1 Tuesday, 23 October 2007
2 [The accused entered court]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon, everybody. Everybody looks so far
6 away. It looks like you are running away from the Bench.
7 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 This is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 Could we have the appearances, starting with the Prosecution.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Good afternoon, Your Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around
14 the courtroom. For the Prosecution, Daryl Mundis, Kyle Wood,
15 Matthias Neuner, our intern Emma Berry, and our case manager,
16 Alma Imamovic.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 And for the Defence.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
20 afternoon to the learned colleagues from the OTP, everybody in and out of
21 the courtroom. Appearing for General Delic, we have Vasvija Vidovic and
22 assistant Lejla Gluhic and Lana Deljkic.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Both teams have brought their
24 entire forces today.
25 Mr. Sljuka, yesterday, at the beginning of your testimony, you
1 made a declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else
2 but the truth. You remember that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do remember.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Just to remind you that you
5 are still bound by that declaration to tell the truth, the whole truth,
6 and nothing else but the truth.
7 WITNESS: HAMDIJA SLJUKA [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Questioned by the Court:
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when we dispatched yesterday, you and I were
11 talking about paragraph 40 of your witness statement to the Prosecution.
12 Do you remember that?
13 A. Yeah, I do remember.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll ask that the witness be shown Exhibit 273,
16 Now, can we just have a look at the heading. The subject says:
17 "The formation of the El Mujahedin Detachment in the 3rd Corps zone of
18 responsibility," and the order is to the 3rd Corps Command.
19 Do you see that?
20 A. I can see that.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we show the witness the end of the document,
23 Can you see who signed the document?
24 A. Staff commander of the Supreme Command, Mr. Rasim Delic.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Had you been aware of this document before, before
2 A. I did not know of this document.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now that you know of the document, do you have any
4 comment to make on your statement at paragraph 40, where you say that the
5 El Mujahedin Detachment was not in the command of the Army of the Republic
6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. I cannot remember all the orders based on which the El Mujahedin
8 Detachment came into the area of responsibility of the 35th Division, but
9 when I said this, I meant exclusively the following: That El Mujahedin
10 Detachment did not honour the orders of the commander of the 35th Division
11 and that he could not command that unit as he could command the other
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay, let me hold you there.
14 You are obviously -- we are now obviously talking at
15 cross-purposes. This document doesn't talk about the 35th Division. It
16 talks about the 3rd Corps. Okay? And it talks about the establishment of
17 the El Mujahedin Detachment within the area of responsibility of the
18 3rd Corps; okay?
19 My simple question to you is: Now that you say you didn't know
20 about this document before, what is your comment, if any, now that you are
21 aware of the document, on paragraph 40 of your statement? Do you have any
22 comment to make on that?
23 A. If I could take a look at the paragraph 40 so I really know what
24 it's all about.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: By all means.
1 Can we supply the witness with paragraph 40 in the B/C/S, please.
2 And I'm talking about the statement -- paragraph 40 of the statement that
3 you made to the OTP on the 7th of July, 2006.
4 I'm specifically asking for a comment on the statement that you
5 are making that the El Mujahedin Detachment was not part of the army.
6 A. I don't know how this is being interpreted, but my opinion is
7 although there were some orders, the El Mujahedin Detachment did not
8 observe those orders, they did not respect the Command of the
9 35th Division. They did things the way they wanted and what they wanted.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me interrupt you. I'm asking you to comment on
11 paragraph 40. You are not mentioning the 35th Division in paragraph 40.
12 Please, listen to my question, and if you don't have a comment, say, "I
13 don't have a comment," but don't create a question for yourself and then
14 answer the question.
15 A. I do apologise, but when I said -- when I mentioned "units," I
16 mentioned the units within the AOR and within the composition of the
17 35th Division.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Paragraph 40 talks of ABiH. It doesn't talk of
19 35th Division. Please look at paragraph 40 of your statement. And if you
20 can't answer my question, say you can't answer my question, but stop
21 introducing foreign elements to the paragraph.
22 You are a lawyer. You should be able to -- you and I should be
23 able to communicate better, shouldn't we?
24 A. That's correct, but I'm not introducing anything new. The Army of
25 BiH and the units of the Army of BiH, I really meant exclusively those
1 within the composition of the 35th Division, because this is where I
2 worked and these are the units I worked with, exclusively the
3 35th Division, and it had several units and several brigades.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. I can't take the matter
5 any further.
6 That brings me to the end of my questions of you.
7 Any questions arising from the questions by the Bench, Mr. Wood?
8 MR. WOOD: None, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
11 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
12 Q. Please, Witness, His Honour showed you at the end of your
13 testimony, an order resubordinating the El Mujahedin Detachment to the
14 Division. And now before you, you have a decision ordering the formation
15 or the establishment of the El Mujahedin Detachment. This is what we see
16 on paper; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. These are just papers?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was the de facto state of affairs in the ground? Was it not
21 that the units of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not control the
22 El Mujahedin Detachment; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct. They were led by their own will. Nobody could
24 control them.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
1 further questions.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic.
3 That brings us to the conclusion of your testimony, sir. Thank
4 you very much for coming. Have a good trip back home. You are now
5 excused. You may stand down.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Mundis.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 The Prosecution calls Edin Husic, and Mr. Husic will be led on
11 direct examination by Mr. Neuner.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration. You
14 may proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 WITNESS: EDIN HUSIC
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. You may sit down.
20 Good afternoon.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon to you, sir.
23 Mr. Neuner.
24 Examination by Mr. Neuner:
25 Q. Good afternoon.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Could you state your name, please?
3 A. My name is Edin Husic.
4 Q. When were you born, Mr. Husic?
5 A. I was born on the 28th of April, 1967.
6 Q. This is some information for the Chamber: Is it correct,
7 Mr. Husic, that you testified for the Prosecution in the Kordic case?
8 A. That's correct, yes.
9 Q. And you testified later on for the Defence of Enver Hadzihasanovic
10 at this Tribunal?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 MR. NEUNER: With the permission of the Chamber, I would lead the
13 witness through his CV and military career.
14 Q. Mr. Husic, from 1982 until 1986, you attended the Military High
15 School in Belgrade?
16 A. I attended the Military High School, which should be
17 middle-ranking military school, not a military college.
18 Q. And from 1986 until 1990, you were attending the Military Academy
19 in Belgrade?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And in 1990, you attended a one-year Intelligence Reconnaissance
22 School outside Belgrade?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And you left the JNA at the end of 1991 -- excuse me. You left
25 the JNA at the end of 1991, the beginning of 1992, holding the rank of
2 A. Yes. There was a mistake in interpretation. It was said "1995",
3 but it was at the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992.
4 Q. I misspoke. My apologies. And at the end of April 1992, you
5 joined the TO in Zenica?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And already by the end of June 1992, you were the chief of the
8 Intelligence for the District Defence Staff in Zenica?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And at the beginning of 1993, you joined the 3rd Corps as an
11 intelligence officer?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Occasionally, while holding that position, you also served as a
14 duty officer in the 3rd Corps?
15 A. That's correct as well.
16 Q. In June 1993, you became assistant to the Chief of Staff for
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And in the second half of 1994, you became the assistant commander
20 for Intelligence in the 3rd Corps?
21 A. Yes, that's my opinion, although I cannot specify the date.
22 Q. By mid-1996, you were assistant to the military attache of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Vienna?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And in December of that same year, you were acting military
1 attache of the BiH in Austria?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. From there, in December 1999 you moved to become an intel officer
4 in the Federal Ministry of Defence of BiH?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in August 2000, you became defence attache of the Federation
7 of Bosnia-Herzegovina to the United States of America?
8 A. I became defence or military attache of Bosnia-Herzegovina, not of
9 the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 Q. Thank you for this clarification. At the beginning of 2006, you
11 were the chief of Organisation and Mobilisation Department of the Joint
12 Command of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And since March of this year, you were the chief of support office
15 to the chief of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you explain to the Chamber what rank you're holding
19 A. I hold the rank of a colonel.
20 Q. Thank you. I want to take you to the period 1993, when you served
21 as an intelligence officer. And as we have heard, at the 3rd Corps you
22 occasionally performed the duty of duty officers. Could you explain what
23 a duty officer does?
24 A. Duty officers usually held their post for 24 hours. They worked
25 in the Operations Centre or in a separate special room, from where they
1 could monitor and follow the situation within the area of responsibility.
2 They were duty-bound to report on more significant events to the commander
3 or deputy commander immediately, if required or necessary, and if there
4 were regular activities going on where there were no urgent needs to
5 report, then duty officers would report at the end of their shift.
6 Q. I want --
7 A. Just a moment. Reporting was based on reports of subordinated
9 Q. Thank you. I want to show you one of the reports from
10 subordinated units.
11 MR. NEUNER: If we could have PT1093 be shown to this witness,
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, just before we go on to this document, can
14 we just understand the transition here.
15 My understanding was that a duty officer is on duty and observing,
16 and he reports events that are significant, if any. And then he says,
17 "And if there were regular activities going on where there were no urgent
18 needs to report, then duty officers would report at the end of their
20 Now, I would expect that what they report is what they observed.
21 Now, the next sentence that says: "Reporting was based on reports of
22 subordinated units," I don't see how it relates to the rest of what he has
23 been telling you.
24 MR. NEUNER: I see that.
25 Q. Mr. Husic, you were serving at the 3rd Corps. Could you clarify
1 what you put in your reports, being the duty officer at the 3rd Corps?
2 Your own observations or other observations?
3 A. Reporting was based on reports provided by subordinated units. I
4 do not understand this part of the question when it concerns my position
5 or any officer who held that post of duty officer. We cannot observe
6 anything. We are in a position to receive reports. When I say "monitor,"
7 I mean monitor on the basis of reports from others. And when I said
8 "immediate reporting," I depicted situations where urgent reporting was
9 necessary because of the situation. And when regular or ordinary
10 activities were going on where there were no changes or where the
11 situation did not necessitate urgent reporting to the commander, then
12 reporting was done at regular intervals, at specified times, when they
13 were then processed. We did not have any capabilities to report in the
14 same form that we received such reports from subordinated units. We could
15 not alter any content from units' reports. And at the end of the day, we
16 were duty-bound to prepare our report that was sent to the commander and
17 the Chief of Staff of the Corps.
18 I hope that I've managed to clarify this matter to you.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have indeed, sir. Thank you so much.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. Would you now look at the report on the left-hand side in front of
22 you. Could you tell me whose handwriting that is?
23 A. This is my handwriting.
24 Q. And if we, for a second, in the B/C/S move to the second page. If
25 you look at the end of your handwriting, I see two signatures. Could you
1 explain whose signature is the signature on the right-hand side?
2 A. The right-hand side signature is mine. The one to the left, I
3 presume that is the one you are interested in. Are you asking me whose
4 handwriting it is that is on the left-hand side?
5 Q. Yes, please.
6 A. The signature on the left-hand side is the signature of the Chief
7 of Staff of the Corps at that time, Mr. Muradif Mekic.
8 Q. So the Judge asked you a moment ago about the reporting, and you
9 explained extensively about it. Could you explain what you're doing here,
10 because Mr. Mekic has signed, obviously, what you wrote here?
11 A. I fail to understand part of the question. However, I will try to
12 provide an answer concerning Mr. Mekic's signature.
13 It was standard procedure that the Chief of Staff would sign a
14 report at the end of the day indicating that he was acquainted with the
15 information contained therein.
16 Q. And information contained in that report, from whom did you
17 receive that information which you put here in this report?
18 A. From the subordinate units.
19 Q. Subordinated -- units subordinated to whom?
20 A. To the Corps Command.
21 Q. Of which corps?
22 A. The 3rd Corps.
23 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, can I ask that the document please be
24 tendered into evidence.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
1 please be given an exhibit number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 628.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 MR. NEUNER: I want to move on now to your duties and tasks as
5 assistant commander for Intelligence.
