1 Wednesday, 26 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, everybody.

7 Mr. Registrar, may you please call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. This is

9 case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

11 May we have the appearances for today, please, starting with the

12 Prosecution.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your

14 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

15 Prosecution, Daryl Mundis and Matthias Neuner, assisted by our case

16 manager, Alma Imamovic.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

18 [Microphone not activated] For the Defence?

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

20 morning to the learned friends from the Prosecution. Good morning to

21 everybody in and around the courtroom. Vasvija Vidovic and

22 Nicholas Robson for the Defence of General Delic, and Lejla Gluhic as

23 legal assistant.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

25 Good morning, sir.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: You made a declaration yesterday to tell the truth,

3 the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. You made --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are aware that you are still bound by that

6 declaration, but it's my duty to remind you that indeed you are. Okay?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

9 Madam Vidovic, you had just started your cross-examination

10 yesterday. You may proceed.

11 WITNESS: FADIL HASANAGIC [Resumed]

12 [Witness answered through interpreter]

13 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic: [Continued]

14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Hasanagic. I hope that you are

15 well-rested and that today we can proceed in an easy manner.

16 A. Thank you. Good morning.

17 Q. Yesterday, we discussed the fact that you were a trained

18 professional soldier but that you do not have any associates and

19 colleagues who were trained in professional. Is that so?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I would like to show you a document. It is of a temporary war

22 formation or unit. But before that, for the benefit of the Bench, could

23 you confirm that a temporary wartime formation is a document which

24 regulates the structure of a certain unit; that it is of a temporary

25 character because it is valid until a new establishment or a new formation

1 is issued? Is -- am I right?

2 A. Yes.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like the

4 witness to see document D417. For the record, this is a temporary wartime

5 formation of the command of division together with the staff units. The

6 number is BH100.301.

7 Q. Witness, could you take a look at the first page, please. Do you

8 agree this is the document issued in December 1994, as is stated on the

9 first page?

10 A. I did not see this document in its -- in this form, but I do think

11 this is so.

12 Q. Thank you. Please take a look at page 2 of this document. Thank

13 you.

14 Do you agree that this page shows that the commander of the

15 General Staff of the army adopted on the 23rd of September, 1994 this

16 temporary wartime establishment?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Thank you. And now I would like you to take a look at the next

19 page of this document.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if this could be

21 centred or lined in such a way that we can see it. Okay. Thank you.

22 Q. Now, Witness, please take a look at this organisational chart to

23 make sure -- whether you agree that the division was organised in a manner

24 depicted here during the relevant period in 1994/1995.

25 A. Yes.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can the witness see anything?

2 Are you able to read what's inside there, sir? Thank you.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is much better. Thank you,

4 Your Honours.

5 A. This is the schematic of our division, the organisational chart.

6 Q. Now I would like to -- you to take a look at page 4 in the B/C/S

7 version, which is page 4 in the English version as well, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I -- can I interrupt, Madam Vidovic? Page 3 at

9 line 15, it's written "23rd of September, 1994." It should be "December

10 1994."

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may see the page again. Could

12 we have that page appear on the screen, please, in the B/C/S version.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's in the -- it's in the transcript.

14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. It's

15 supposed to be December 1994. This is how I said.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, no, you said so, but the transcript -- I just

17 want to correct the transcript.

18 Thank you very much. You may proceed, madam.

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Maybe the usher can

20 turn the next page of this document. Page 4. Thank you very much.

21 Q. Witness, please take a look at this page of the temporary wartime

22 establishment. Here we have an outlook, the division command with staff

23 units. And there are certain columns. In the first, it states:

24 "Appointment." Am I right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you agree that in the next column we have the abbreviation

2 "OF"?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Is this an acronym for "officers"?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. The next column is -- are "non-commissioned officers."

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Take a look at these figures here. Do you agree that in the "OF"

9 column, denoting "officers," there are certain figures showing how many

10 officers the division command ought to have and the headquarters command,

11 then communications, et cetera, et cetera? Am I right?

12 A. Yes.

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we have the next

14 page of this document on the screen.

15 Q. In this column of "officers," do you agree that we have 76 as a

16 total, which means as per temporary establishment, it was envisaged for

17 the division command to have 76 officers? Am I right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Those officers were supposed to be military academy graduates to

20 be officers, as per rules and regulations.

21 A. An officer is supposed to be a military academy graduate.

22 Q. Yes. But what was the reality in the 35th Division's command was

23 that out of the 76 envisaged, only 3 had a degree from the military

24 academy.

25 A. Maybe three. Maybe four or five, but roughly this would be the

1 figure.

2 Q. Yes. I will show you the names. We will sort this out.

3 Nesad Sabic had a degree. He was chief of staff. Semir Hamzic, assistant

4 for logistics. And you. And we are discussing the command of your

5 division.

6 Do anybody -- do you know of anybody else except for the three of

7 you who was a military academy graduate in the division command?

8 A. I can't remember. I can't remember anybody else.

9 Q. So out of the 76 officers envisaged in the command, only a handful

10 were professionally trained soldiers; is that so?

11 A. Yes, according to this information.

12 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, please understand me. I'm talking about the real

13 state of affairs in the division. Is it true that in the division you

14 really had only three/four officers with a diploma from the military

15 academy?

16 A. Yes, this was so.

17 Q. The 35th Division in the period 1995 had 12 thousand soldiers; am

18 I right?

19 A. Yes, between 11.000 and a half and 12.000.

20 Q. Per establishment, you were supposed to have three mountain

21 brigades; am I right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Each of those brigades was supposed to have 120 trained officers;

24 am I right?

25 A. I can't remember this piece of information, but those were

1 supposed to be trained, schooled officers. I can't remember the figure.

2 Q. Thank you. Okay. Do you agree with the following piece of

3 information: You know the structure of those brigades well. You know the

4 people who commanded them. You know the command staff of the brigades

5 under your command.

6 A. Yes, I remember.

7 Q. Would I be right if I would say that only the commander of the

8 329th Brigade, Fehim Skulj was a military academy graduate?

9 A. I think that Haris Catic [Realtime transcript read in error

10 "Feris Hadzic"] also had a degree. I can't remember about Skulj.

11 Q. Well, but you agree with me, don't you, that people with military

12 training in those brigades were a rarity?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. In the 35th Division, you had three manoeuvre battalions; is that

15 right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. In each of them, there were supposed to be 15 trained officers.

18 Can you accept that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Out of those officers in the battalions, only the -- that person

21 that you mentioned a while ago, Mr. Catic, was a military academy

22 graduate. Can you accept that as a fact?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Therefore, in accordance with this establishment --

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner.

1 MR. NEUNER: I apologise for the interruption. I just saw that

2 the name of the officer which Mr. Hasanagic mentioned a while ago, I

3 believe it was Haris Catic is not captured well in the transcript. On

4 page 7, line 15 it says "Feris Hadzic." If this could please be corrected

5 by my learned colleague with the witness.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.

8 Q. Witness, answering my question, you also added that another

9 officer had military training, Haris Catic.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And later on I mentioned that he was in one of the manoeuvre

12 battalions.

13 A. Yes, in the 4th Manoeuvre Battalion.

14 Q. So his name is Catic Haris or Haris Catic.

15 So the command of the 35th Division, together with its

16 subordinated units, was supposed to have some 500 trained officers. Am I

17 right?

18 A. I don't know the exact figures, but those officers should have

19 been trained.

20 Q. You agree that this is a large number of trained officers.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. But in reality, there was only a handful. Five, to be exact,

23 if -- the way we list them. Could you accept that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So only a few of your associates were trained to understand what

1 the system of control and command meant; am I right in saying so?

2 A. Yes, they were supposed to know the system of control and command.

3 Q. I know that they were supposed to, but I am inquiring about the

4 facts on the ground. Were they trained to know what that meant? Were

5 they trained -- did they know that?

6 A. I took over personnel when I came from the operational group, and

7 this division grew out of that operational group and the personnel that I

8 had was such that, depending on the mission and task, they were trained

9 and they were not trained at the same time.

