well.
19 A. As of 1993 onwards, yes.
20 Q. Do you agree with me that General Mahmuljin did not complete the
21 military academy at all?
22 A. I know that. He completed the NCO or non-commissioned officer
23 traffic school.
24 Q. Before that -- or, rather, after that he completed the school of
1 A. Yes, as far as I know.
2 Q. Before the war, in the former JNA, Mr. Mahmuljin worked in
3 finances. Is that not correct?
4 A. I believe that before that he was an NCO in charge of training of
5 motor vehicle drivers in Capljina. When he completed the school of
6 economics, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and was sent back to
7 the same unit in Capljina.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to show the witness
9 D387 now. For the record, it is an order from the Presidency of the
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated the 4th of October, 1993.
11 Q. Please have a look at that. As far as I can understand this
12 order, Sakib Mahmuljin, on the 4th of October, 1993, was appointed to the
13 establishment post of the chief of staff of the 3rd Corps. Does this
14 reflect what actually happened?
15 A. Yes. This document was implemented.
16 Q. As of April 1993, you were a member of the 3rd Corps. Is it
17 correct that Sakib Mahmuljin, before this date, was not a member of the
18 3rd Corps command?
19 A. That is correct. He was -- it says here that he was a member of
20 the General Staff. That's what he told us. And there was no order on his
21 appointment to the command of the 3rd Corps.
22 Q. Did you at the corps ever see an order stating that he was a
23 member of the command of the General Staff or anything similar?
24 A. No.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I seek to tender this
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Can we just see the date of the 4th of
3 October on this document? Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No problem. The document is admitted into
6 evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 383.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. I asked you about the commander of the 3rd Corps and his military
11 education. Now I wanted to ask you this concerning the rest of the
12 command of the 3rd Corps. On the document we saw as the last document
13 shown to you by the Prosecutor, it was an excerpt -- it was the
14 handwritten document. I saw a last name there. It said Ezher Arnautovic.
15 He was the person who signed the document.
16 Perhaps we could have that page displayed again. Could we please
17 see the last document shown by the Prosecutor again.
18 Perhaps we could have a look at the signatures. It says here: "On
19 behalf of the commander of the General Staff, Colonel Ezer Arnautovic."
20 I want to ask you something about his background and the
21 background and education of the people drafting such reports.
22 Mr. Ezer Arnautovic was assistant commander of the corps in charge
23 of logistics. He was a civilian with zero military education. Am I
25 A. You are. [Realtime omission "Before the war, he was an
1 entrepreneur] Before the war, he was an entrepreneur. That man, at the
2 time when the war out, was over 70 years old, without any military
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to interrupt you, madam. That answer
5 starting from "before the war" appears on the transcript as if it's a
6 question. But it's supposed to be part of that answer that says "you
7 are," full stop, as part of one answer. There must be that part that says
8 before the war.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are correct. And
10 there is also a part of the reply missing. The witness said, before the
11 war or, rather, when the war broke out this man was already over 70 years
12 old. I believe that is what you are referring to.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But before that there was a sentence that was
14 "before the war." It doesn't look like we can get it back.
15 You may proceed, Madam Vidovic.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. You said that Mr. Ezer Arnautovic was a civilian who worked for
18 the army without any military knowledge. Did you say that?
19 A. I did.
20 Q. We have a document here which reads: "Observations of the duty
21 operations officer," and "sent." Would you agree with me that to a large
22 extent the contents of such documents dependent on the level of experience
23 and ability to note down and understand what was behind a certain piece of
25 A. Yes, that is correct. It all depended on his military expertise,
1 experience, knowledge, and it is what decided what information was to be
2 entered as significant.
3 Q. Have a look at item 4. It says: "At 1900 hours, BH army
4 commander General Delic rang and asked about the situation in the zone of
5 responsibility ...". I would read it as stating the 1st Corps or the 3rd.
6 I don't know. It could be the 3rd. It continues: "The duty operations
7 officer informed him according to the reports received up until then."
8 That was the thrust of my question. Do you agree were me that --
9 well, first of all, you don't know at all what the duty operations officer
10 informed General Delic on, do you? You cannot know that?
11 A. That's true. Nobody can tell because it's not written down
13 Q. Secondly, do you agree that it depended on his estimate of the
14 importance of information what he will be intervening in?
15 A. Yes. The information that he received from that officer, if
16 sought, must have been accepted as it was given, and on the -- and it
17 depended on the information what action or intervention will be taken.
18 Q. Now I would like to ask you this: Do you agree that the fact that
19 General Delic was inquiring about the situation in the zone of
20 responsibility testifies to the fact that he, in effect, did not command
21 that operation at that time? Otherwise, I may surmise that he would have
22 known about the operation.
23 A. I know that he did not command that operation because I took part
24 in it, and I know who commanded because on the part of the 3rd Corps it
25 was commanded by the 2nd -- 3rd Corps commander in the zone of
1 responsibility of the command -- the commander of the 2nd Corps. General
2 Staff did not have their representatives in 3rd Corps commands alongside
3 with its commander. There was nobody from the General Staff and who would
4 manage and direct this operation. I know that he did not command or
5 direct the operations in the zone of responsibility of 3rd Corps, and I
6 conclude that he did not do so in the area of responsibility of the
7 2nd corps.
8 Q. And this is I think that he's inquiring by phone because there was
9 nobody on the ground from the General Staff who would relay that
10 information to him.