6 Q. Could you explain, in 1995, to whom were you reporting to?
7 A. In 1995, to the 3rd Corps commander.
8 Q. Was this the only person or entity to whom you were reporting to?
9 A. At the Corps Command, yes.
10 Q. Did you report also to somebody outside the Corps Command?
11 A. We were obliged to report the intelligence administration of the
12 Staff of the Supreme Command at the time.
13 Q. Who was the head of the Intelligence Administration of the Supreme
14 Command Staff in 1995?
15 A. It was the late General Mustafa Hajrulahovic, Talijan.
16 Q. I wish to show to you, since we are talking about reporting, a
17 document, PT2111. We can see here it's a document from the 27th of May,
18 and if we could scroll down the B/C/S a little bit, please, to see the
20 Could you say who signed the document?
21 A. I signed this document.
22 Q. And if we look at number 1 of what you're reporting here, we see,
23 I think it's the second paragraph, that during some combat activities, 30
24 Chetniks had been killed and that "the El-M Detachment holds captured
25 aggressor soldiers and a tank."
1 Could you first of all explain what "El-M" means?
2 A. The acronym stands for "El Mujahid."
3 Q. And if you look for a moment at the distribution list of your
4 document, could you explain what are you doing here with the document --
5 with the information about the El Mujahedin Detachment?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document must be scrolled down a little bit so
7 that the distribution list is visible.
8 MR. NEUNER: In the B/C/S version, please, yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And also in English.
10 MR. NEUNER: Sorry, also in English as well.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The distribution list is at the top of the
13 MR. NEUNER: Could we scroll it up a little bit? Yes, thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your question is unclear to me.
15 This report contains some other information as well, not only the ones
16 pertaining to the El Mujahid Detachment. Irrespective of that, I will try
17 to clarify.
18 This document bears the title "Information on Enemy." That type
19 of information was sent to all subordinate units and to all adjacent units
20 as a circular letter. Such documents were there to inform on the events
21 within the AOR in order to assist the subordinate and adjacent units to
22 get a full picture of the situation as it was within the Corps AOR. In
23 turn, it assisted them to interpret the information they gained more
24 correctly in order to assess the situation in the most appropriate way and
25 to try and forecast what would ensue.
1 We see here Command of the 3rd Corps Intelligence Detachment; and
2 the 37th Division Intelligence Department; brigade commands of the 1st and
3 2nd Manoeuvring Battalion, to their intelligence organ; and the forward
4 command post; as well as the 3rd Corps Postojna, attention
5 Ibrahim Begagic. Those were the adjacent and subordinate units.
6 MR. NEUNER:
7 Q. And where is Mr. Begagic working, in terms of to which section of
8 the 3rd Corps does he belong to?
9 A. Mr. Begagic worked in the Intelligence Department of the
10 3rd Corps.
11 Q. Thank you. I see here the document has, on the upper right-hand
12 side, the addition "Hitno." Could you explain what "Hitno" stands for and
13 why you considered this document to have this addition, "Hitno"?
14 A. I suppose that at the time, there were combat activities. As you
15 may well know, or perhaps not, but usually during combat activities the
16 situation can change quickly. Therefore, it is essential that
17 intelligence information that one has at his disposal be forwarded to the
18 end users.
19 Q. And I just note here the English translation doesn't contain the
20 word "Hitno." Does"Hitno" mean urgent?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: What does "Hitno" mean?
22 MR. NEUNER:
23 Q. What does "Hitno" mean? Thank you.
24 A. Was that a question for me?
25 Q. Yes, please.
1 A. I apologise for the misunderstanding. "Hitno" means as early as
3 MR. NEUNER: With this explanation, can I ask the document please
4 be admitted into evidence.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 629.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
10 MR. NEUNER:
11 Q. I want to take you now to September 1995. Could you tell me which
12 combat operation, if any, took place in September 1995 in the 3rd Corps
14 A. In September, at least according to the documents we were
15 processing at the time, Operation F was in place.
16 Q. Could you explain what Operation F means?
17 A. The "F" stands for "Farz," as we called it. The end goal of the
18 operation was to liberate the area of Vozuca.
19 MR. NEUNER: Could, please, document PT2349 be shown to the
21 Q. What role, if any, did you have in relation to Operation Farz?
22 A. During Operation Farz, my task was to plan the measures for
23 supporting intelligence.
24 Q. If you look at the document in front of you, could you explain --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we zoom in a little bit, please.
1 MR. NEUNER:
2 Q. -- what we see here in front of us? I see the words "Intelligence
3 Support Plan." Could you explain to the Trial Chamber what an
4 intelligence support plan is?
5 A. What we see -- or rather what I see before me is an intelligence
6 support plan. It is a document which in all likelihood is a version --
7 the version of a plan. It's a proposal, since it wasn't signed, and the
8 temporal reference is not mentioned. It was probably a working version.
9 Q. I see, in the upper right-hand side, "Operacija F." Could you
10 explain again what Operacija F stands for?
11 A. Operation F means "Farz," as I've said already and as we refer to
12 it, the goal was to liberate the area of Vozuca.
13 Q. Who produced this intelligence support plan?
14 A. Intelligence support plans were prepared by the Intelligence
15 Department of the 3rd Corps for the needs of the 3rd Corps.
16 Q. So who initiated that such a plan be produced?
17 A. We worked on orders issued by the corps commander, his orders and
18 his instructions, that is.
19 Q. What is the name of the corps commander, please?
20 A. At the time, the corps commander was Brigadier Sakib Mahmuljin;
21 the 3rd Corps, I mean.
22 Q. Thank you. If we look at the B/C/S on the fifth page, please, and
23 in the English on page 6, we see here the heading is "Other," and I want
24 to point your attention to number 2, which says:
25 "The focus of intelligence support should be on the following
1 axis: Svinjasnica, Paljenik, Stog, Miljevici, Vozuca."
2 If I were to give you a map, would you be in a position to point
3 out where this axis is?
4 A. I'll do my best.
5 MR. NEUNER: With the assistance of the usher, if this could
6 please be placed on the ELMO.
7 Could we zoom out a little bit. Yes.
8 Q. Could you, first of all, indicate where Svinjasnica is?
9 A. Svinjasnica?
10 Q. If you could mark a --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second, Mr. Neuner. Is this map from the
12 map book?
13 MR. NEUNER: It's from the map book, but I notice the witness has
14 a document in front of him, so it would collide to show both at the same
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. I want to know which map number in the map
18 MR. NEUNER: It's map 11, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. Could you encircle Svinjasnica and mark a "1" next to it, please?
22 For Your Honours, the ERN is 0618-6706 of map 11.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
25 MR. NEUNER:
1 Q. Could you now, from Svinjasnica, mark an arrow towards Paljenik,
2 Stog and Vozuca?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps my learned
5 friend could explain to us what the purpose of the arrows should be.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
7 MR. NEUNER: Just trying to visualise the axis of intelligence
8 support as stated here in the report under number 2. I was discussing
9 this in the last two minutes with the witness.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you happy, Madam Vidovic?
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Mr. Neuner.
13 MR. NEUNER:
14 Q. Could you now mark an arrow from Svinjasnica via Paljenik, Stog,
15 towards Vozuca, please.
16 A. Before I do that, there was a misinterpretation. The focus of the
17 axis of intelligence support, this is what this should represent. Paljenik
18 [indicates] --
19 Q. Could you maybe, since --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, would it be helpful for the witness to
21 circle these places and perhaps give "1" to the first place, "2" to the
23 MR. NEUNER: Yes.
24 Q. Could you mark Paljenik, which you just underlined, could you
25 encircle it and mark a "2" next to it?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you have the "1" next to the first one?
2 MR. NEUNER: This has already been done, Your Honour, on the upper
3 right-hand side.
4 Q. Could you encircle Paljenik, please, and mark a "2" next to it?
5 A. Very well.
6 Q. And now encircle Stog and mark a "3" next to it.
7 A. [Marks]
8 Q. And encircle Vozuca and mark a "4" next to it.
9 A. Miljevici is also along this axis.
10 Q. If you find Miljevici, mark a "4" then next to Miljevici.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. And encircle Vozuca then, please, and mark a "5" next to it.
13 A. [Marks]
14 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you now about number 3 of your
15 intelligence plan, in which it states:
16 "Special attention should be paid to the interrogation of
17 prisoners of war."
18 Could you explain what you mean by this?
19 A. It reads here that:
20 "Special attention should be paid to interrogation of the
21 prisoners of war or deserters or those who fled to the other side,
22 collecting enemy documentation which should be delivered to the 3rd Corps
23 forward command post in the village of Luka ASAP in order to be analysed."
24 What we meant by this is special attention should be paid to the
25 interrogation of POWs and deserters and to collect documentation, since we
1 deemed those information sources to be important.
2 MR. NEUNER: With this explanation, can I ask that document PT2349
3 be tendered into evidence, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document PT2349 is admitted into evidence. May it
5 please be given an exhibit number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 630.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
8 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
9 MR. NEUNER: If now the next document, PT2544, could be shown to
10 the witness, please.
11 Could we scroll down so that the witness can see the signature.
12 Q. Could you tell us whose signature that is?
13 A. This is my signature.
14 Q. And if you just look at the bottom for a second, you see in
15 handwriting here something. Could you read out what that meant, because
16 it's difficult to read.
17 A. It reads: "10SAP0.PK."
18 Q. What does that mean?
19 A. It is the file name in its electronic version.
20 MR. NEUNER: If we could scroll upwards, please.
21 Q. We see here the date is the 9th of September, 1995. If we could
22 just for a second, in the B/C/S, go to the second page. And read this
23 together with the previous remark we just discussed on page 1, on the
24 bottom. If you could go back to page 1 of the B/C/S, please. Yes.
25 If you look again, what is the correct date of this document?
1 Could you please try to help me?
2 A. It is most likely that this is the 10th of September. However, the
3 handwritten note on page 2 that was just shown, and I see that for the
4 first time, I don't think that is in my handwriting.
5 Q. What --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is the handwritten note on the first page in your
7 handwriting, sir?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you notice that the document, at the top, is
10 dated the 9th of September?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Proceed.
13 MR. NEUNER:
14 Q. Maybe if we can clarify. If you look at the first sentence of
15 this document, and it's in the English to be scrolled down a little bit,
16 yes, it talks here about: "... Combat operations as planned by our
17 forces commenced at 6.00 in the direction of Seona, Stog, Vozuca." Could
18 you tell us what day did the combat start, the 10th or the 9th of
19 September, 1995?
20 A. I cannot tell you that unless you show me another document
21 corroborating that, since I do not remember. In this document, there is
22 obviously a difference in terms of dates. We don't have the date and the
23 time. We only have the time.
24 Q. But we have the time when it was processed, didn't we?
25 A. Yes, we do. If, at the bottom, it says the 10th of September, and
1 if it was saved as a file under that name, then that file was created on
2 the 10th of September on the computer.
3 MR. NEUNER: Can I ask that the document please be tendered into
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 631.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
10 MR. NEUNER: I want to move on to PT2541.
11 Q. Since this is depicted now, could you tell -- sorry. If you could
12 scroll it down a little bit so that we can see the type-sign.
13 We see it's type-signed only, and your name is mentioned.
14 If you look at the document in its entirety, if it could please be
15 zoomed out a little bit, do you recognise the document?
16 A. If you could zoom in, please.
17 MR. NEUNER: Zoom in a little bit again.
18 A. The document that I saw during proofing. If you could go back a
19 bit, because I can see only a small portion of the document.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. You report here, and this is in English, please, on the second
22 page, if we could go to the second page. In the -- in English, it's the
23 second page, the second paragraph. In your B/C/S version, the third
24 paragraph. You report here, among others: "One of our units reached the
25 Ribnica sector by road from Stog via Vozuca and linked up with the forces
1 of the 2nd Corps."
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Neuner, where are you reading? On the
3 second page, the second paragraph, if that is the second paragraph, says:
4 "1 enemy T-55 tank was destroyed in the Ravne village sector."
5 MR. NEUNER: If you count this one line as one paragraph, then it
6 would be the third paragraph. I apologise, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then the next one says:
8 "Our forces succeeded in taking control of the entire area ..."
9 It doesn't say what you --
10 MR. NEUNER: The next sentence exactly says what I was referring
11 to in the middle --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, then you've got to say you're starting in the
13 middle of the paragraph. Otherwise, we start at the beginning.