10 Q. Do you agree with me that a person who is not professionally

11 trained, that such a person cannot report in the proper manner? An

12 officer who has not graduated from the military academy or does not have

13 military training, they cannot report properly or prepare a proper report.

14 A. Yes, such a person does not know how to prepare a proper report.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May we have -- may we tender this

16 document into evidence.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

18 please be given an exhibit number.

19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 482.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Just a brief question relating to the situation in the division.

23 Concerning security organs in the division and in the units belonging to

24 it. Mr. Hasanagic, would you agree that neither a division nor the

25 brigades had experienced officers in the field of military security

1 affairs? In other words, it did not have officers with military knowledge

2 or experience in this particular domain.

3 A. In the battalion, brigade, and divisions, the security organs had

4 no training for these particular tasks.

5 Q. I'm going to dwell now on two specific persons whose reports are

6 essential for certain issues that I will go back to, and you were also

7 asked about this yesterday by the Prosecutor. Please, let us look at the

8 security organ of the 328th Brigade.

9 At the head of this organ was Mr. Enes Malicbegovic. In fact, he

10 was an assistant for security affairs. Enes Malicbegovic. He was not a

11 military person at all in terms of his educational background. Am I

12 right?

13 A. I cannot remember that this was in the 328th Brigade.

14 Q. Very well. Now I'm going to ask you about Mr. Imamovic, who was

15 in your division. Am I right to say that he, before he became a security

16 officer in your unit or in the Operations Group Bosnia had had no military

17 training for this particular task nor any experience in that area?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Similarly, he didn't finish any courses or attend any seminars for

20 this kind of job. And I am talking about security.

21 A. I know that he came --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the post of the

23 person in question.

24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Vidovic, the interpreters --

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

1 Q. Please, can you repeat the post from which Mr. Imamovic came and

2 assumed duties in the 35th Division. Can you please repeat that.

3 A. Before that, he was the commander of the 311 Light Brigade.

4 Q. The purpose of my question was that at the time while he was

5 discharging these duties in the area of security in Bosna OG and in the

6 35th Division, he had not attended any training courses or seminars,

7 because there was no time for that. Am I right?

8 A. Yes, you are.

9 Q. Do you know Mr. Hamdija Sljuka?

10 A. In late September 1995, he came and replaced the security officer.

11 Q. So he replaced Mr. Fadil Imamovic in that job; is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Neither he had any professional training, military training in

14 security issues. Am I right?

15 A. I know that he was a lawyer. As for the rest of it, I don't think

16 so.

17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Madam Vidovic, could you please

18 wait for the translation to be over.

19 And, Witness, please wait for the translation to be over before

20 you answer. Thank you.

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.

22 Q. Am I right to assert that in September 1995, certain personnel

23 were replaced in the military security services of the 35th Division?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Therefore, Mr. Imamovic left and his position was taken over by

1 Mr. Sljuka.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Are you aware that these replacements took place simultaneously in

4 the 3rd Corps as well? If you know about that.

5 A. I don't remember.

6 Q. Very well. What I would like to ask you now is the following:

7 Is it true that operations officers or officers of military security

8 should be, as we say, the eyes and the ears of the commander? Is that

9 correct?

10 A. I don't know what you mean by "eyes and ears," but anyway, they

11 should have had all the relevant information about the situation in the

12 territory that they would then pass on to the commander.

13 Q. This is particularly what I meant. You were not the person to go

14 in the field, to collect intelligence; rather, this intelligence should

15 have been provided to you by the intelligence officer or security officer.

16 Am I right?

17 A. Yes, you are.

18 Q. Therefore, they were supposed to monitor the situation and inform

19 you properly about the developments and also submit reports to you. Is

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. They were also supposed to write reports to their higher superior

23 command. For instance, when this concerned military security affairs.

24 A. In the professional sense, they were independent and they had

25 their lines of communicating reports.

1 Q. In other words, they were supposed to inform you along command

2 lines and professionally along the chain of communication to their

3 superior corps.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer

5 slowly.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Witness, please can you repeat your answer. Do you remember my

8 question? Can you please just speak more slowly. The transcript is

9 unable to record this.

10 A. I apologise. They wrote their reports to their superior in the

11 corps along the professional lines, and they also briefed me as much as

12 was necessary for the purpose of command and control. They estimated

13 which information should be passed on to me and which information should

14 be passed elsewhere, based on their professional knowledge.

15 Q. Thank you for this additional explanation.

16 Now I would like to ask you the following: Their reports about

17 significant developments should be in writing. Is that true?

18 A. Yes, written reports were being submitted.

19 Q. But what I'm asking you is about the rule. If a significant event

20 was in question about which your associates or security assistants or an

21 intelligence officer had information, they should have put this down in

22 writing. Am I right?

23 A. Yes, you are.

24 Q. Their report should be properly registered and filed in the

25 archives; is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, let me ask you something else. In this courtroom,

3 we had an opportunity to see the Farz plan and map. And if you can only

4 clarify something for us.

5 Could the witness please be shown Exhibit 380.

6 Mr. Hasanagic, I would like just to explain to you that we had an

7 opportunity here to see a large map which was actually a photocopy of the

8 colour original. I'm showing this to you only for the purpose of

9 establishing a certain principle.

10 A. Can this please be enlarged?

11 Q. Can we please have this Bosnian version enlarged here, because

12 that's the one that is important. Thank you.

13 Please, would you agree that in the map or -- showing the attack

14 formation here --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Operation plan.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. You can see the name of a person in the upper left-hand corner.

18 You can clearly see the name of the person who had approved this plan. Is

19 that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can we please have this map scrolled down so that the witness can

22 look at the bottom part of it.

23 Do you agree that it is clearly shown here the name of the person

24 who signed the map? Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Of course, in addition to the person who approved the map, there

2 should be the signature and the stamp, and the same applies to the name of

3 the person who is signing; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Very well. However, this is the principle, the general rule

6 applied to the approval of combat operations map -- maps; am I right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Can we please show this whole document to the witness.

9 Can you please just enlarge it a little bit. I would like the

10 witness to look, if possible, and see the area of responsibility of the

11 35th Division. Can this also be enlarged again, please. A little bit

12 more, please, this particular area here. Very well.

13 So, Witness, can you identify here the area of responsibility of

14 your division?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. According to this map -- can you show to Their Honours - and I

17 think you have an electronic pointer with you - can you indicate the area

18 of responsibility of your division.

19 A. [Marks]

20 Q. Can you please connect these lines, if possible, so that we can

21 see approximately what is exactly encompassed by this zone.

22 A. [Marks]

23 Q. That's good. Very well. Mr. Hasanagic, can you tell us

24 approximately the -- how many square kilometres was your area of

25 responsibility at the time that we are talking about, that is, 1995, prior

1 to these combat operations?

2 A. I cannot remember exactly, but I think it's between 50 and 60

3 kilometres.

4 Q. So that was the area of responsibility -- your area of

5 responsibility. Not square kilometres?

6 A. Not square kilometres. I am talking about length kilometres.

7 Q. You are talking about this line. Would you agree that this was a

8 lot?

9 A. I don't have this information in square metres.

10 Q. No, no, no, I'm talking about square kilometres. Would you agree

11 that this was much more, that this was a huge area of responsibility?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In geographical terms, this is an exceptionally forbidden terrain

14 criss-crossed with mountains and difficult to negotiate; is that correct?

15 A. This is precisely the characteristics, these criss-cross, few

16 roads, lots of woods, scattered villages, and very characteristic

17 features. That applies to the whole Ozren mountain. You have a ridge,

18 then you have a valley, then you have a ridge and valley, et cetera. This

19 is where the 35th Division was, and the elevations varied between 500 and

20 600 metres up to 1.000 metres.

21 It is also criss-crossed by rivers and streams.

22 Q. What I am suggesting, Mr. Hasanagic, is that the area covered by

23 the 35th Division was extremely difficult in terms of warfare.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. You knew that the Muslim villages around Ozren and Vozuca back in

1 1992, at the beginning of war, had been ethnically cleansed, many of them.