11 A. Yes, I would agree.
12 Q. I apologise for not making pauses between question and answer. My
13 question is: Do you agree that he, until that time, or date, 14 to 15th
14 September 1995, when he called, prior to that, he had not received any
15 information about the status and situation in the zone of responsibility
16 of the 3rd Corps. Otherwise, he would not be seeking them by calling the
18 A. I would not agree, because written information, daily combat
19 report, would be prepared for the day that -- when he called, the 14th and
20 the 15th September. Maybe that report did not arrive to its destination,
21 and this is why he had no other channel other than calling. I know that
22 combat reports were sent daily, regularly, because the superior officers
23 of the 3rd Corps maybe did not have time to prepare the reports
24 themselves, but they were engaged in the life and death combat situation.
25 Q. I will ask you some detailed questions tomorrow about these
1 reports, but do you agree that you sent regular daily combat reports to
2 the command post of the Supreme Command?
3 A. As per regulations, yes, we did.
4 Q. Thank you. I will revisit this question. Now can we take this
5 document from the screen, and I will revisit the issue of the command over
6 that action.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just interrupt now that you're finished
8 with this point. And this depends on whether everybody agrees. The words
9 missing at that part page 84, line 20, where to my recollection "before
10 the war he was an entrepreneur." I thought that's what the witness had
12 I see Mr. Delic nods in agreement. I don't know whether anybody
13 else remembers. He said before the war he was an entrepreneur.
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] In the French version that's
15 exactly what was said. This is precisely what I heard, that he was an
16 entrepreneur before the war.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: To complete that sentence.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I recall this being
19 uttered, but I could not connect it with the person. That was reference
20 to Mr. Arnautovic.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before he said he was 70 years old. Okay.
22 You may proceed, Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will ask some brief questions and
24 conclude with this part of my cross.
25 Q. So I asked you about Ezer Arnautovic. Now I'm going to ask you
1 briefly about the other members of the command of the 3rd Corps.
2 Faik Uzunovic [phoen], one of the assistants, was also a civilian without
3 any military education?
4 A. Yes, but he was a politician without military education. He was a
5 civilian. He engaged in politics, and he -- when he left the 3rd Corps,
6 he entered politics. I believe that he ended up as a diplomat.
7 Q. Well, while he executed this duty of assistants of the 3rd Corps
8 commander he had no military education?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you. Civro Safet, an operative, he was also a civilian
11 without any military training?
12 A. He had no military training, and his civilian education was
13 secondary school diploma, and he worked as a football referee.
14 Q. Similar situation as well when it came to brigade commanders and
15 members of their staff.
16 A. Yes. It was a mirror reflection.
17 Q. For instance, the commander of the 307th Brigade, Bugojno [phoen]
18 Faruk Aganovic, he had no military training; is that right?
19 A. I don't believe that he even finished secondary school. So he was
20 a secondary school dropout. And I don't think that he even did his
21 military service in the JNA.
22 Q. Asim Koricic, a long-time commander of the 7th Brigade, he also
23 had no military training?
24 A. No. Zero military training.
25 Q. Mahmut Efendija Karalic, a prominent member of that brigade no
1 military training?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Fuad Smailbegovic, commander of the 303 brigade, was not trained?
4 A. 314th brigade. He had no military expertise. He was not trained.
5 Q. So you agree that the personnel structure of the military
6 commands, including the 3rd Corps command and brigade commands was of such
7 nature that it could -- did not allow for a proper functioning that would
8 be expected of a modern trained army until the end of the war in 1995.
9 A. This is my opinion as well. I concur with that. More than 95 per
10 cent of the persons who held important positions and posts were not
11 trained or capable for those positions. And training of such people could
12 not be done along their everyday duties because they would have to be sent
13 for at least 6 to 12 months for training.
14 Q. The Prosecutor asked you about the communications. Do you agree
15 with me that the burning issue was a lack of communication with the
16 superior command in Sarajevo because of the siege of -- sorry, and I'm
17 referring to that part of the command structure which was headquartered at
18 Sarajevo, and I'm not discussing Kakanj. We're going to discuss that
19 tomorrow. But do you agree that this was the real problem because of the
21 A. Yes. I personally note that for a year while I was directly
22 subordinated to the regional headquarters of Sarajevo, for one year during
23 wartime, I could not establish any communication with my superior officer.
24 Q. Could you specify the period?
25 A. 1992, 1993.
1 Q. Could you be more precise?
2 A. I personally could not establish communication with my commander
3 as long as I held the position of the commander of the Operational Group
4 of Visoko throughout that time.
5 Q. Could you be more precise?
6 A. I was replaced in March, towards the end of March in 1993. Until
7 that time I had had no communication with my superior commander of the
8 regional headquarters of Sarajevo which grew into the command of the 1st
9 Corps later on.
10 Q. Another thing. Communication was very poor with subordinated
11 units in your case in the 3rd Corps. This obtained until the end of the
12 war; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. Communications were through messenger or
14 courier. We had very few units that we had a wired communication. Only
15 with those who were headquartered at Zenica. Radio relay communication
16 did not exist with other units. I think that radio relay communication
17 had not been established until the end of the war.
18 Q. Now, this is the last question about that. Do you agree that this
19 had a direct effect on the quality of reporting from your subordinate unit
20 to you and from you to your superior command?
21 A. Correct. Not only on the quality of reporting but on the overall
22 command and control system.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I think is
24 the proper time for me to stop and to continue tomorrow.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
1 We will adjourn now and continue tomorrow at 2.00 in -- 2.15,
2 rather, in this same court.
3 Court adjourned.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day
6 of September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.