14 MR. NEUNER: Okay, I will read out the entire sentence of concern:
15 "The area and populated areas along the road have been abandoned,
16 and we were told about it by one of the units which reached the Ribnica
17 sector by road from Stog via Vozuca and linked up with the forces of the
18 2nd Corps."
19 Do Your Honours find that?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I waited
22 for the interpretation to finish.
23 I object on grounds that the witness has not recognised the
24 document yet. He sought the document be shown to him, and then he was
25 interrupted by the Prosecutor's question which suggested "you report" in
1 this report.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
3 MR. NEUNER: I'm prepared to ask some general question about the
4 document first before I come back to that paragraph.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, let's try to do that every time.
6 MR. NEUNER:
7 Q. If you look at the layout of the document, Mr. Husic, namely, on
8 the first page, if you could scroll up a little bit, the reference to the
9 Intelligence Department of the 3rd Corps Command, would that document in
10 general reflect a typical document from the Intelligence section at the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I notice that it is sent -- or, sorry, that the location is
15 A. It says so.
16 Q. Do you know whether you have been in Zenica on the 9th of
18 A. If it's written there, then I suppose I was.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what that document says. Did you write this
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot confirm that. Could you
22 show me the whole document so that I can see it through?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you hear that, Mr. Neuner?
24 MR. NEUNER: Yes. Could we please zoom out.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It can be barely seen, but it is
1 possible to make out and for me to say that this is an electronic version
2 of the document. What is customary is to the left of the signatory of the
3 document, there should be the initials of that person. They are not
4 present here. Given that there are no initials, there is not my
5 signature, how can I confirm that this is my document or that I drafted
6 it? This is not contentious in terms of its form or format, but if you
7 ask me to be precise about it and given that there is -- it bears no
8 initials and no signature, then I cannot confirm that it is mine.
9 Q. If you look at the upper part, it says: "Processed on," on the
10 second line here, "Sunday, 10 September, at 1834 hours."
11 Does that help you a little bit, together with a file name maybe,
12 to assess the validity of that document?
13 A. The name of the file doesn't mean anything to me, because we did
14 not assign names to files.
15 Secondly, as to this time of Sunday, the 10th of September, and
16 then there's an unintelligible bit and then "1834 hours," that just tells
17 us when this document was processed, meaning when it was processed at the
18 Communications Centre and when it was sent to the addressee.
19 Q. So you can confirm that the document was sent to some addressees;
21 A. It is written so, yes.
22 MR. NEUNER: If I could, with this explanation, go back to the
23 content for just one moment.
24 Q. We discussed this paragraph mentioning Ribnica sector and that
25 "one of our units," as the document states, "reached that Ribnica
1 sector." Could you, on the map next to you, indicate where that Ribnica
2 sector is?
3 A. I will try to do so.
4 Q. And you have just encircled it, and could you please place a "6"
5 next to the Ribnica sector?
6 A. [Marks]
7 MR. NEUNER: Thank you.
8 Could I, with this last marking, ask that the map be tendered into
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map is admitted into evidence. May it please
11 be given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 632.
13 MR. NEUNER: And could I also ask that the document PT2541 is now
14 being tendered into evidence.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. I believe
17 that a sufficient basis has not been established for this document to be
18 admitted through this witness, because the witness has not recognised it.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
20 MR. NEUNER: I believe the witness has in general stated that the
21 format of the document is one which comes from his intelligence service or
22 is similar to the one which his intelligence service at the time used.
23 The witness has also stated clearly that the document was indeed sent,
24 though type-signed as it is in front of us today. And the witness has
25 also acknowledged the content of that document, meaning that he's familiar
1 with the Ribnica sector and could mark it on a map.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, is format one of the factors to ground
3 admissibility of a document?
4 MR. NEUNER: I didn't want to suggest that format alone is one of
5 the --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, I'm taking them one by one. I'm coming to the
7 next one. The next one, you're saying he confirmed that it is sent. He
8 said it says so. That's what he was reading on the document, it says it
9 was sent. He doesn't express independent knowledge that it was sent to
10 the addressee.
11 MR. NEUNER: I wish to say that the document is also type-signed
12 for the witness. I acknowledge that there is no signature on it. During
13 our attempts to seize it from the archive, this was the best copy we could
14 get at the time.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand, sir, but the very fact that it is
16 type-signed, isn't that a difficulty, a hurdle that you must go over, by
17 at least more recognition of the document by the witness?
18 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, it was sent in this form, meaning
19 electronically processed, and we had a couple of documents in this trial
20 which were not signed by every witness, but since they were sent, as this
21 document, in electronic form, they didn't bear any signatures of the
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is true, Mr. Neuner, but those witnesses were
24 in a position to identify the document and take ownership of it. This
25 witness says the file number on this document means nothing to him because
1 they didn't assign file numbers to documents, and that it was processed on
2 the 10th of September at 1634 with unintelligible writing in between means
3 nothing to him.
4 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, I'm prepared to ask the witness about
5 another paragraph of this document and ask him to confirm -- and
6 Your Honours will see that in this other paragraph, there are some places
7 mentioned which feature prominently throughout the following documents
8 which this same witness has also authored.
9 I can lay a foundation here for these place names and can then ask
10 the witness for other documents which he signed.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your opposite number is on her feet.
12 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection. Your Honour, the
14 Prosecutor has already explained to the witness what he is supposed to
15 confirm from this document, so this is leading.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Stand up, Mr. Neuner.
17 You see, the problem is that procedurally we're supposed to
18 establish ownership of the document or admissibility of the document
19 before we go to the contents. By the time we go to the contents, the
20 document should be in the position to be admitted at that stage. To try
21 to say this witness knows about the document because he knows the
22 contents, he might have an independent knowledge of those incidents
23 because he was in that area, not because he's the author of the document.
24 Do you understand the difference?
25 MR. NEUNER: Yes. Your Honour, I was indicating a moment ago that
1 I would be prepared to ask the witness --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this is the point, and then your opposite
3 number says, "You're beginning to lead your witness, you're telling the
4 witness what you're going to be establishing," and that's what you're not
5 supposed to do.
6 MR. NEUNER: So what does Your Honour want me to do, then?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I want you to lay a proper foundation for admission
8 of the document into evidence.
9 MR. NEUNER: Could you suggest --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not --
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 MR. NEUNER: Your Honour, in light of the time, if I could suggest
13 that we are making a break, and I will try to revisit the document after
14 the break, then.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Shall we mark it for identification in the
17 MR. NEUNER: Yes, please.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the document is marked for identification.
19 May it please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI633.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 We'll take an adjournment and come back at 4.00.
23 Court adjourned.
24 --- Recess taken at 3.33 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 4.03 p.m.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, have you resolved your problem?
2 MR. NEUNER: I want to refer to another document first, and I
3 might revert to that document later which was discussed before the break.
4 I want to go to PT2543 now, please. If you could scroll up a
5 little bit, yes, so Mr. Husic can see.
6 Q. My first question is: Whose signature is this?
7 A. This is my signature.
8 Q. And, Mr. Husic, if you look at the first sentence, please. If the
9 English could be scrolled down a little bit so that the Judges could see.
10 Yes, thank you.
11 There is mentioning made of a Prokop sector, where 2nd and 3rd
12 Corps forces converged. Would you be in a position to find Prokop on a
14 A. I'll try to do so.
15 MR. NEUNER: Yes. If you could please have map 17 of the Court
16 binder with an ERN of 0618-6712 shown to the witness. I also have a hard
17 copy, if it would assist, because the witness is still looking at the
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, I'm advised that that map can be put up
20 on e-court.
21 MR. NEUNER: At the same time?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, certainly not at the same time. Okay, I
23 guess Mr. Neuner wants to have this document on e-court and the map on the
25 MR. NEUNER: Yes. There are a couple of documents which refer to
1 this map.
2 If you please --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want us to look at at this point in
4 time, the map or the document?
5 MR. NEUNER: At the map, please. The document, I've read the
6 relevant passage into the record, convergence of 2nd and 3rd Corps
7 Corps -- forces of the 3rd Corps -- convergence of these forces in the
8 Prokop sector, and I want the witness to point out to Your Honours where
9 is this Prokop line.
10 If we could, please, enlarge a little bit the area shown on the
11 ELMO. Zoom out a little bit. If we zoom out. It's not possible? Then
12 if you move the map a little upwards. Yes. Actually, the other way
13 around. Yes.
14 Q. Mr. Husic, would you be in a position to find Prokop, where the
15 forces joined, the 2nd and 3rd Corps?
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. Yes, you have encircled it, and could you mark a "1" next to it,
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. You're stating in your document that:
21 "The convergence at this point in time marked the end of the
22 liberation of the larger Seona-Stog-Vozuca sector."
23 Could you explain what you meant by this at the time?
24 A. It was considered, as far as I wrote, that the completion of the
25 liberation of the larger Seona-Stog-Vozuca sector and by the linking up of
1 these forces, it was considered that this area had been liberated.
2 Q. By which forces liberated?
3 A. It is written here that the forces of the 2nd and 3rd Corps linked
4 up in the area of Prokop. It doesn't state which exact units are those.
5 These are units of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And when you say "this area had been liberated,"
7 which area are you referring to?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is spelt out. The liberation of
9 the larger area of Seona-Stog-Vozuca. The next sentence described that
10 there is the establishment of authorities underway in Vozuca, and this is
11 the area which is marked out here. I don't know how other way should I
12 put it or explain it.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. We were looking at the
14 map, and we can only see the map at one time. Now we have seen your
15 document. Thank you so much.
16 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
17 MR. NEUNER: Could I ask that the document please be tendered into
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 634.
22 MR. NEUNER: If we could move on to the next document --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]... With the map,
25 MR. NEUNER: The map will stay for the moment. I'm aware about
3 Your Honours, while the document is being shown, I note the time.
4 I will still have a few documents for this witness, but I'm trying to be
6 Q. We see here it's a document from the 2nd Corps IKM, Intelligence
7 Department, and if you please look at the receiver for a moment.
8 If we could scroll down in the B/C/S, please. I think it's the
9 last page in the English.
10 My question for you, Mr. Husic, is: Did you receive or see that
12 A. I presume that I did, since it is addressed to the department that
13 I headed.
14 Q. Okay. So if we look in the middle of the B/C/S, first page, at
15 the sentence starting with: "Na odsijeccenom dijelu teritorije ... "
16 And in English that's the second page, there on the second page in
17 English, the third paragraph, and the sentence starts: "There are still
18 many enemy soldiers on the part of the territory that is cut off. We have
19 information that there is a group of 100 Chetniks in the area of Prokop
20 who want to surrender to the units of the 2nd Corps. That piece of
21 information is still being verified."
22 My question to you is: Here is mentioning of Prokop. What
23 location is mentioned here?
24 A. Prokop is being mentioned here. This is what it says in the
1 Q. To avoid any confusion, is that the same Prokop we talked about a
2 moment ago where the 2nd and 3rd Corps forces converged?
3 A. I presume that this is so. This is not my document, however, but
4 I do presume that this is so.
5 MR. NEUNER: Can I ask that the document please be tendered into
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
8 please be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 635.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 MR. NEUNER: I want to move on to PT2584.
12 Q. Before it's enlarged, could we please ask you: Whose signature is
14 A. This is my signature.
15 Q. Thank you. And we see it's from the 12th of September. The
16 location is Luke.
17 Could we please look at the fifth paragraph on the B/C/S. In
18 English, it is page 2, the last paragraph there in English. If you could,
19 in English, move to page 2, please. Yes, the last paragraph, please, and
20 I think it's the third line in English which mentions:
21 "Broken-up groups of Chetniks numbering between 40 to 60 from the
22 14th lpbr are probably in the Kablovac, Prokop and Stoska Kamenica
24 Do you find this?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. Can you explain what "lpbr," the "14th lpbr" stands for?
2 A. It stands for the 14th Light Infantry Brigade.
3 Q. And I want to walk -- or I want to ask you now to indicate the
4 place names you have mentioned here in your document. Prokop, it's not
5 necessary, since we have it already.