2 A. I received this information when I took up my duty, and I knew

3 about -- I knew about few purely Muslim villages.

4 Q. These were -- these people were expelled by the Serbs; is that

5 correct?

6 A. This is the information which I received when I took up my duty.

7 Q. In those villages and other points at Ozren, there were artillery

8 positions from which there was constant shelling. There was constant

9 shelling of the territory controlled by the state of -- or, rather, the

10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 A. Yes. Those features are important. One of them was Blizna, that

12 one could see Zavidovici from and the environs. And there is Djurica Vis

13 and Kvrge. Paljenik was another feature which dominated the area. And

14 they also had artillery pieces there as well as tanks.

15 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, please slow down, because it is difficult for the

16 transcript to catch up. I'm sorry to say, but we both tend to speak fast.

17 A. I will repeat if necessary. I apologise.

18 Q. There won't be any need for that.

19 Do you agree that from Ozren, Tuzla was shelled and that during

20 the spring of 1995 that shelling caused severe consequences?

21 A. Yes, especially from the positions in the area of Kvrge. After we

22 took up that -- that feature, I was able to see there that there were five

23 or six trucks of spent cartridges that were extracted from the area.

24 Q. And you constantly suffered losses, soldiers were being killed. I

25 don't mean you personally, but the 35th Division. There were casualties

1 all the time.

2 A. Yes. It particularly pertained to the 328th Brigade. I cannot

3 recall the exact figure, but over 1.000 of their men were killed in the

4 area. I don't know the exact -- an exact figure, but certainly over

5 1.000.

6 Q. This was caused by the activity from Ozren and the Vozuca area.

7 It was the cause of casualties among civilians within your area of

8 responsibility.

9 A. Yes. Civilians were usually killed from Blizna, Paljenik, and

10 Podsijelovo.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to tender this

12 map and I ask that it be given an exhibit number.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map is admitted into evidence. May it please

14 be given an exhibit number.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 483.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I wanted to ask you something else. During 1995, in your area of

19 responsibility, the resources, such as fuel, medication, and the rest were

20 used up.

21 A. Ammunition and other resources, yes.

22 Q. Such as food, spare parts, and anything that the soldiers or

23 civilians might need; am I correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Such resources depended greatly on the civilian authorities in the

1 surrounding municipalities. First and foremost, that of Zavidovici and

2 Tesanj. Am I correct?

3 A. No. Zavidovici -- Zavidovici, Maglaj, and Kakanj.

4 Q. Thank you for that correction. Zavidovici, Maglaj, and Kakanj,

5 then. Thank you.

6 I will return to this topic later. I wanted to put certain

7 important questions to you now concerning the El Mujahedin Detachment.

8 Mr. Hasanagic, yesterday the Prosecutor showed you a number -- a large

9 number of documents in which there is mention of the El Mujahedin

10 Detachment. In those documents, the El Mujahedin Detachment is mentioned

11 concerning various aspects that have to do with command and control. Do

12 you remember having seen those documents yesterday?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Those documents -- those documents were pieces of paper; however,

15 I have a simple question to put to you. Do you agree that the documents

16 you saw yesterday do not reflect the situation as it was, in terms of

17 command and control over that unit?

18 A. Yes, many documents do not reflect the situation with the command

19 of that unit for the simple reason --

20 Q. Let us go document by document.

21 A. I wanted to say that I wasn't familiar with the establishment of

22 that unit and many other things that need to be in place in order to be

23 able to command -- control that unit.

24 Q. Thank you. Mr. Hasanagic, we'll go step by step.

25 Yesterday and the day before during your testimony, you did not

1 dispute that the 35th Division by the 3rd Corps decision, that unit was

2 re-subordinated to it for the first time on the 24th October, 1994. Am I

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. You also did not dispute the fact that that unit - and I mean to

6 you, the 35th Division - was again re-subordinated for the purposes of

7 combat activities on the 31st of March, 1995 by the corps command. Is

8 that so?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. That was on the 2nd of June, 1995, was it not?

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. I'm talking about that re-subordinate.

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. NEUNER: Sorry. I just wanted to point out one thing. Maybe

16 the translation was not adequate. It says here on page 21, line 1. The

17 question was: "You also did not dispute the fact that that unit - and I

18 mean to you, the 35th Division - was again re-subordinated" I assume that

19 in the original it should have been the El Mujahedin Detachment. I just

20 wanted to point that out, that the El Mujahedin Detachment was

21 re-subordinated.

22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to thank the

23 Prosecutor. I asked the witness whether he was disputing that the El

24 Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to the 35th Division.

25 Q. Is that so, Witness, and not the other way around?

1 A. Yes, in the cases that we discussed.

2 Q. Yes. I wanted to ask you about the latest case of

3 re-subordination on the 2nd of June, 1995.

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise for interrupting, but at this moment,

5 after Mr. Neuner's intervention, the transcript as it reads is simply

6 unclear now. What is the meaning of the question that you put to the

7 witness on page 20, line 22 and what is the correct answer?

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem seems to be

9 that we do not have the same page before us. I will have a look.

10 I asked the witness -- if I may have a moment. "You also are not

11 denying that" -- my question was: "You are not denying that the El

12 Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to the 35th Division." That was

13 a question.

14 The witness said "yes." And then I said: "That was on the 2nd of

15 June, 1995."

16 Thank you, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Because we started out by establishing that the --

18 that the El Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to the 35th Division

19 on the 24th of October. Then your next question, which I do not

20 understand, had to do with some subordination for combat which was taking

21 place on the 31st of March, 1995. And then there was another date of 2nd

22 of June, 1995.

23 Now, what happened on these three dates is unclear to me.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll clear it up with

25 the witness, since it is important. And it seems we're going too fast.

1 Q. Witness, it is correct - and you testified to that effect

2 yesterday - that by a decision of the 3rd Corps the El Mujahedin

3 Detachment was re-subordinated to you for the first time on the 24th of

4 October, 1994; is that correct?

5 A. Yes. That's -- that was the time when the Operations Group Bosna

6 was still in existence.

7 Q. That re-subordination took place by virtue of a 3rd Corps order.

8 The El Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to the Operations Group

9 Bosna on the 24th October 1994; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. During your testimony yesterday, you confirmed that the 35th

12 Division was formed. Can you tell us when?

13 A. On the 1st of March, 1995.

14 Q. The 1st of March, 1995, that is when the 35th Division was

15 formed. By an order of the 3rd Corps command on the 31st of March, 1995,

16 the 3rd Corps command re-subordinated the El Mujahedin Detachment to the

17 35th Division. [Realtime transcript read in error "The 1st of March,

18 1995. That is when the 35th Division was formed by an order of the 3rd

19 Corps command on the 31st of March, 1995, the 3rd Corps command

20 re-subordinated the El Mujahedin Detachment to the 35th Division"]

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. There was another thing I wanted to ask you. On the 2nd of June,

23 1995, there was another decision, another order by the 3rd Corps commander

24 that that unit, the El Mujahedin Detachment, be re-subordinated again to

25 the 35th Division.

1 A. Yes.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry --

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: But why would this -- sorry.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, you go ahead.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: But why would this happen twice?

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] That was to be my next question. I

8 wanted to try and clarify that.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I'm confused. Page 23, line 7, you say --

10 that's a question by you, Madam Vidovic: "The 1st of March, 1995. That

11 is when the 35th Division was formed by an order of the 3rd Corps command

12 on the 31st of March, 1995, the 3rd Corps command re-subordinated the El

13 Mujahedin Detachment to the 35th Division."

14 What does the 31st of March relate to? Does it relate to the

15 formation of the 35th Division or does it relate to the re-subordination

16 of the -- of the El Mujahedin to the 35th Division?

17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is the way it was

18 recorded. I clearly said on the 1st of March, 1995, the 35th Division was

19 formed, and the witness confirmed that.