6 If you look on the map next to you, would you find Kablovac which
7 you're mentioning in your document?
8 A. I'll try.
9 MR. NEUNER: With the assistance of the usher, because I think the
10 witness might mark on the special area. Yes, he's moving it himself
12 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
13 MR. NEUNER: Just encircling it.
14 Q. Could you mark a "2" next to Kablovac, please?
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Thank you. And would you find the Stoska Kamenica sector?
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. Please mark a "3" next to it. You have just encircled it.
19 A. [Marks]
20 MR. NEUNER: Thank you.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: The witness is supposed to mark Kamenica or Stoska
23 MR. NEUNER: He's marked it with a "3".
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I know he's marked it, but is he marking Kamenica
25 or Stoska Kamenica? Your question at line 32:
1 "And would you find the Stoska Kamenica sector?"
2 Where is Stoska?
3 MR. NEUNER: Yes, exactly.
4 Q. Where is Stoska? You have circled Kamenica.
5 A. This is Kamenica [indicates]. As for Stoska Kamenica, I cannot
6 see it on the map. But I encircled this name, "Kamenica," because we were
7 looking at this part of the map. It may be that on a different map, it
8 would read differently.
9 Q. Could you explain what "Stoska" stands for?
10 A. I really don't know. I'm not here to interpret toponyms and their
11 meaning. It may be a reference to a particular location, but I am truly
12 no expert in this region.
13 Q. My understanding is, nevertheless, you have reported about the two
14 other locations, Prokop and Kablovac here.
15 MR. NEUNER: And on that basis I would ask that the document
16 please be tendered into evidence, the document PT2584.
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 636.
20 MR. NEUNER: I now want to revert back to the document marked for
21 identification, 633. This was the document which was type-signed only, we
22 discussed before the break.
23 Q. If you look there, please, at the fourth paragraph in the B/C/S
24 version. In English, it is the second page, the third paragraph.
25 It talks here about:
1 "Based on the information on the lines reached by the 2nd Corps,
2 we estimate that part of the enemy forces, at a strength of one reinforced
3 infantry battalion, are in the general areas of Kosa village, Pejanovici
4 village, Prokop, Crni Vrh and Kamenica village."
5 Could you, by looking at the map, explain where these locations
7 A. I'll try to do so. [Marks]
8 Q. You're encircling "Kosa" right now. Could you please mark a "4"
9 next to it?
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. You're encircling "Pejanovici" right now. Would you please mark a
14 "5" next to it?
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And you're encircling again "Prokop." Maybe for the record, this
17 has already a "1" next to it.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's correct.
19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. You're encircling Crni Vrh. Could you please mark a "6" next to
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. And you're, in a way, again encircling "Kamenica" which has a "3"
2 next to it, yeah.
3 Having just looked at the other documents and now looking at this
4 document again, what would be your comment about this paragraph?
5 A. Could you please clarify your question?
6 Q. You have just highlighted for us the place names stated in the
7 document we were discussing earlier, marked for identification 633. What
8 would your explanation about that particular paragraph which is made here
9 in this document --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. First of
12 all, the Prosecutor is leading the witness as to which locations to
13 encircle, and the witness followed. Based on that, based on being
14 prompted by the Prosecutor, the witness is now again being asked to
15 interpret a particular paragraph. I truly fail to understand what the
16 purpose of this line of questioning is.
17 MR. NEUNER: I have asked an open question to this witness, asking
18 him to give an explanation if he's in a position to do so. I didn't
19 intend to lead him in any way. It is clear to me, from the answers given
20 by this witness, that he recognises the place names, but I was asking this
21 time a very open question.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Neuner, you should have shown
24 that there is a connection between the witness and the document. You
25 should have demonstrated this, because I do not see such a connection. As
1 we're speaking, I do not see a connection between the two.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just explain that to you.
3 What you have demonstrated is a connection between the document
4 and the map, not the witness.
5 MR. NEUNER: But this witness is obviously in a good position to
6 recognise all these places, and the witness -- the document is type-signed
7 for the witness.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, if I can read and write, and you give
9 me this map and you give me this document and you read to me the names in
10 the document, and you say, "Find them on the map," do you think it would
11 be difficult for me to find them? And if I did find them, does that
12 establish a connection between me and the document? Anybody who can read
13 can do that.
14 MR. NEUNER: Yes, Your Honours, but I'm trying to elucidate what
15 is in one of these paragraphs written in the document, and I just now,
16 before I got the objection, asked a very open question, if the witness
17 would be in a position to give a general explanation about it. I did not
18 say that he should say this or should say that. I just asked him whether,
19 after he had found the places, he could give an explanation what is
20 written in this document. And depending on his answer, we may find a link
21 or we may not find a link. I cannot presume at this point in time that
22 there is a link. I can only ask the witness about it.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, if you had listened to Madam Vidovic's
24 objection, it was to the effect that you led the witness to encircle names
25 on the map, not the question that you asked, and then she says, Based on
1 that, if asked the witness, 'Can you see this paragraph, it mentions this
2 name and that name and that name, can you find the names on the map,'" and
3 the witness finds a name on the map, and based on that, you now want to
4 say there is a link between the witness and the document?
5 MR. NEUNER: Your Honour, I do not wish to say that because I
6 don't know the witness's answer yet.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fair enough, but you're asking him to say, to
8 comment on the document based on the fact that he has identified names on
9 the map.
10 MR. NEUNER: I'm prepared to ask the witness about another portion
11 of this document, if this helps, Your Honour, to get a link established.
12 I do not need to ask about this particular paragraph, Your Honours. I can
13 move on to another paragraph of that document.
14 In all fairness, I must be allowed to ask about a paragraph in
15 this document and see what the witness's answer is, and otherwise I'm
16 prevented to move any further with regard to that document. Then it would
17 stay in the situation in which it is, marked for identification.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Let me put the question to you this way,
19 sir: Whatever the answer the witness is going to give to your question,
20 what is your intention? Are you still going to go ahead and lay a
22 MR. NEUNER: I have asked the witness about formal features of
23 this document, of this document, and the witness has given certain
24 answers. I understood from Your Honours that this was not satisfactory at
25 this point in time, so I was prepared, after the formalities of this
1 document have been dealt with, to ask about the content of this document.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which I'd indicated to you, before we broke up,
3 that procedurally, before you go to the content, you must have laid the
4 foundation. The document must be ready for admission before you deal with
5 the content, because by the time you deal with the content, it is because
6 the document is now admitted, now you're allowed to tender that into
7 evidence and therefore you can begin to deal with the contents in the
9 MR. NEUNER: I fully --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: But -- yes, you fully?
11 MR. NEUNER: I fully agree with Your Honours, but I have dealt
12 with practically all formalities contained in this document; that it is
13 from the 3rd Corps Command, from the Intelligence Department. The witness
14 said, "Yes." That it was sent, that it looks similar to a document
15 produced by the intelligence service at the time. The witness --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But those aren't foundational questions,
17 Mr. Neuner, those are not foundational questions. Anybody who can read
18 can see it does come from the 3rd Corps. Anybody who has seen a previous
19 document from the 3rd Corps can see that it does like documents from the
20 3rd Corps. You don't need to have come from the 3rd Corps to see that, as
21 long as you have seen previous documents from the 3rd Corps.
22 MR. NEUNER: I understand, but this witness was even in the
23 Intelligence Department, the letterhead of which is here in this document,
24 so why should I not ask him about it, because it looks obviously that this
25 is a link.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just put your question to the witness, the question
2 that you were putting when Madam Vidovic stood up. Let's hear what the
3 answer is and let's see where we go from there.
4 MR. NEUNER:
5 Q. My question was: I wanted to understand, apart from the locations
6 just mentioned here, what is your explanation about this particular
7 paragraph which talks about information reached by the 2nd Corps,
8 information on the lines reached by the 2nd Corps?
9 A. All I can do is provide you with an opinion of mine that I can
10 have after having read the document. However, I do not see the link
11 between this document and the other document stemming from the 2nd Corps.
12 If you read this, it says:
13 "Based on the information on the lines reached by the 2nd Corps,
14 we estimate that part of the enemy forces, the strength of one reinforced
15 infantry battalion, are in the general area of Kosa village, Pejanovici
16 village, Prokop, Crni Vrh and Kamenica village."
17 What would you like me to say, how I see this? Well, to me this
18 is clear. This is an estimate based on certain information that had to do
19 with enemy forces, the strength of one battalion in the area. I don't see
20 what other clarification I could offer, since I cannot change the gist --
21 the meaning of the paragraph as written.
22 Q. Who, in the Intelligence Department, is in a position to make an
24 A. Anyone who previously worked on the document, depending on who
25 authored the document. From this document, since there was a question put
1 by the Judges, I cannot confirm that I drafted this document, since that
2 cannot be discerned from the looks of it.
3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Mr. Neuner, sorry for
4 interrupting, but you just told us that the witness would have confirmed
5 that the document had been sent. Could you please give us the reference
6 in question, because in fact if this confirmation was a fact, maybe we
7 could establish a link, but I do not see it. I do not see the link in the
8 transcript. I do not see the confirmation.
9 On page 25, line 20 --
10 [In English] "I notice that it is sent -- or, sorry, that the
11 location is Zenica."
12 [Interpretation] So I do not see this confirmation that the
13 document -- that the witness can confirm that the document had been sent
14 maybe somewhere else? The witness confirmed it, I don't know, on the
16 MR. NEUNER: I don't have the transcript in front of me, but if we
17 could look at the first page, at the upper part of it, please.
18 Q. If you look at the first two lines, could you explain, having
19 worked in the Intelligence Service at the time, what the first two lines
20 refer to?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we see the English, please.
22 A. Do you mean beginning with the words "File name" and "Processed"?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. That part was not done by us, the Intelligence Department. It was
25 done by the Communications Centre.
1 Q. And having worked still at the time in the Intelligence Service,
2 would you at least have a general understanding what these two lines refer
4 A. These two lines refer to the file name and the time the file was
5 processed, that's it, and so it says.
6 Q. What do you mean by "the file was processed"?
7 A. "Processed," it means it went through the Communications Centre.
8 That was the note they would make.
9 Q. And which communications centre are you referring to?
10 A. Of the 3rd Corps.
11 Q. Mentioning is also made in this document about an enemy tank. This
12 is, in English, on page 2, the second paragraph, and in the B/C/S it is,
13 so to speak, the third paragraph. What is meant by an enemy tank T-55?
14 A. They refer to a tank.
15 Q. Could you explain what "enemy tank" refers to?
16 A. "Enemy tank" means a tank in the possession of enemy forces.
17 Q. And which enemy forces are envisaged here?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. I believe
20 that these few questions concerning a tank, one could ask a whole lot of
21 such questions, and it only results in wasting our time. The judicial
22 economy is being put into question. I cannot see how questions such as
23 this one can lead or amount to anything in order to establish any link
24 with the witness.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner. Mr. Neuner.
1 MR. NEUNER: I will abandon to ask further questions about this
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Neuner, please, we have spent a very, very
4 long time on this document now, and I am increasingly curious to know what
5 was the purpose. So before we let you off the hook, I think you should
6 explain to the Chamber, at least, what all this was about, because I, for
7 one, am completely left in the dark about the importance of this document,
8 which you, yourself, seem to have attached a great importance to.
9 MR. NEUNER: Should I do this in the presence of the witness? I'm
10 prepared to do so, no problem.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, you hold the key to the secret. I don't
12 know. If you think the witness should not hear what you have to say about
13 it, then we can ask him to leave, but I think that you owe it to the
14 Chamber to explain the importance and the significance of this document.
15 MR. NEUNER: Maybe if I can ask that the witness is removing his
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: He probably speaks English if he spent time in
18 Washington. But, I mean, is it something that he cannot hear?
19 MR. NEUNER: I'm fine, if Your Honours wish me to go ahead.
20 This document is a part of a series of documents which are shown
21 today to this witness, and they all relate to an area which is very close,
22 as you can see on the map which was marked right now, which is very close
23 to Kesten village, and it is relating to an area where -- or to a time
24 period, all the documents we are showing, to a time period in which, as
25 alleged in the indictment, on the 11th of September certain enemy soldiers
1 were indeed captured, and through the several documents shown today, the
2 intention was to demonstrate that there was almost an advanced knowledge
3 of at least the Intelligence Service on certain levels of the ARBiH about
4 the existence of soldiers in this sector.
5 There's also, on our exhibit list - I don't have the exhibit
6 number now in my head, but this is already an admitted exhibit - from the
7 10th of September, 1995, at midnight, an order issued by Mr. Hasanagic to
8 the effect that searches of the terrain should be conducted in the sector
9 of Pejanovici, a location which was encircled today, Kosa, another
10 location which was encircled today, and Kesten, and the documents just
11 shown, including this one, plus certain other documents, demonstrate, in
12 the view of the Prosecution, that the existence of enemy soldiers at this
13 point in time was known to the ARBiH.
14 This is why this particular paragraph was highlighted today, and
15 to be honest, I didn't intend to spend so much time, but I got several
16 objections, as Your Honours could well observe, and therefore I spent much
17 more time than initially envisaged on this particular document, but it
18 needs to be read in context with other documents, including those which
19 are shown today.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much. This is very helpful to the
21 Chamber, of course, because now we can see why you did it. I would have
22 thought that you could have gotten there much faster, but the point, as I
23 understand you correctly - if I understand you correctly - is to show that
24 immediately after the liberation of this area by the ABiH, some 40 to 60
25 Serb soldiers were still running around in the woods, and they may or may
1 not be captured, which we will see at a later point.
2 MR. NEUNER: Plus, Your Honours have seen that the documentation
3 coming from 2nd Corps mentioning 100 soldiers, from 3rd Corps mentioning
4 from 40 to 60, in this document which is now in front of Your Honours,
5 you'll see it's a reinforced infantry battalion strength. I would have
6 elucidated all these questions with the witness today, but as Your Honours
7 could observe, I got a couple of objections.
8 This witness, I can say, was in a position during proofing and on
9 an earlier occasion to elucidate on this document, including he could give
10 me exactly the strength of a reinforced infantry battalion. But with the
11 objection, I don't want to say I got -- I was taken off guard, but the
12 value of this document got sidetracked to a certain extent.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's hope it does not happen again.
14 Can I just ask for clarification. If the 100 documents observed
15 by one corps and the 40 to 60 -- sorry, soldiers -- let me put this again.
16 For clarification, can we ask the witness if the 100 soldiers
17 belonging to the Serbian 14th Light Brigade observed by one corps are the
18 same or are different from the 40 to 60 Serbian soldiers observed by the
19 other corps? So what is the total number of people that we are looking
20 for here?
21 MR. NEUNER:
22 Q. You've heard the question, Mr. Husic.
23 A. Your Honours, I cannot confirm whether it goes for the same
24 soldiers or some other soldiers, first of all, because it goes for reports
25 originating from different units.
1 Another thing I would like to point your attention to is an
2 element which may be of importance, and that is that we are dealing with
3 information that was still being verified. It says here they are still
4 being verified.
5 Another thing. It is stated here: "It is estimated by us," which
6 is not a statement, it is part and parcel of our work.
7 And another thing that must be borne in mind, and we saw it at one
8 place, that everything was based on statements by prisoners of war, so
9 first of all we have to establish when they were questioned, and this is
10 part of the reports. And what they can tell us are just information that
11 they provided, so we must take into account the value of the source of
12 such information, and we must ask ourselves the question: What are the
13 estimating powers of a common soldier or an officer which prevailed at the
14 time when these statements were taken? And what we did with our reports,
15 we drafted them a couple of days later, so we tried to understand the
16 author's intentions in stating things in their report, and we must take
17 into account the overall situation during combat activities, where a
18 situation changes from minute to minute, from hour to hour.
19 So this is a very intense situation, so it is impossible for me to
20 answer, with any degree of certainty, your question or to confirm
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. Let's move on.
23 MR. NEUNER:
24 Q. Could you, for the benefit of the Chamber, just explain what the
25 size of a reinforced infantry battalion, as mentioned in the document
1 marked for identification 633? What is the strength of a reinforced
2 infantry battalion, Mr. Husic?
3 A. Generally speaking, a reinforced infantry battalion is usually
4 reinforced by a company, and one company usually numbers 100 people. Of
5 course, if we're dealing with an infantry company, an infantry battalion
6 usually contains three to four companies, so we can take that it goes for
7 400 or 500 people, generally speaking, about a reinforced infantry
9 So in this concrete example, this could be the number, but we have
10 to take into account the operative word being it is our estimate. But
11 when we referred to a wider area, we are discussing an area which has the
12 capacity to house so many people, which does not have to be so at all.
13 MR. NEUNER: I have two documents left, and we'll try to complete
14 them very quickly.
15 The next document to be shown is PT2684.
16 Q. Since the signature is already shown here, who signed the
18 A. This document is signed by me.
19 MR. NEUNER: If we could go for a moment -- scroll to the
20 right-hand side of the B/C/S, because here is some handwriting in the
21 upper right-hand side. And in the translation, this handwriting is not
23 Q. Could you read out -- first of all, whose handwriting is this?
24 A. This is my handwriting.
25 Q. Could you read out what you wrote at the time?
1 A. I sent the message to the author, Mr. Mrkaljevic, Sejfulah, and it
2 can be seen from his initials. I state here "Mrki," which is his
3 nickname, "this should be followed through with a view to realisation,"
4 and then I signed it, which means that he was supposed to follow up on
5 this, meaning whether the unit that this document was sent to -- could you
6 scroll to the left, please, a bit in the B/C/S version?
7 MR. NEUNER: Please go to the left, please. The B/C/S version
8 only. Thank you.
9 A. And given that this is a document which requests for intelligence
10 and is addressed to the Command of the 37th Division, meaning that this is
11 our request sent to them to deliver intelligence, and my note to
12 Mr. Mrkaljevic is to the effect of him checking whether the Command of the
13 37th Division fulfilled the demand or request that we -- is contained in
14 this document.
15 This would be my explanation for this handwritten note.
16 Q. And if you could just elucidate on the request here. It states in
17 the document there is interest shown by representatives of the SA and MO.
18 What does "SA" and "MO" stand for?
19 A. "SA" and "MO" is acronyms for foreign armies and international
20 organisations respectively.
21 Q. So there was an interest shown by representatives of foreign
22 armies and international organisations. If I can quote here: "About the
23 current lines of advance, on other fronts, possible intentions and
24 expectations, the presence of Mujahedin and war crimes committed during
25 the liberation of Vozuca."
1 Could you explain a little bit what you were referring to here in
2 your document?
3 A. I can provide you with an opinion about this. Your
4 document -- "reference, your document, strictly confidential number ..."
5 et cetera, et cetera, at the beginning of this document, this means that
6 there exists another document sent by this division to us. And under item
7 2, which regulates the action of foreign armies and international
8 organisations in the zone of responsibility of that division, there had
9 been sent to them a note expressing their interest. And given that we are
10 dealing with an extraordinary activity, we expected them to provide us
11 with an explanation, why was this extraordinary. When referring to
12 representatives of foreign armies and international organisations, all had
13 their areas of responsibility and their liaison officers, and their
14 representatives contacted our offices in those areas.
15 In this specific case, bearing in mind what they requested, it is
16 evident that their area of interest was broader than the area where they
17 operated, and this seemed to us interesting, and this is why we requested
18 that these be explained or expanded upon or clarified, so that we would be
19 sure that there was no mistake there.
20 It is stated here that they're interested in the area of Jajce,
21 but officers coming to the 37th Division headquarters which was seated in
22 Tesanj came from Doboj. Their interest could be suggested from some other
23 side, but in any case, bearing in mind that in this case they showed
24 interest for other areas as well, not only that but also the possible
25 intentions, expectations, et cetera, this is reflected here. What is
1 referred to are El Mujahedin and war crimes committed during the
2 liberation of Vozuca. This is a tendention, because representatives of
3 foreign armies and international organisations are not those who would
4 establish that war crimes had been committed or not, and this was
5 tendentious in our view, and that is why we sought explanation, because
6 intelligence officers are obliged to relay requests without altering the
7 contents of their requests. If they said "war crimes," we relayed "war
9 So we sought clarification about these requests so that we can
10 process them, and this would be my explanation for this.
11 Q. You're sending this here to the 37th Division. Did you make also
12 internal inquiries, if any, about the document sent by the 37th Division,
13 containing the issue of Mujahedin and war crimes?
14 A. What do you mean?
15 THE INTERPRETER: "What do you mean internal," correction.
16 MR. NEUNER:
17 Q. With "internal", I meant within the 3rd Corps itself. You're
18 sending it to a division here; we can see from the address you list, it
19 goes to the Command of the 37th Division.
20 My question is: Did you also inquiry internally within the
21 3rd Corps itself about the validity of allegations about the presence of
22 Mujahedin and war crimes committed?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, was the 37th Division not part of the
24 3rd Corps?
25 MR. NEUNER: It was, but I'm asking whether he inquired within the
1 3rd Corps.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: But asking from the 37th Division is asking from
3 within the 3rd Corps.
4 MR. NEUNER: Sorry, I meant -- I have to clarify myself. I meant
5 within the 3rd Corps Staff, within the headquarter itself.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's much different. That's why the witness
7 doesn't understand.
8 A. I don't recall. I don't believe so, for the simple reason because
9 through this document, we are seeking from the 37th Division explanations,
10 what they wrote under item 2 of their supposed report. If you are
11 referring to the section of the document addressees, and it is stated
12 here: "Delivered to 3rd Corps," to the acknowledgment of the 3rd Corps,
13 without any obligations attached thereto, what needs to be established is
14 what were the intentions of the author. But whoever needs to do some
15 explanation is the author, and this is why we addressed this request for
16 intelligence to them and not to anybody else.
17 And another thing. Reference is being made to war crimes, but
18 this is not the only thing in the document. There are other things; the
19 relations between the ARBiH and HVO in the region of Jajce is far above
20 the responsibilities of those units which were seated in Doboj. So it is
21 indicative of a level of interest on the part of those representatives in
22 the area of Tesanj.
23 MR. NEUNER: Can I ask that the document please be admitted into
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will. Before we do so, I just want a few things
1 to be clarified here with you, Mr. Husic.
2 Did you have any knowledge of what war crimes are being referred
3 to here?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this part of -- is that the reason you were
6 asking about them, you wanted clarification about them?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't believe so, Your Honours.
8 This refers also to other things, so they verbatim asked --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand, sir, that it refers to other things,
10 but I'm just picking up one of the things that I'm interested in.
11 I want to know from you, are you trying to seek clarification also
12 about the war crimes? And if so, did you get the clarification, finally?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I requested intelligence about
14 all the things that they stated in their report. I do not recall their
15 reply, unless you show me a document that could jog my memory and allow me
16 to comment.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That answers my question. Thank you very much.
18 Okay. The document is admitted into evidence. May it please be
19 given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 637.
21 MR. NEUNER: I have one final document to show, Exhibit 394,
23 Q. Have you ever seen that book or, sorry, that page, Mr. Husic?
24 A. Yes, of course, during preparations.
25 MR. NEUNER: Could we please go to page 9 in the B/C/S version and
1 page 13 in the English version. I'm interested in entry number 59.
2 Q. And you have here in front of you, in B/C/S, the page already.
3 Could you look at the last column, please, starting with --
4 A. M'mm-hmm.
5 Q. Do you recognise any signatures?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we get page 13 of the English, please.
7 MR. NEUNER: Sorry, in B/C/S the right page was displayed, but it
8 disappeared. It was page 9.
9 Q. If you look at the fifth column -- actually, the English is not --
10 yes, now it's correct. If you look at the last column 5, whose signatures
11 are these?
12 A. The signatures are mine, starting with item 56, to 61.
13 Q. Thank you. I want you to focus on entry number 59. It says:
14 "Pass on the information that the El Mujahedin Detachment is
15 heading towards Djurica Vis ..."
16 And then it goes on.
17 A. Well, yes. What am I supposed to do? Should I read it or --
18 Q. Could you comment upon it, since this is obviously an entry made
19 by you, since you signed it?