20 Q. Is that correct, Witness?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. On the 31st of March, 1995, the 3rd Corps re-subordinates the El

23 Mujahedin Detachment to the newly formed division. Am I correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Witness, we heard other testimony in this case, and I wanted to

3 ask you something in relation to that. If one were to say that you

4 yourself asked that the El Mujahedin Detachment, due to the grave

5 circumstances within your area of responsibility, remain in the area,

6 would that be correct?

7 A. I do not understand the question.

8 Q. I will simplify. Did you personally ask the 3rd Corps command in

9 early June 1995 that the El Mujahedin Detachment remain within your AOR

10 and to remain re-subordinated to you?

11 A. I did not.

12 Q. I would like to ask for another clarification. In this courtroom,

13 we are not soldiers and certainly not military experts, particularly

14 myself; therefore, I wanted to ask you to clarify something. Yesterday,

15 when answering certain questions about the El Mujahedin unit and its

16 re-subordination to the 35th Division during the Farz operation, you said

17 that it was not re-subordinated to you during the Farz operation or that

18 you don't recall such an order.

19 A. I did not have such an order. I do not recall it.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Would the witness please repeat his answer. It

21 was unclear.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, you are asked to repeat your answer,

23 Mr. Witness. The -- the interpreters didn't hear you.

24 THE INTERPRETER: "I did not have that order or I am unable to

25 recall it because -- or rather, as it was before," says the witness.

1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, I do not wish to lead or suggest an answer to you,

3 but since I am no military expert, if possible could you please explain

4 the following to me: A command conducting a re-subordination of a

5 certain unit to another unit under its command in a certain phase when

6 that unit is no longer needed in that area to which it had been sent by an

7 order on re-subordination, would that command have to return that unit by

8 another order to have it under its own command again?

9 A. That is the right of the commander of the superior command, and he

10 regulates that via an order once a certain operation is concluded during

11 which the re-subordination was supposed to take place. Then that unit is

12 being returned to the unit from which it had come.

13 Q. Well, now, in connection with this, this situation concerning the

14 Farz operation, can you recall whether or not you received an order from

15 the 3rd Corps commander returning the El Mujahedin Detachment into his

16 jurisdiction or under his command?

17 A. I can't recall that order, but in the subsequent operations

18 towards the north, the commander took over the competence [Realtime

19 transcript read in error "combatants"] to issue missions and tasks to the

20 El Mujahedin Detachment.

21 Q. Well, of course this was many times ago, but could you recall when

22 did he take over the command in subsequent operations that you mentioned?

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just want to make sure that the record reflects

24 clearly what was said. At line 9, page 26, the word "combatants" or -- I

25 heard it to say "competence," not "combatants" -- competence. Thank you

1 very much.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you are absolutely

3 right.

4 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now I would like to broach another subject.

5 And I'm going to try with your cooperation to illuminate the real

6 relationship between the El Mujahedin Detachment and the forces that you

7 commanded.

8 Now I would like the witness to take a look at Exhibit 434.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, Your Honours, this

10 is a document produced by the 35th Division dated 7th of April, 1995,

11 entitled "Interim order."

12 I apologise, "Preparatory order." My mistake. This document

13 bears the title "Order to prepare," or "preparatory order."

14 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, do you see the B/C/S version of this document?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The day before yesterday or yesterday - I can't recall exactly -

17 the Prosecutor showed you this document, and you stated that you signed

18 this document; is that so?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Please focus on item 5 of this document. Take a look at it.

21 Could this order be scrolled down, its English version, so that

22 the Bench may take a look at it.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't -- we don't have the English version.

24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Okay. This is all right. We are,

25 Your Honours, discussing item 5 of this order.

1 Q. Witness, please, this order was -- states as follows in item 5:

2 As I understand it, you hereby order that the El Mujahedin Detachment be

3 deployed in the area of the Twelfth Kilometre.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. But asked by the Prosecutor, you said that you did not establish

6 the base or camp at the Thirteenth Kilometre but that the El Mujahedin did

7 it of their own will. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Do you agree that the Twelfth Kilometre and the Thirteenth

10 Kilometre are not the same geographical location? There is a distance of

11 1.000 metres between them.

12 A. Of course.

13 Q. This was not the same location in military terms; is that so?

14 A. From the military standpoint, the Twelfth Kilometre facility had

15 more possibilities. It was better equipped.

16 Q. Am I right if I say that the Twelfth Kilometre is a crossroads of

17 major roads?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What I'd like to put to you is, being a trained soldier, you had

20 reasons to order this detachment to be quartered at the Twelfth Kilometre;

21 is that so?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. It is a fact, therefore, that the El Mujahedin Detachment, without

24 seeking your permission, went and established their camp at the Thirteenth

25 Kilometre; is that so?

1 A. They did not obey by my orders.

2 Q. In connection with that, you could not do anything else but accept

3 that as a fact on the ground; is that so?

4 A. I think I wrote a report to the 3rd Corps command, but I accepted

5 their deployment at that location.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, may we close

7 this document now. And before the break, I would like the witness to take

8 a look at another document, PT2013.

9 For the record, this is an order by the 35th Division dated the

10 5th of April, 1994. The name by the stamp is Nesad Sabic.

11 Q. He was the chief of your staff; is that so?

12 A. Yes, he was.

13 Q. Witness, please, this is a very brief document. I see that you

14 read it. Have you managed to read it?

15 A. Yes, I have.

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If the usher may scroll down the

17 English version so that the Bench may see it. Thank you.

18 Q. Witness, I would like to clarify something with you concerning

19 this document, please. You see that there is a figure "95" in the number

20 "Strictly confidential 02/2-1-000-376/95."

21 If we could scroll up the English version, please, for the benefit

22 of the Bench. On page 1, of course. Thank you.

23 Can you see, Witness, the date the 5th of April, 1994? Do you

24 agree that this must be a typo in the tape?

25 A. This is 1995, because the chief of staff arrived in 1995, so this

1 is the 5th -- the 5th of April, 1995.

2 Q. And in the 35th Division, it was not established in 1994.

3 A. This -- correct.

4 Q. Therefore, you agree that this is a typo.

5 Now I would like to ask you briefly about the gist of this

6 document. Do you agree that according to what is written here, it seems

7 that Mr. Sabic, chief of staff, is writing a warning addressed to inter

8 alia the command of the El Mujahedin Detachment whereby he points out to

9 very frequent disobedience as for the orders pursuant to which operational

10 and daily reports are to be submitted?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. It is hereby also ordered that the deadlines for the submission of

13 regular operational reports be honoured. Am I correct?

14 A. Yes, you are.

15 Q. It was regular procedure that units subordinated to you submitted

16 regular and daily combat reports; is that so?

17 A. Yes. Otherwise, you cannot control and command.

18 Q. Excellent. Now I would like to ask you: Did you receive regular

19 and operational reports from the command of the El Mujahedin Detachment at

20 all?

21 A. I did not receive any. While they were in my area of

22 responsibility, I received not a single written regular operational --

23 operational report.

24 Q. Did you receive any kinds of reports?

25 A. Not in writing.

1 Q. When you say "not in writing," I'd like to ask you: Did you, as

2 the commander of the 35th Division, receive oral reports from the El

3 Mujahedin Detachment's command?

4 A. There was analysis after the completion of the Proljece action,

5 and they were present at that analysis briefing.

6 Q. So we -- you are talking about being present during the writing of

7 a written analysis.

8 A. No, no, no. This was an oral analysis at a briefing.

9 Q. Did I understand you correctly throughout the period when the El

10 Mujahedin Detachment was re-subordinated to you, they attended an oral

11 analysis briefing only once?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. The analysis of that combat activity.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Which means only once. Now I would like to ask you this: I did

16 not ask you about the -- an oral analysis of a combat activity. I asked

17 you whether you received oral reports about combat activities.

18 A. No, I did not.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you still going to be long on that point?

21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to stop here

22 for the benefit of us taking a break, but there were two questions

23 concerning the same matter.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come

25 back at quarter to 11.00.

1 Court adjourned.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

3 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we could just deal with a few housekeeping

5 matters before we call the witness.

6 A few things to deal with. First, there is the urgent motion by

7 the Prosecution to -- to -- to lead a witness pursuant to Rule 92 ter. We

8 just want to give you an advance notice given the fact that it's an urgent

9 motion, so that you're not taken by surprise at the last minute.

10 The Chamber, after looking at the response from the Defence, is

11 inclined to deny that motion. A written decision will come down, but we

12 just wanted to give you advance warning so that you can adjust your

13 position.

14 MR. MUNDIS: If I could just ask for a question of clarification:

15 Is that with respect to all three of the witnesses or the one scheduled

16 for this week?

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the one scheduled for this week. That's the

18 one to which we have received the response. However, having said that,

19 there is a point that is being raised by the Defence to this motion which

20 seems to -- to be put forward for the future. The Defence is saying that

21 they are -- they are no longer going to voluntarily forego their two

22 weeks' notice on motions, and I don't know how you -- you wish to sort

23 that out between yourselves as parties, but the Chamber cannot at this

24 stage pronounce on motions to which a response has not been filed.

25 So for purposes of what we are saying now, this relates to this

1 motion only.

2 Then there -- there is also the motion by the Prosecution to

3 introduce an item to the 65 ter list of exhibits, to play a video clip but

4 relying on the audio part of it only and not on the video part of it.

5 I just wanted to find out from the Defence, given what you have

6 just said -- what I have just mentioned about the Defence not wanting to

7 forego their two weeks' notice, what is the likely response of the

8 Defence, if any, on that point.

9 Madam Vidovic? Mr. Robson.

10 MR. ROBSON: Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, if I could respond.

11 The position of the Defence is we would like the full two-week

12 period in order to respond to that matter. And if I can just briefly

13 explain why.

14 We saw from the last motion to which you referred, Your Honour,

15 this -- just a moment ago, in our response we pointed out that in

16 responding hastily, the Defence was, in our submission, caused unfairness.

17 We needed time in order to gain access to jurisprudence which the

18 Prosecution had -- is seeking to rely upon, it was confidential

19 jurisprudence. We weren't able to obtain that. Furthermore, we weren't

20 able to carry out a full review of documentation referred to in that

21 motion.

22 Similarly, in this case, in the motion -- in respect to the motion

23 to introduce the video clip, we would say that this is not a

24 straightforward motion.

25 Now, we are not experts, but from our perusal of the video clip,

1 it's obvious that serious concerns arise. The video clip is an

2 amalgamation of video -- visual images with an audio soundtrack, if I can

3 put it that way. It has therefore been edited. It may be the case that

4 the audio soundtrack is comprised of several different audio recordings

5 which have been put together.

6 The document was placed -- sorry, the video clip was placed on a

7 website known as YouTube. Anybody in the whole world has access to that

8 website and can place these sort of visuals and audio recordings onto the

9 website. We don't have a name for the person who placed it there. What

10 we have is a pseudonym, Hatab72.

11 So, Your Honour, the Defence is seriously concerned about this

12 video clip. We say it's not authentic, and we would like time for two

13 weeks in order to carry out further inquiries. We're carrying out

14 inquiries now, but it's the Defence position that we would need further

15 time in order to -- to continue with those inquiries to formulate our

16 position on this.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: You do -- you do understand the Prosecution's

18 position that they don't seek to rely on the video part of the -- of the

19 clip but, rather, on the audio part.

20 MR. ROBSON: And that's something else, Your Honour, that also --

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Complicates --

22 MR. ROBSON: As far as the Defence is concerned, because as my

23 learned friend stated yesterday, their position as the Prosecution clearly

24 is that they do not seek to tamper or change evidence at all. So we would

25 say that if this document -- if the Trial Chamber does in due course

1 permit the document to be introduced onto the list of exhibits, it should

2 be done as a complete unit and we shouldn't start pulling it apart and

3 breaking it down into components.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

5 Okay. You -- so in other words, the short answer is that you are

6 not able to respond in time for this witness to appear as per schedule.

7 MR. ROBSON: That's -- indeed that's correct, Your Honour.

8 And also, just to try and be of some assistance, what we would say

9 is the witness, Aiman Awad, that the Prosecution is proposing to show this

10 video clip to, he is scheduled to testify next Tuesday. It may or may not

11 be the case that perhaps that witness could be rescheduled if the

12 Prosecution really wish to -- to show this.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would -- that's why I wanted to establish that,

14 so that I can find out from them whether that witness cannot be

15 rescheduled or whether that -- that clip can't be shown through another

16 witness who's coming later. We just want to find that out from them.

17 MR. ROBSON: Indeed.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Are you able to cast a light on those two

19 issues, Mr. Mundis, whether to reschedule or -- or use another witness

20 who's coming later?

21 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Your Honours.

22 Certainly it would be possible to reschedule that witness. Of

23 course, on such short notice, we would not be in a position to bring

24 any -- any other witnesses for those two-day period. That's a separate

25 issue.

1 Of course, a -- another possible solution would be simply for -- I

2 will also state that I do not believe we have any other witnesses who

3 would be in a position to testify about that particular audio clip.

4 Let me, while I'm on my feet, also indicate that another possible

5 course of action would be at this stage to simply allow the Prosecution,

6 if the Chamber were so inclined, to -- to play the tape for the witness,

7 if he were to appear next week, and simply mark it for identification at

8 this point in time, pending later decisions as to whether it could be

9 added to the -- to the exhibit list.

10 I will also, while I'm on my feet, it would be -- it would be

11 helpful, I think, in light of this entire issue, if the Defence could be

12 asked to place their position on the record with respect to this entire,

13 what we've called, farewell ceremony with respect to the El Mujahedin

14 Detachment. That is, it is a bit unclear to the Prosecution the Defence

15 position with respect to that, that gathering.

16 Number one, what's the Defence position with respect to whether

17 there was such a gathering? Number two, what's the Defence position with

18 respect to whether the accused, General Delic, attended that gathering?

19 And what is the Defence position with respect to whether the accused,

20 Rasim Delic, actually spoke at that gathering, assuming he was present and

21 assuming there was such a gathering?

22 Because it goes then to the issue, really, of -- of whether what

23 is purported to be on the audiotape is in fact the accused speaking. So

24 it would seem to us that those issues are all intricately linked together

25 and that would go very much to the issue as to whether we need to

1 reschedule Mr. Aiman Awad's testimony for a subsequent date in these

2 proceedings. In other words, it would be helpful to us to know their

3 position with respect to the three issues that I've -- I've outlined. I

4 do believe they're relevant and go to the very issue as to what steps, if

5 any, we should take with respect to potentially rescheduling this witness.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Before -- before I ask the Defence to -- to

7 respond to what you have just asked, let me just get clarification.

8 First of all, on the question of marking the -- the clip for

9 identification, would the Prosecution then have another witness through

10 whom to tender the -- the clip later, or do I understand you to be saying

11 you play the clip to the witness, you tender it, mark it for

12 identification, the Defence can take their time in their opposition -- in

13 their response to whether or not it should be admitted, and once -- once

14 they have had their two weeks' notice and have responded and you have

15 replied, if there's any need to, we then decide that admission at that

16 time, but without a further witness.

17 MR. MUNDIS: That would be correct, Your Honour. And again, as

18 we've indicated in the motion, steps have been taken to have the tape

19 forensically examined and -- and the results of that analysis would then

20 be relevant as to whether or not the tape could actually be admitted into

21 evidence at a subsequent date, having given the witness the opportunity to

22 hear it.

23 I state that because, as we've indicated in our letter and -- and

24 filing to the Defence, the witness scheduled to appear next week in his

25 written statement discusses or describes such a farewell gathering and

1 indicates that the accused did in fact --

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Attend.

3 MR. MUNDIS: -- attend and address that gathering. And so what --

4 what we would simply ask would be to lead his oral evidence on that point

5 and then, assuming during the proofing he -- he were to listen to the tape

6 and were -- and were to be able to identify what it is and who it is

7 speaking, we would then be in a position to simply play it for him, mark

8 it, pending responses from the Defence, and from the forensics lab, and

9 obviously in the event that the -- the forensics lab is able to reach any

10 conclusions, we would then put those before Your Honours for a final

11 decision as to whether the tape could then be admitted into evidence.