20 A. This is an integral part of a logbook being maintained.
21 Obviously, I entered those entries containing information which, as such,
22 and it's stated here clearly. If you need explanations, I can provide
23 one, but in my opinion, this is very clear. So I wrote this in my
24 capacity as somebody who maintained this log during that specified time.
25 Q. It says next to it: "3rd Corps" --
1 MR. NEUNER: Yes, please, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to ask the witness: Who is passing
3 on the information and to whom?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we go back to the beginning,
5 what is exactly stated under column 4, because we have just a numeral 4.
6 Can we go to the explanation of the column?
7 MR. NEUNER: To assist the witness, I believe it is page 2 or 3 of
8 this logbook in B/C/S he wants to look at. It's page 2, actually, where
9 there is a kind of headline for column 4. Yes. And in English, it is
10 also page 2.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So it's stated here
12 "Sender/Recipient" which means the upper reference would be the source or
13 author of information, or whoever relayed the information, and the lower
14 reference is the recipient, to whom it was passed on.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: And can we go back then to entry 59. Let's see
16 who's upper and who's lower.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This came from the commander,
18 relayed to the Communications Centre of the El-M Detachment, which means
19 the El Mujahedin Detachment.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. How did Mr. -- How did the 3rd Corps commander give this piece of
22 information to you?
23 A. I can't really recall. We sat in the same area on the same
24 premises, so if I was keeping this log, I was supposed to be listening to
25 what is going on.
1 Q. You said you were --
2 A. It is possible that somebody else relayed that information, but it
3 was said commander ordered that this be so, and this is how I entered it.
4 Q. You said, "We were at the same location." Which location are you
5 referring to? You said "same premises." I apologise.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The transcript says "same area, on the same
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I could see, this was
9 maintained at the forward command post, and this is what I refer to.
10 MR. NEUNER:
11 Q. What's the name of this forward command post?
12 A. I can confirm if it's written at the beginning of this document.
13 Q. You wish to see the first page?
14 MR. NEUNER: Could we have the first page shown to --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't say here.
16 MR. NEUNER:
17 Q. Mentioning is made in your entry of Djurica Vis. Do you know what
18 Djurica Vis is?
19 A. Djurica Vis is probably a name of an area or of a location.
20 Q. Would you find this location on the map next to you?
21 A. I can try to do so.
22 MR. NEUNER: Yes, please. If the usher could please assist. Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
24 MR. NEUNER:
25 Q. You have just encircled Djurica Vis. And if I'm not mistaken, the
1 number "6" was given already. Shouldn't it be number "7" now?
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Yes. You mark a number "7" next to it. Thank you.
4 If I could please tender the map in evidence, and the Prosecution
5 would then have no further questions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: The map is admitted in evidence. May it please be
7 given an exhibit number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 638.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Yes, Madame Judge.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question. Could you
12 tell us what this means, what you have written at the end of paragraph 59
13 of this document? "Be very careful, please." What do you mean by that?
14 Could we see again the English version and the B/C/S version of
15 this paragraph.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the cover page is still
17 displayed at my screen. Could you please go to the page where we can read
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for --
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] This was the second page, if I
21 remember, or the third page. "But be careful", be prudent.
22 [In English] "Be careful."
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Relay or pass on the information
24 that the El Mujahedin Detachment is to be heading towards Djurica Vis,
25 where there is no one, according to the information provided by the 2nd
1 Corps, but be careful." Which would mean -- and these are not my words, I
2 just relayed that. And that would mean that there are still no accurate
3 information or verified information whether there is somebody there or
4 not, but that the 2nd Corps claims that there is no one there. And this
5 is what --
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Witness, who is to be careful?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The El Mujahid Detachment should be
9 careful. This is the recipient, and these are the people who are to carry
10 out this order.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I guess this is a convenient time to take the
13 break. We'll come back at quarter to 6.00.
14 Court adjourned.
15 --- Recess taken at 5.18 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 5.50 p.m.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry about that. It was for reasons beyond our
19 Madam Vidovic.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Husic. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and today
23 I will be examining you on behalf of the Defence of General Rasim Delic.
24 You can answer with a simple "yes" or "no" to most of my
25 questions, since that is the nature of cross-examination. However, if you
1 believe it to be important to add something or clarify, feel free to do
3 The only thing I'd like to ask you is to allow a pause between my
4 question and your answers so that the interpreters could finish with
5 interpreting my questions.
6 Did you understand me?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Thank you. You told us that you graduated from the Military
9 Academy for Land Forces in Belgrade in 1990; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then you told us that you completed a specialised course from the
12 intelligence domain; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. It was a school.
14 Q. I see, a school. Thank you. You completed that school just
15 before the war; one could say so?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. Before the war or, rather, before you began working in the field
18 of intelligence, you had no previous working experience on such jobs; is
19 that correct?
20 A. No, until then I had not worked in the field of intelligence.
21 Q. When you began working in that field, you made use of the
22 knowledge you had from the education you gained before the war; is that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. However, I would be correct in saying that your co-workers within
1 the Intelligence Department of the 3rd Corps lacked such knowledge?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. For example, Mr. Sejfulah Mrkaljevic, what was his profession?
4 A. I don't know exactly what his profession was. I do know, however,
5 that before the war he worked in a mine.
6 Q. The officers of subordinate commands, and I mean the division and
7 brigade commands, also lacked specialised knowledge in the field of
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. I wanted to ask you about Mr. Hajderhodzic, who was the
11 intelligence officer of the 35th Division. He had no military knowledge,
12 did he?
13 A. I cannot confirm whether he had any military knowledge. As
14 regards intelligence, as far as I know, he had no education in that field.
15 I know that before the war, he worked in Krivaja, in Zavidovici.
16 Q. Your Intelligence Department comprised between 10 and 12 people
17 during 1995; is that correct?
18 A. As far as I remember, that is correct for that period.
19 Q. Out of those people, and this figure of 10 to 12 people,
20 Mr. Husic, I found it in the statement you gave to the Prosecutor, and
21 that is why I'm using it, do you recall that that is what you told the
23 A. Yes, I do, but also I wasn't sure at the time. It is far too
24 precise for me to be able to say how many people were at any given time,
25 but I presume that the number was such.
1 Q. Thank you. Out of the 10 or 12, you were the only one who had
2 completed the Military Academy; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The rest of the members of your department had no military
5 knowledge whatsoever; is that correct?
6 A. It is not. Some did. One of them was about to complete the
7 Military Academy. He was in his final year. And another had completed
8 the Military High School. In any case, there were but a few of them who
9 had any previous military education or background. Most of them did not.
10 Q. Thank you for the clarification. However, they had no specialist
11 training from the field of intelligence and reconnaissance; is that
13 A. Yes, it is. I talked to those people, and they told me that no
14 one had any previous experience before the war from that field.
15 Q. The General Staff and the Command of the 3rd Corps tried to
16 organise -- set up certain courses for training. However, that proved to
17 be insufficient; is that correct?
18 A. We did what we could. One cannot become an expert overnight. In
19 any case, I believe it was insufficient.
20 Q. Thank you. Would you agree that this lack of knowledge and
21 experience had a significant impact on the quality of work of the
22 department? I have in mind the lack of knowledge in the field of
24 A. Well, yes, we did what our abilities allowed us to.
25 Q. That lack of experience had impact on the use of how to deal with
1 sources and the overall process of handling intelligence data?
2 A. Yes, certainly.
3 Q. The very Department for Intelligence, during 1994 and 1995, worked
4 with difficulty not only because you were short of professionals, but also
5 you were short of equipment and means needed for that type of work; is
6 that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The Intelligence Department included both the intelligence and
9 reconnaissance field; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, although one cannot really separate the two the way you did.
11 Q. I wanted to ask you this: Gathering intelligence data depended on
12 the type of reconnaissance or surveillance of enemy positions and units?
13 A. Yes. Reconnoitering is one of the basic ways of gathering
14 intelligence information.
15 Q. Gathering intelligence data also included the use of data gained
16 through interrogation -- interrogating POWs?
17 A. Yes, POWs are certainly a very important source of intelligence
19 Q. You said that they are an important source of intelligence
20 information. Would you agree that this important source of information,
21 if one has access to it, is always registered? I mean to say that if
22 there was an interview with a POW and some information was gained, that is
23 put into writing?
24 A. Yes, certainly. In all reports, such information was supposed to
25 be included. There was a template, and one of them had to deal with the
1 sources of information. Otherwise, such information would be considered
2 incomplete. If such information came from POWs, one had to stress that it
3 was based on a statement of this and that POW.
4 Q. Such information gained by interrogating POWs was forwarded for
5 perusal to the organs of your own command; is that correct?
6 A. Yes. Within the chain that we were a part of, we were obliged to
8 Q. And then what would follow would be the superior command?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then the adjacent units?
11 A. Yes, but not always, in case it had nothing to do with them.
12 Q. Yes. So you would send such information to adjacent units if it
13 was of importance for their assessment; is that correct?
14 A. We would send information to adjacent units irrespective of the
15 type of source, if we thought that such information had to do with them or
16 that it may assist them, in order to get a fuller picture of the
18 Q. Would you agree that the data stemming from POWs, if verified, was
19 an important source, was important information, in order to assess the
20 situation with the enemy forces?
21 A. Yes, generally speaking. It needn't be so, per se, because maybe
22 they wouldn't be able to hand over any information of that nature that
23 would be of importance. It all depends on the type of POW. There is a
24 great difference between a soldier and an officer, and it also depends on
25 the service they came from or the jobs they held.
1 Q. What I wanted to ask you is this: It was always the important
2 information that was recorded?
3 A. Yes, certainly.
4 Q. Such information was taken -- or would be taken into consideration
5 when planning combat activities; is that so?
6 A. Yes, but in any case it depended on the decision of the commander.
7 Q. Yes. I am right in thinking that the processing of POWs was
8 something that superior commands paid special attention to?
9 A. Could you perhaps put it more plainly?
10 Q. Superior commands, meaning the General Staff and the Corps
11 Command, demanded the cooperation of military intelligence services and
12 intelligence organs when collating and gathering information gained
13 through POWs; am I correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Mr. Husic, at this moment I am putting general questions to you
16 about the issue of POWs. However, I will be more specific when I revert
17 to certain documents.
18 I would like to show Exhibit 626 to the witness at this moment,
20 Please have a look at the document. Can you see that this
21 document that came from the General Staff of the Army of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina and is dated the 31st of August, 1995, referred to the
23 processing of prisoners of war? It instructs, and it seems that it was
24 sent to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 5th Corps. Please have a look at
25 item 1.
1 You were familiar, within the Corps and generally within the
2 units, that when processing prisoners of war, one had to abide by the
3 provisions of the international laws of war?
4 A. Yes, we had to abide by that.
5 Q. As far as you know, was such instruction forwarded to the
6 lower-ranking units?
7 A. I believe so.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we can put this
9 document away, since it has already been admitted.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document will be put away.
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I'd like you to have a look at the document shown to you today by
13 the Prosecutor; it is Exhibit 630.
14 Mr. Husic, the Prosecutor showed you this document today, and you
15 said that this was probably a proposal. I would just like to clarify that
17 Do you agree with me that this would be a combat document?
18 A. This should be an attachment.
19 Q. Yes, an attachment to an order for combat operation.
20 A. Yes, and so it says.
21 Q. Do you agree that in the left-hand corner, there should be a
22 signature, that of General Mahmuljin?
23 A. I said already that this was probably a proposal, a working
24 version, because there is no signature and no time period, and perhaps
25 some other elements are lacking.
1 Q. There is a name on the last page.
2 Could we please see the last page of the document in both
4 It says here: "Assistant, Captain First Class Edin Husic." Not
5 only that this document was not approved by General Mahmuljin, but even
6 you did not sign this proposal?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. This is, therefore, simply a working version which never became an
9 official document; is that correct?
10 A. Since it was not signed, it is not a valid document. That is
12 Q. Please, under item 2, the Prosecutor indicated -- please take a
13 look at item 2, and this would be the previous page of the English
14 version. I'm sorry for not noticing that the pages do not match. So the
15 previous page in the English version, may it be shown, please.