12 It's simply a -- in effect, a compromised solution so that we can

13 move forward without losing two or two and a half days of our -- of our

14 precious time, in light of the overall schedule whereby we're trying to

15 complete our case prior to the Christmas break.

16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Mr. Robson.

17 MR. ROBSON: Just a couple of points, Your Honour.

18 First of all, obviously the Defence don't want to tell the

19 Prosecution how to schedule their witnesses, but it strikes us that

20 Ismet Alija might be a witness that could be rescheduled at short notice.

21 He's someone who has been in The Hague recently and was proofed and

22 therefore possibly could be someone who could -- could fill the gap.

23 The second point that I'd like to make is that in talking about

24 the video clip as evidence, we seem to be jumping a step. The first step

25 is for the Trial Chamber to decide whether or not to permit the video clip

1 to be added to the Prosecution's list of exhibits. And in the Prosecution

2 motion, they have set that test out as being: Is that in the interest of

3 justice? And what the Defence would say is this: At the moment there is

4 no external objective material from any source which can indicate whether

5 or not the video clip is -- is authentic, and the Prosecution have

6 indicated in the motion that they are getting this video clip verified by

7 a forensic unit. The Defence are also making its own inquiries and we

8 would be proposing some steps in our response.

9 So in our submission, until those external checks, that

10 scrutinization has been carried out, we would say that until that happens

11 the Trial Chamber will not be in a position to decide whether it's in the

12 interest of justice or not to add the video clip to the list of exhibits.

13 If the video clip is added to the list of exhibits, again, when

14 the witness comes -- if Aiman Awad comes to testify next week, the Defence

15 would object strongly to him having -- being shown the video clip during

16 the course of his testimony until we have received the results of those

17 external verifications.

18 So, again, we're going to be in a situation that as soon as the --

19 the Prosecution attempt to show the video clip to the witness, the -- the

20 Defence will be objecting at that point.

21 So it seems to me -- it seems to us that a few things --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What I hear you to be saying is that, in fact, the

23 very motion is premature.

24 MR. ROBSON: Indeed. Absolutely. Absolutely.

25 And as for the farewell ceremony, the Defence will touch upon this

1 in the response, but our view is we're not obliged to deal with this at

2 this stage, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

4 MR. ROBSON: Sorry, concerning the farewell -- what my learned

5 friend the Prosecutor stated about the farewell ceremony.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

7 MR. ROBSON: We'll deal with that in our response as far as we

8 can.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear that.

10 Yes, Mr. Mundis.

11 MR. MUNDIS: If -- if I could, Your Honours. Again, I -- I

12 understand the position taken by the Defence with respect to the farewell

13 ceremony, but what -- what we would like to put on the record at this

14 point is simply that, of course, any kind of videotape or audio recording

15 can be authenticated by any number of means, and that does not necessarily

16 rely upon -- exclusively upon any kind of forensic testing.

17 If I have a witness who says he was at such a meeting and heard

18 certain things being said and that tape were then to be played to him and

19 he were to say, that's -- that's exactly what I heard at the meeting,

20 that would be a form of authenticating what's contained on that recording.

21 That's a separate issue from the -- the -- the issue as to whether or not

22 we can add it to the exhibit list. But I do want to make it very clear

23 that our position is that forensic authentication is not the exclusive

24 means by which any kind of recording, whether it's audio or -- or video,

25 can be authenticated, and I don't want to -- to leave the -- the

1 apprehension or the view out there that any and all such material can only

2 be authenticated by -- by means of forensic testing, because I -- I don't

3 believe that's the state of the law.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Yeah. In fact, what I

5 did want to raise with -- with -- what I did want to raise with -- with

6 Mr. Robson but I held myself was: What you indicated earlier, that this

7 witness, if I understood you well, in his statement already does mention

8 that there was such a farewell, that the accused was there, and that he

9 spoke and -- so that he has knowledge of the incident that you are

10 alleging. And -- and you're saying that he would therefore be in a

11 position to authenticate it?

12 MR. MUNDIS: That would be the Prosecution position, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah. I understand that. And -- and given that, I

14 was surprised then -- it's a little surprising to me that then the

15 Prosecution went ahead and tried to -- to get forensic authentication

16 when, in fact, you had somebody who could authenticate it. But that's

17 what you chose to do.

18 I would like to hear what my colleagues have to say on this.

19 Would you like to say something, Judge?

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Apart from losing two, two and a half days, what

22 prejudice would the Prosecution suffer if this witness were to be

23 rescheduled?

24 MR. MUNDIS: That -- that's basically it in a nutshell,

25 Mr. President. We're -- we're doing our best to move along as quickly as

1 possible. If this witness needs to be rescheduled, so be it. There would

2 be no additional prejudice to the Prosecution if we were have -- to have

3 to do that other than trying to meet what we understand to be scheduling

4 commitments, in terms of trying to finish this case, including 98 bis,

5 before the Christmas recess. That's the main concern we have.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We understand that. We just have a problem

7 amongst ourselves of the fairness to the accused, which we think overrides

8 that inconvenience.

9 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution understands that, Your Honours. And

10 we will -- if that's the decision of the Chamber, then I will meet with my

11 trial team later this afternoon and determine whether or not we want to

12 proceed with this witness or to attempt to reschedule him. And if we

13 decide to reschedule him, we'll see if there's any other witnesses

14 available. We had already -- over here one of my colleagues passed me a

15 note concerning Mr. Ismet Alija. That would be probably the easiest

16 solution.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

18 MR. MUNDIS: In the event I can't get him, I will endeavour to try

19 to find someone else who's available on short notice to come.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. And --

21 MR. MUNDIS: And if that's -- if that violates the Trial Chamber's

22 guidelines, we'll seek leave to add -- to move someone else up if that's

23 the only possible solution, to avoid losing a couple of days.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's right. And if -- if at the end of it all,

25 it means losing those days, then we lose those days. Okay.

1 Okay. Thank you very much.

2 Finally - and I'm sorry to do this, Madam Vidovic - I don't know

3 how many of you do know, but there is this Plenary at 12.00 which we need

4 to go to, and we may not be able to sit for the third session of today.

5 Okay. Thank you very much. May you call the witness. Sorry

6 about that.

7 MR. MUNDIS: And perhaps -- perhaps while the witness is being

8 brought in, in light of the Plenary and the -- and the Chamber's oral

9 ruling concerning the 92 ter applications, it -- it appears as though we

10 very well might be in a situation where Friday's witness carries over into

11 Monday and Monday's witness goes into Tuesday. So we very well might end

12 up filling those days anyway without bringing another witness, in light of

13 the current witness and -- and the fact that it -- it appears that he very

14 well might go through the -- through the end of this week. So I just put

15 that on the record, as that might be another obvious solution to this

16 situation.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Mundis.

18 [The witness entered court]

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave I seek

21 to tender this document, it was PT2013. Could it please be given an

22 exhibit number.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it

24 please be given an exhibit number.

25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 484.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we show PT2059 to

3 the witness.

4 For the record, I wanted to say that this is an order by the

5 command of the 31st Division dated the 8th of the 5th, 1995.

6 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, have a look at the document.

7 Could we please scroll down so that we can see the signature.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, The 35th Division.

9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, did you sign the document?

11 A. Yes, I did. It is my signature.

12 Q. Have a look at the document. This order pertains to the

13 forwarding of data on the operative records. Please skim through it. It

14 seems that this document was specifically sent to the El Mujahedin

15 Detachment command; is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Do you agree that by this document you requested that there should

18 be a proper, an accurate establishment of operative records in order to

19 assist the overall situation in the unit? Did you request that from the

20 detachment?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Have a look at what it says under "order." Can you see the

23 sentence immediately below that?