16 I would like to point your attention to item 2. Here it says:
17 "The focus of intelligence support should be made along the
18 axis ..." et cetera.
19 First of all, I would like you to explain to the Bench what "focus
20 of intelligence support" means. What does this stand for?
21 A. "Focus of intelligence support" means the axis along which one
22 should deploy our forces, in terms of making that area the most
23 interesting one in intelligence terms. So this indicates - and it should
24 be made evident from this attachment - that our forces should be focused
25 along that axis. So special attention should be paid to that area.
1 Q. Well, now, given that this is a working version of this document,
2 do you agree that this axis, Svinjasnica-Paljenik-Stog-Miljevici-Vozuca,
3 did not have to be included in the document that was ultimately adopted as
4 an official document, that this could have been altered in different ways?
5 A. Of course, yes. Given that this is a working draft, any part of
6 the document may be subject to changes, to alterations.
7 Q. So you agree that the working version of this document should not
8 be the basis for us establishing that this was really the focus of
9 intelligence support of the 3rd Corps along that axis and during that
11 A. I can really confirm such a thing only if a document approved,
12 signed, was shown to me. And on the basis of such a document, I could
13 verify the actual axis. And since this is a working document, this
14 doesn't really need to be so.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 Your Honours, may we put this document away, and now I would like
17 the witness to be shown Exhibit 564.
18 Q. Mr. Husic, first of all, please take a look at this document. It
19 could be said that this was a document by the Intelligence Department of
20 the 3rd Corps, dated 11th of September, 1995, as a warning delivered to
21 unit commands, to their intelligence organs.
22 Could we scroll the document down so that the witness can see the
23 portion of it bearing the signature.
24 Mr. Husic, could you please take a look at this document and tell
25 me whether you recognise this signature?
1 A. I can verify that this is my signature.
2 Q. Well, please, if we can zoom out so that we see the whole
3 document, so that we can elicit an explanation to what this note "All
4 Commands" means. That means to all subordinate units' commands or to
5 commands specified here?
6 A. It says to unit commands, and then in the lower portion it is
7 indicated which unit commands should have this document delivered to.
8 Q. Well, thank you. It can be seen that it was delivered to the
9 35th Division. Do you agree that you delivered this warning to the
10 intelligence organ of the 35th Division to the effect that they are
11 obliged to consolidate those reports to all their units, including the
12 El Mujahedin Detachment and the 2nd Manoeuvre Battalion?
13 A. Yes, it says so, that they are to consolidate in their report the
14 reports of all units.
15 Q. In connection with this, I would like to ask you this: At the
16 beginning of the document, it is said that some units failed to provide
17 intelligence, and in the last sentence of the document it is insisted that
18 information, including the El Mujahedin Detachment, should be delivered.
19 Please, it is correct, is it not, that you did not receive reports until
20 the date specified here and that this was the reason -- I mean the 11th
21 September, and that this was the reason for you insisting that the
22 35th Division consolidate and include in their report the reports from the
23 El Mujahedin Detachment?
24 A. As can be seen from this document, the 35th Division did deliver
25 their report. This can be gleaned from the first sentence. However, at
1 the end of the sentence, we warn the 35th Division they should consolidate
2 reports from other units, which probably means that in their
3 previously-submitted report, they failed to include the reports from the
4 other two units which were at the time subordinate to them, and they were
5 under their command and control. And this is why this warning was sent.
6 Apparently they had not delivered. Had they delivered, this
7 warning would not have been sent.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we put this document
9 away, please.
10 I would like the witness to be shown document D552, please.
11 Q. Mr. Husic, for the record may I state that this is a document of
12 the 3rd Corps Command --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- dated 13 of September, 1995. Can this document be scrolled
15 down so that we can see the signature.
16 Do you recognise this signature?
17 A. This is the signature of the then-commander, Brigadier Sakib
19 Q. Well, as you can see from the title, this document deals with the
20 treatment of captured documentation and war prisoners. I would like to
21 attraction your attention to item 3 of this document. And since you
22 worked on intelligence, this paragraph makes reference to such work. This
23 section stipulates that interrogation of war prisoners should be conducted
24 by senior officers from intelligence bodies as a priority and then by the
25 military security bodies. Do you agree that this practice has been
1 ordered by the 3rd Corps Command to the subordinated units?
2 A. On the basis of this order, yes, it was.
3 Q. Well, and since you worked in 3rd Corps, you had occasion to apply
4 commanders' orders in this respect. I would like to ask you whether this
5 was something that was required and had to be abided by on the part of the
6 lower commands.
7 A. Yes, and this was the reason why we sent this order. But may I
8 provide a comment pertaining to item 3?
9 For us, it was important that first intelligence officers conduct
10 the interviews because data may become obsolete and unusable or partly
11 unusable, and this is why we wanted to achieve, through this order, to
12 give priority to intelligence organs. And for security, military security
13 organs to take over afterwards. This was the purpose of this paragraph
14 within this order.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Your Honours, may this document be tendered 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 639.
20 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] May we show Exhibit 629 to the
21 witness, please.
22 Q. You may recall this is a document shown to you by the Prosecutor,
23 and in connection with this you said -- as far as I can recall, you said
24 that you signed this document. This is a document of the Intelligence
25 Department of the 3rd Corps Command, dated 27th of May, 1995, and concerns
1 information on enemy.
2 I would like to ask you this: Please explain this to us. This is
3 reflective of the practice of you delivering to the adjacent units some
4 information for their use, and in this case, this is the 2nd Corps; is
5 that so?
6 A. Yes. As you can see, we had our number here, so this was a usual
7 practice. It was not important just to hold on to some information. It
8 was very important to send information and intelligence to others so that
9 they can use them to the extent they could.
10 Q. Mr. Husic, the Prosecutor asked you something about a portion of
11 this document, and now I'm going to ask you about the portion of the
12 document under item 2, saying that unofficial information claims that the
13 El-M Detachment captured aggressor soldiers and a tank. What I'm
14 interested in is, for you to tell me is: What was the practice and what
15 was the treatment of unofficial information, what "unofficial information"
16 meant to you and to adjacent units?
17 A. "Unofficial information" was unverified information, unvalidated.
18 By its very nature, it is unofficial. Whoever wrote this may have
19 obtained such information from a source presumed not to be capable of
20 being in possession of such information, and this is why it was stated in
21 this way.
22 Q. So when it is stated in such documents that information is
23 unverified or unofficial, this means that such information is not verified
24 and is not credible; am I right in saying so?
25 A. Yes.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document has
2 already been tendered, and can we have it put away.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You asked what I think is a very important
4 question, but I don't remember. It got clouded with other things that you
5 said later, so it was not answered. Your question was:
6 "What was the practice and what was the treatment of unofficial
8 I would like to hear an answer to that.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Husic, did you understand what His Honour asked you?
11 A. I've understood.
12 Your Honours, all unverified, unofficial information had to be
13 subject to scrutiny, which doesn't mean that one was always successful in
14 verification. It happened that an information came from a single source
15 and it was verified as coming from a single source, which does not mean if
16 information is available, that you can verify it in all cases. But as
17 such, it holds a meaning or a significance, or information can be
18 important even if you know that something is not going on. So if somebody
19 fails to provide a report, it means that they failed in their duty, but if
20 they report that there's nothing to report, then we know what -- where we
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I just want to follow up my question.
23 My question then is: Was this particular information scrutinised
24 and verified? And if so, what was the result?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In respect of this specific piece of
1 information, I cannot recall whether it was or was not verified,
2 scrutinised. Usual practice would dictate that in the subsequent report,
3 the unit were supposed to confirm or reject such information, or maybe we
4 would seek additional clarification or verification. But on the basis of
5 this document, this cannot be determined, and my memory does not allow me
6 to give you a specific or precise answer to this particular question.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 Madam Vidovic, you may continue.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Let me follow up on this, Mr. Husic, on this question by
11 His Honour.
12 Mr. Husic, it's correct, is it not, that the duty of a
13 subordinated unit that forwards an unofficial, unverified information, to
14 verify it?
15 A. Yes, of course. They are supposed to follow up on it, but you
16 cannot seek that they do so in all cases. If they report such
17 information, then it was only logical for them to continue, because this
18 was their job.
19 Q. In connection with this, I'd like to ask you as follows: If they
20 were to obtain verified information, that they would be duty-bound to
21 forward it to the Corps Command; am I right in saying so?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please have
24 this document put away.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: It may be put away.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like the witness to see
2 Exhibit 554.
3 Could we zoom in on the first part of the document, please.
4 Q. Mr. Husic, this is a document of the Intelligence Department of
5 the 3rd Corps Command, dated the 24th of July, 1995. It's a report sent
6 to the forward command post of the 3rd Corps at Orahovo, to Edin Husic.
7 This is you, is it not?
8 A. Yes.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we scroll down, please, so as
10 to be able to see the signature block.
11 Q. It is signed by Captain Mrkaljevic, Sejfulah. Let us go back to
12 the top, please, in both versions for Their Honours to be able to see.
13 I wanted to ask you this, Mr. Husic: This was the 24th July 1995.
14 It seems that you were at the forward command post at Orahovo. Do you
15 remember whether, on this day, the 24th of July, 1995, you were at
16 Orahovo, and what is Orahovo, first and foremost?
17 A. It states here the forward command post of the 3rd Corps; Orahovo
18 is the location. Whether at that very time I was there, I truly cannot
19 say. However, this document states that I sent it from that place, and
20 I'd say this confirms your thesis.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does the document say you sent it or does the
22 document say it is sent to you? I see it's to Edin Husic, personally, and
23 I thought it comes from somebody other than yourself.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are correct, Your Honour. It
25 states that this report was sent to me, personally. The abbreviation and
1 slash "N/R" would actually mean "Attention." "Edin Husic," that would be
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, probably there was a
4 misinterpretation. If I may be of assistance.
5 Q. This is what you said, Witness, did you not?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was going by what I saw in the English
8 translation. It said:
9 "However, this document states that I sent it from that place, and
10 I would say this confirms your thesis."
11 That's line 8 to 9, page 78.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We've
13 clarified that.
14 Q. Witness, do you agree that this document arrived by telegraph on
15 the 24th of July, 1995, at 1946? This is when the document was processed?
16 A. Yes, this is what it says.
17 Q. Please have a look at the bottom of the document.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we scroll down, please.
19 Please have a look at the part of the document beginning
20 with: "Contact." Could we please scroll down or, rather, go to page 3 of
21 the English. That is fine.
22 Q. Witness, can you read the part beginning: "Contact from a
23 superior from the El Mujahedin Detachment with the aim to take possession
24 of certain documentation ..." and to the end?
25 A. The entire passage?
1 Q. Yes, but to yourself.
2 A. I've read it.
3 Q. Do you agree with me that this document justifies that the
4 commander of the 3rd Corps approved that contact should be made with the
5 El Mujahedin Detachment, and that was asked of Captain Mrkaljevic, in
6 order to try and establish contact with prisoners at the camp of the
7 El Mujahedin Detachment? Does it say so?
8 A. Yes, but that calls for me reading the entire paragraph.
9 Q. Please do so.
10 A. I've read it.
11 Q. Do you remember this telegram, do you recall it?
12 A. No, I'm not certain.
13 Q. Concerning the contents of the telegram, and I mean the access to
14 POWs on the 24th of July, 1995, as regards that, did you have any
15 conversation with Mr. Sejfulah Mrkaljevic?
16 A. I truly cannot remember.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] You cannot remember.
18 Your Honours, I would like to invoke the testimony of the 10th of
19 October, 2007, page 3892 [Realtime transcript read in error "8392"], lines
20 18 to 21. I will quote:
21 "Mr. Mrkaljevic, if someone were to say the following ..."
22 I'd like you to listen to what I'm about to read and I would like
23 to ask you for your comment. Would it be true and correct:
24 "In conversation with Mr. Edin Husic, he suggested I should not
25 raise the issue of captured soldiers of the 1st Prnjavor Brigade, since
1 another service was working on the issue, meaning that I did not report to
2 the commander on the issue of prisoners."