24 A. Yes, I see it.

25 Q. Therein you're asking for the records to be established so that

1 you could plan following combat operations. Is that so?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What I wanted to ask you is this: According to the documents we

4 saw, for the first time to you - and when I say "to you," I always mean

5 the 35th Division, not you personally - according to the documents you saw

6 yesterday and today, the 35th Division saw the El Mujahedin being

7 re-subordinated to it for the first time in October 1994; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Then there was another order that was dated, I believe, the 31st

10 of March, 1995, re-subordinating the El Mujahedin Detachment to the 35th

11 Division. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Didn't I hear the witness say he didn't receive

14 that order and he doesn't know that order? Before the break.

15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No. The 35th --

16 the 31st March 1995.

17 Your Honour, maybe I can be of assistance.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's the order of June that he doesn't know.

19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

20 Q. What I wanted to ask you, Witness: Once you managed to look

21 through the document, am I correct that irrespective of the fact that that

22 detachment was re-subordinated to you by virtue of an order on the 8th of

23 May, 1995, you did not have any operational records pertaining to the unit

24 whatsoever?

25 A. I had no data on it, and that is why I drafted this order.

1 Q. Therefore on the 8th of May, 1995, irrespective of the fact that

2 that unit had been re-subordinated to you, according to the documents, for

3 six months, you knew nothing about its personnel, manning power, and so on

4 and so forth; is that correct?

5 A. I just wanted to correct something. They were there in October

6 and they left. When they came on the 31st, after the order, then this

7 order was issued subsequently. The re-subordination took place in terms

8 of a given specific task, and then they were returned to their unit, and

9 then returned to me yet again if the commander decided so. Therefore,

10 this was the second re-subordination.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Madam Vidovic. Now, this is going to

12 require you to clear with the witness very clearly when they were first

13 subordinated to him, when they left him, when they were re-subordinated.

14 You know, because it doesn't seem to be the same as what we heard before

15 the break now. First of all.

16 Secondly, while I am talking, let me just correct what you said.

17 I think we got confused by the dates. At page 46, line 3, I -- I think

18 you meant to say "31st of March, 1995," and then you said "8th of May,

19 1995."

20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said the 31st of

21 March, 1995.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. But anyway, the transcript says "8th of May,

23 1995," which is not the order of re-subordination. This is the order

24 calling -- it is this order on the screen.

25 So but here you're saying the detachment was subordinated --

1 re-subordinated to you by virtue of an order of the 8th of May. So it

2 should be by an order of the 31st of March. That's how it should read?

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] You are correct, Your Honour.

4 Your Honours, I will clarify the matter with the witness.

5 Q. Witness, you heard His Honour's question. We will go back to the

6 initial re-subordination to the Operational Group Bosna. You said it took

7 place on the 24th of October, 1994; is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Today you said that after a certain period they returned to the

10 3rd Corps.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Please be as precise as possible, if you can. For how long did

13 they remain within your area of responsibility? In other words, when did

14 they go back to the 3rd Corps and under its competence?

15 A. Since Operation Manevar in October 1994 failed - I cannot tell you

16 what the exact date was - but they immediately returned to the composition

17 of the corps.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you remember the date of the Operation Manevar?

19 How long it lasted?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It lasted for a day or two. It

21 failed, and then they returned. I cannot recall the date.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Would it then be fair to say they left around the

23 12th/13th of October, 1994?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know why you suggest that

25 date, since the re-subordination was on the 24th.

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I wanted to -- I beg your pardon. I wanted to say

2 26th/27th, around that date. I'm sorry.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible, but I truly cannot

4 remember.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: All right.

6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, let us try to make things crystal clear. Did they

8 physically return to the area of Zenica or, in any case, outside the area

9 of Zavidovici, or did they remain there?

10 A. They -- they left the area of Zavidovici.

11 Q. Things seem to be clearer now. They were re-subordinated to you

12 again by the order of the 31st of March, 1995. Did I understand

13 correctly?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. To go back to this document, in your area they spent over one

16 month at least and still at that time you didn't even have the basic

17 information on them.

18 A. After the Operation Sabur in September, they remained there

19 because by that time, we had already started preparing for Proljece 1995.

20 Since Sabur failed, I wanted to have sufficient information on that unit

21 so as to be able to issue them with a specific, precise task and to be

22 able to exercise control.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner.

24 MR. NEUNER: Sorry, I just want to clarify one issue. I believe

25 it's a translation issue. On page 49, line 2 it says that Operation Sabur

1 was in September. I believe it was in April, but I don't want to testify

2 about it. Maybe my learned colleague can clarify.

3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The witness did

4 not say "September." At least, I didn't hear it.

5 Q. Witness, please try and speak up and somewhat slower. Did you

6 mention September?

7 A. I said Sabur was in April and it failed. That is what I said.

8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to thank my learned

9 friend and the witness.

10 Q. To go back to the document, according to this document, the El

11 Mujahedin Department -- Detachment was re-subordinated to you, and by this

12 time it happened over a month ago. Still at that time you did not even

13 have the basic information about them.

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. On the 8th of May, 1995, according to this document, you requested

16 such information so that you, your command, would be able to see what the

17 situation actually is and to be able to plan the operation at Podsijelovo;

18 is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. When I say "Podsijelovo," that is the May operation called

21 Proljece; is that so?

22 A. Yes.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we assign an

24 exhibit number to this document, please.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: This document is admitted into evidence. May it

1 please be given an exhibit number.

2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 485.

3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps the witness could be shown

5 document 439. It is Exhibit 439 in relation to this.

6 Q. Witness, you remember that this document was shown to you during

7 your testimony when answering the Prosecutor's questions?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. This document in its heading reads "The 3rd Corps, the El

10 Mujahedin Detachment," dated the 15th of May, 1995.

11 Let us scroll down so that we could see the signature. Could you

12 please leave it on the screen.

13 Have a look at the handwriting, Mr. Hasanagic, please.

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 Q. In the Bosnian version, I would like to see the heading of the

16 document. Could we scroll up, please. The heading in the title.

17 Do you agree that according to the document, it was signed by

18 Commander Abu Maali? That is what it says.

19 A. Yes, it does.

20 Q. Have a look at the title. It says: "Plan of attack. Sent by."

21 Have a look at the first couple of sentences. Do you agree that

22 the person signing the document states that: "We have planned an attack

23 on the Podsijelovo sector along three axes: Two main axes and one

24 secondary"?

25 Then the axes are being explained. Do you see that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Then in line 3 it says the basic concept is for "spearhead groups

3 to strike in two locations."

4 Do you agree, Mr. Hasanagic that, this person is discussing his

5 vision of the attack?

6 A. Yes, that was his idea of it.

7 Q. I wish to remind you of a document you saw a while ago dated the

8 8th of May, 1995 whereby you requested from the El Mujahedin Detachment to

9 forward documents so as to be able to plan combat operations yourself. To

10 be precise, you requested to receive information so that you would be able

11 to plan combat activities. Am I correct?

12 A. Yes, you are.

13 Q. The date of this document is the 15th of the 5th, 1995 pertaining

14 to Podsijelovo; that is, the Proljece operation. Am I correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you agree that the author shared with you only what he had

17 planned? Am I correct?

18 A. Yes. In this document, that is what it says.

19 Q. In other words, he is not responding to your request from the

20 document we saw dated the 18th of the 5th by which you corrected a

21 plethora, a lot of information for you to be able to plan the operation.

22 A. I did not receive any response to the information I requested by

23 the previous document.

24 Q. In other words, what you received was his idea of the plan, of his

25 plan. It seems that he planned his own axes instead of you. Is that

1 correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now I would like to --

4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam --

5 MR. NEUNER: I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt my learned

6 colleague. Just the translation again here, I'm referring to page 52,

7 line 8. It says: "We saw -- the document we saw dated the 18th of the

8 5th." I think it should be 18th of May, 1995. I just want to bring this

9 to everybody's attention.

10 THE INTERPRETER: The fifth, May. The fifth month.

11 MR. NEUNER: Thank you.

12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the 8th.

13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Vidovic, I just wanted to clarify the

14 witness's response to your question as to whether a response was ever

15 given to the witness's order of 8th May, because in the B/C/S text, which

16 I do not understand, but there is, as far as I can see, some indication of

17 weaponry and support included in that.

18 So if we could scroll down and see what is in the English

19 translation of that document. And -- yes, I see now that it does actually

20 include an account of artillery and support capacity.

21 Now, the witness -- General, you said that you never received a

22 response to your order of 8th May; however, this report from El Mujahid

23 Detachment could be said to, at least in part, reply to your order, or

24 have I misunderstood?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not receive any response from

1 my 8th of May order, and this part refers to that portion of the mission

2 on which they prepared this plan.

3 I agree with you, Your Honour, that this is part of what they had

4 available to them, but this is not what I received in any form or a formal

5 report.

6 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.

7 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I jump in now that -- am I mistaken to think

8 that we've been told either by this witness or other witnesses that the

9 planning of operations starts from the lower units, who pass on their plan

10 to the next order; the next order approves or passes it on; and he

11 collects information from his subordinates; and through that, makes his

12 own plan, which he passes on for approval? Am I wrong in ...

13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this witness has not

14 said anything to that effect, and I -- with all respect, I'm not sure

15 whether you understood it correctly. But, of course, the witness is here

16 to assist us in this matter.

17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.

18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Witness, maybe my questions that are to follow will shed some

20 light on this matter. Please, the document that you see before you is a

21 plan of attack of the El Mujahedin Detachment; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. On the 8th of May, 1995, you did not seek from them any plans of

24 attack. Rather, you sought information and data to keep and maintain

25 operational records which concerns different matters necessary for them to

1 take part in the overall unit under your command.

2 Bear with me, please. You sought the head count, engineering

3 equipment, establishment equipment, information about the number and type

4 of vehicles. You requested information about the communication equipment.

5 And this is what I'd like to ask you about.

6 You did not receive any report on all the above.

7 A. I received no response to my document dated 8th of May.

8 Q. Thank you. What you received was their own plan which you did not

9 ask them to submit to you. You wanted to plan that action yourself.

10 A. I wanted to draft my own plans, but I sought a proposal from --

11 from them.

12 Q. Right. In other words, you asked them to draft a proposal.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. While we're discussing that, let us clarify fully what His Honour

15 asked about. Is it regular procedure that you seek from your subordinated

16 unit their proposals?

17 A. Depending on the importance of a feature, the intensity of combat

18 actions, and the forces a unit has at its disposal. So proposals may be

19 sought but do not have to be sought.

20 Q. Well, now, I would like to ask you with respect to this

21 document -- can this document please be scrolled down. Thank you.

22 You told us that this is your handwriting about the manner in

23 which the unit will be transported with three question marks. Is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Am I correct in saying that you have insufficient information

2 about that unit because you are not certain how they're going to be

3 transported to that place?

4 A. Yes, that information was necessary to me.

5 Q. Now I would like us to dwell on the stamp, please.

6 You said that the feature in the centre resembles the coat of arms

7 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?

8 A. As far as I could see yesterday, yes.

9 Q. Now I would like to ask you this: You saw that detachment out in

10 the field; is that correct?

11 A. I saw some members of that detachment.

12 Q. Okay. Right. Thank you. But please, if I think that they did

13 not use the symbols of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the army of

14 BiH, would I be correct?

15 A. They did not wear insignia of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 Q. Do you remember any insignia on their sleeves, sir?

17 A. Those who came to me wore no insignia, those that I had contact

18 with.

19 Q. They did not, sir, use the flag of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina;

20 is that correct?

21 A. I did not notice that, and I cannot recall really whether they

22 used it or not.

23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, may this

24 document be closed.

25 Q. Now I would like to shed some light on a fact that I did not grasp

1 fully during your testimony. And in connection with that, I would like to

2 ask you the following: You testified yesterday and the day before

3 yesterday on certain events. Do you recall that you provided the

4 Prosecution with a statement on the 13th of September, 1995?

5 Can we have document D418 shown to the witness at this point in

6 time.

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And before that, Your Honours,

8 please notify me and tell me -- advise me should I finish before --

9 sometime before high noon?

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Two minutes before 12.00 will be fine.

11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 So can we show document D418 to the witness. This is part of the

13 transcript of your statement dated 13th of September, 1995.

14 Q. You remember giving that statement to the investigators of the

15 Prosecution? Do you recall that?

16 A. Yes, I do recall.

17 Q. Asked by the investigator - if we can scroll down the B/C/S

18 version a bit - Witness, take a look at this section. What I'm interested

19 in is the bottom third of the page concerning the question to you about

20 who was the commander of that detachment.

21 The English version may be scrolled up or -- thank you.

22 Witness, take a look at this. I believe you've had opportunity to

23 read it.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Asked by the investigator "Who was that commander of that

1 detachment," you answered, "I don't know; I've never seen their commander.

2 Neither could I" -- and then you were asked by the investigator, "Did you

3 have any contact with him?" And then you answered, "Let me think. The

4 military commander was -- well, he was killed towards the end of the war.

5 I believe that his name was Moatez. I believe -- well, it's difficult to

6 pronounce his family name. It's very difficult for me to recall. I did

7 not have an opportunity," et cetera.

8 So do you accept what is written here is what you said to the

9 investigators?

10 A. Yes, I did say so to the investigators. This reflects what I

11 could recall on that date in 1995.

12 The only one who introduced himself when he came to my command was

13 that his name was Moatez and that he was the military commander.

14 Q. Thank you. Pursuant to this and how it seems to me and my -- your

15 testimony has remained unclear. It seems to me that you do not know who

16 was the commander of the El Mujahedin Detachment. Is that so?

17 A. There would come one or two persons together with Aiman to me, and

18 I said Moatez introduced himself to me as the military commander. On one

19 occasion, Aiman introduced Abu Maali as Amir and another person Abu Hamza

20 used to come with Aiman, but I did not know his position, his duties.

21 Q. Well, thank you. On the basis of this, am I correct in concluding

22 that you had very few contacts with the commanders that you listed a

23 second ago?

24 A. As I said already, I had contacts with Aiman on several occasions.

25 Then on several occasions with those that I mentioned right now.

1 Q. Thank you. The purpose of my question is this: In effect, you

2 did not have an insight into the real state of affairs as to the El

3 Mujahedin Detachment and their command; is that correct?

4 A. I did not have an insight.

5 Q. Please, Mr. Hasanagic, let me ask you this: Did you have

6 information about the commands of all your other subordinated units?

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Yesterday we saw various orders that you sent to that detachment,

9 and in connection with this I'd like to ask you the following: I conclude

10 from that that you tried to command them, that you tried to put them under

11 control. These were your attempts to put them under your command.

12 A. Yes. While they were in my area of responsibility, I repeatedly

13 tried through my orders and through other means available to me to place

14 them under my control, primarily with a view of carrying out combat

15 activities.

16 Q. But the truth is -- is that, in effect, you never succeeded in

17 that.

18 A. According to the orders that I saw yesterday and the day before,

19 this is clearly visible.

20 Q. Mr. Hasanagic, your answer is not so crystal clear. My question

21 was: You kept trying placing them under your control, and you said -- and

22 my following question was: Is it true that you did not succeed in placing

23 them under your control? Your answer is -- the answer is, "I did not

24 succeed in placing them under my control."

25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe this would be

1 the right place and the right point to adjourn.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for the time you are giving me. I really

3 appreciate it.

4 Okay. Sir, because of other commitments we are not able to

5 proceed with your testimony. We will proceed with the testimony tomorrow

6 at --

7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may we have the last

8 document shown to the witness be admitted and given an exhibit number.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. In the -- thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.

10 I'll come back.

11 The document on the screen is admitted into evidence. May it

12 please be given an exhibit number.

13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 486.

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Only this page or the entire?

16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Only this page, Your Honours. Only

17 this page.

18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much. Only this page.

19 Okay. Thank you very much. As I was saying, we will continue

20 tomorrow at 9.00 in the same courtroom. Okay?

21 Thank you very much.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yeah. Thank you.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Court adjourned.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.49 a.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 27th day

1 of September, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25