3 Is it correct that you suggested to the author of this document
4 here -- or rather do you remember whether you ever suggested anything of
5 that nature to anyone?
6 A. No, I do not recall that. Why would I suggest to someone not to
7 do something if he had already been tasked with something? That is one
9 Another thing, formally speaking, I had no right to interfere with
10 the commander's decision. In this specific case, irrespective of what I
11 can remember or not, he personally was tasked with that. Neither was it
12 my practice, nor do I do that today or ever, to interfere or change a
13 commander's decision.
14 The person tasked with something is obliged to see that through
15 the way he was tasked. I never did such a thing.
16 Q. In other words, even had you wanted to, you wouldn't have been
17 able to change the commander's decision?
18 A. Yes. I had no right to.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, just so that we don't get lost later
20 when we want to check your reference, the transcript says "page 8392". It
21 should be "3892".
22 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] "38".
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, the transcript said "83", so I just want to
24 make sure that when later we read this, we go to the correct page to get
25 the information.
1 Thank you very much. You may proceed.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. The 10th of October,
3 2007, page 3892, lines 18 through 21.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. In relation to this, another question, Mr. Mrkaljevic -- sorry,
7 Mr. Husic. How far is Orahovo from this area of Zavidovici? How far is
8 it from Zavidovici?
9 A. Orahovo and the area of Sarajevo, from Zavidovici, I'd say about
10 200 kilometres.
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, what in Sarajevo now, Mr. Husic? Is it the
13 distance between Orahovo and Zavidovici or is it the distance between
14 Sarajevo and Zavidovici? I'm sorry to do this to you, Madam Vidovic, but
15 we've got to get clarity.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Orahovo is far closer
17 to Sarajevo than to another location. I don't know whether the distance
18 was exactly 200 kilometres. It was my approximation, having in mind that
19 from Sarajevo to Zavidovici, it is around 200 kilometres, if that may be
20 of assistance.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is not of assistance. The question put to you
23 "How far is Orahovo from Zavidovici?"
24 Just don't mention Sarajevo.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For sure, it's over 100 kilometres.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does that help, Madam Vidovic?
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it does, Your Honour. Thank
6 Q. I wanted to ask you about certain events in September 1995. We
7 saw some documents, I showed some of them to you, which demanded the
8 gathering of information about POWs and their transfer to the 3rd Corps.
9 You confirmed that such information was registered and forwarded for
10 further use; is that so?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Provided that the Intelligence Department of the 3rd Corps
13 received information on a large number of POWs, say 50, the department
14 would register that and would demand access to those prisoners, would it
16 A. Yes.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can show Exhibit 636 to
18 the witness.
19 Q. Before that, Mr. Mrkaljevic -- sorry, Mr. Husic, I'd like to ask
20 you this: Did you, in September 1995, ever -- and when I say "you," I
21 don't mean you, personally, but the department -- did you in any way
22 receive any information on 50 POWs? Can you recall any such thing?
23 A. I truly cannot.
24 Q. Very well. We have this document before us. It was shown to you
25 today by the Prosecutor. Please focus on it. It is a document sent by
1 the 3rd Corps Command, its Intelligence Department, dated the 12th of
2 September, 1995.
3 Let us scroll down to the bottom to see the signature block.
4 Do you remember this document, Mr. Husic? You were able to recall
5 that it was you who signed it.
6 A. Yes, this is my signature.
7 Q. You will also recall that you were questioned by the Prosecutor
8 about the contents, and I have a question relating to that.
9 On the 12th of September, you wrote:
10 "Currently, we have four POWs being processed."
11 Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, so it says.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we have the English scrolled up.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] It is page 2, Your Honour, in the
16 Q. In other words, had you had information on that day, that there
17 were more prisoners of war, you would have mentioned a number, would you
19 A. I believe so. We would put in the data we had. That would be
20 reflected in the report.
21 Q. The Prosecutor put to you one part of it which had to do with
22 groups of Chetniks numbered between 40 to 60 from the 14th Light Brigade.
23 You remember, I hope, that were supposed to be in the area of Kablovac,
24 Prokop, and Stoska Kamenica. You were marking those on the map and
25 numbering them. Do you remember that? There is also another part --
1 another group, I believe, mentioned here. I believe they were called
2 "Cigini Panteri". I'd like to ask you the following. It says here
3 Cigini Panteri are in the following locations: They used the wooded part
4 towards Stosnica village, trying to pull out towards Kablovac.
5 Mr. Husic, did you ever at any moment until the end of the war
6 find out that any of these people or any of the groups or, rather, 40 to
7 60 soldiers from the 14th Brigade, or the Cigini Panteri, that a group of
8 such people was captured; did you ever find out such a thing during the
9 war while you were working on these tasks?
10 A. I truly do not remember such a thing. The information contained
11 therein states the same thing you told me. This is what the POWs stated.
12 Whether that was correct or not, we did not know; we merely forwarded
13 information to the users. I cannot recall that we received any
14 information on such a large number of soldiers, concerning their fate or
15 anything of that nature.
16 Q. You agree such an information may indicate that they met with
17 different fates, that they had succeeded in pulling out of this
18 encirclement; is that so?
19 A. Of course, it can mean that, but as you can see in this report, we
20 clearly stated that the probable intentions were to use this wooded area,
21 but also it confirms that the information that we obtained from this
22 source allows us to make estimates but not to be sure or certain.
23 Q. Also, it was possible that those groups of people got killed
24 fighting members of units of the 2nd or 3rd Corps of the Army of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina or anybody else; am I right?
1 A. Of course. It was equally possible that they withdraw or as
2 possible as the possibility that this information is not true. Anything
3 is possible.
4 Q. Please, if you had received a report on the capturing of a group
5 of 40 to 60 soldiers, would you have demanded an interview to be conducted
6 with those people so that you could obtain intelligence? Let me ask you
7 this again.
8 A. Of course, this is regulated in the order, and this is why that
9 order that we saw was sent during that period. I believe the document we
10 saw a couple of minutes ago, for us this was an important source of data,
11 irrespective of the validity or invalidity of such data. What was
12 important is to have data.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 May we put this document away, Your Honours, and I think that I
15 will have enough time to show just one document to the witness.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document will be put away. I guess it's an
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is, Your Honours.
19 May we show D554 to the witness, please.
20 It seems that this is also a 3rd Corps Command's document, its
21 Intelligence Department. The date is the 14th -- the 16th of September,
22 1995, entitled "Notification about the enemy," addressed to the Command of
23 the 37th Division.
24 Q. Could you please take a look at the signature block.
25 Could we scroll down to it, please.
1 Are you able to recognise this signature, Mr. Husic?
2 A. I'm not certain, not at all.
3 Q. Well, it seems to state "MS/A." Could this indicate the author?
4 A. It should be "MS/E" which would be "Sejfulah Mrkaljevic."
5 Q. Well, can we scroll up to the top of the document. And
6 Sejfulah Mrkaljevic is your associate, a member of your staff in the
7 Intelligence Department? Is that the person we discussed a couple of
8 minutes ago?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I would like to ask you this: You probably did not speak to all
11 prisoners of war, and you did not perform all the tasks in your
12 Intelligence Department, but nevertheless I'd like to ask you this: There
13 is information about one of the prisoners of war, Banovic, Novica, there
14 are some vital statistics of his, and the next sentence says:
15 "When captured, he was in possession of an automatic rifle and he
16 was wounded on the left upper arm."
17 I would like to ask you about a principle. Please, do you agree
18 that documents recorded the situation and the status of that prisoner of
19 war, that he was captured, wounded; do you agree with that?
20 A. This document shows that.
21 Q. Do you agree that it was important to describe that status?
22 A. I agree, was this may influence his statement to us, so to speak.
23 Q. You mean it can influence the accuracy of the data he was about to
24 provide; is that what you meant? Could you expound on that?
25 A. Yes. If he's wounded, he may be in the state of shock, which
1 means that he'd be able to provide a partial statement or the statement
2 provided under shock, in a state of shock, could be -- could prompt us to
3 doubt the data provided by him. I believe that this would be important
4 from that respect.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Can this document be tendered into evidence, please.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me just get clarification before we go.
8 The very first sentence of this document, sir, says:
9 "In the initial questioning of soldiers of the so-called RS
10 Army ..."
11 I'm not sure. Can you tell us whether we also have the status of
12 the rest of the soldiers that were captured, because this seems to be
13 talking about the status of one soldier only.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's stated here, "in the
15 initial questioning" or the first questioning, this could mean that those
16 persons were going to be interrogated again. And what is contained there
17 is what we obtained as data during the first or initial questioning, and
18 this is supposed to mean that.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, but if this document is giving
20 us the status of Banovic, Novica, shouldn't it give us the status of all
21 the soldiers that have been captured?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I may agree with you
23 about this. If no status is described, as pertains the others, then it
24 may have been left out. Maybe this was emphasised because it was
25 important for his status. I don't know what the condition of the others
1 was. I would have to read the entire document to be able to provide a
2 precise answer to the question that you put to me.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I thought you said, and I may be wrong here, I
4 thought you said that it would be practice to tabulate the status of
5 prisoners of war because that is important to the reliability of the
6 information you extract from them.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In connection with this, I can only
8 partly agree with you.
9 We did not record their condition or status. What was important
10 to us was information from them, because they were not within the area of
11 our competence. But as far as our practice was, one should read the
12 entire document so that we can obtain this piece of information. I cannot
13 claim, nor can I recall, that in the Intelligence Department we maintained
14 records on the condition of people, whether they were wounded or not, and
15 in this respect I really cannot confirm. And this is the only explanation
16 I can give you.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. But then if, then, this
18 document doesn't tell us anything about the status of the other soldiers,
19 what then can -- what conclusion can we draw in terms of the practice that
20 you referred to, the practice of recording the status of the people?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably you have not
22 understood me well. I did not say that we had a practice of maintaining
23 records of the condition of such people.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... I apologise. If
25 you didn't say so, I apologise. Thank you so much.
1 Yes, Judge.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Sir, aside from the Intelligence
3 Section or Department, there was also the Security Department that was in
4 charge of the witnesses; right? Or, rather, of the POWs.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Is it possible that the
7 Information Department was registering data such as these data concerning,
8 let's say, prisoner Banovic, Novica, only because they had gotten
9 information from that prisoner and that the information was not registered
10 according to which your department did not have information regarding
11 those prisoners?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that presumption is possible.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
15 please be given an exhibit number.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 640.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
18 Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one minute so I
20 can be finished with this document.
21 Let us clarify something.
22 Q. Witness, you mentioned several witnesses [as interpreted] -- or
23 this document mentions several witnesses [as interpreted]. Do you agree
24 that you recently saw a document referring to four other prisoners of war;
25 do you recall that?
1 A. Yes, I do recall that, but really we cannot make the distinction
2 between the first and the other, because in the previous document that we
3 saw, we -- that document does not contain the names and surnames of the
4 prisoners of war. This one does. Therefore, I cannot confirm whether
5 this -- these two documents refer to the same people.
6 Q. That's understandable. But this report to the 37th Division makes
7 mention of the data provided by this Novica Banovic. The other people
8 referred to in this document are not prisoners of war. They are people he
9 provides information about. Could you go through this document and
10 clarify this or confirm this?
11 A. In that case, I would like you to give me some time to go through
12 this document. And another thing. The copy that I'm being shown in
13 Bosnian is not very legible, at least at the level of resolution shown
14 here. If you could give me some time to read the entire document, I will
15 be in a position to answer your question.
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we can revisit this
17 document at any rate, should we do it now or later, given that I'm not
18 finished with my cross-examination. I'm sure to be re-examining this
19 document, because I've not finished dealing with it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I would suggest we deal with it at the next
21 session. And do remember, Madam Vidovic, based on what you said just now
22 to the witness, that my questions were based on the very first sentence in
23 the document, and not the people that are being talked about in the
25 Do you suggest that this is a convenient time?
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, we are not done with you. We will ask you to
3 come back on Thursday, the 25th of October, at 9.00 in the morning in
4 Courtroom II, not this courtroom, Courtroom II. This is because tomorrow
5 is a United Nations holiday. We are not working.
6 For now, you are excused. You may stand down until the 25th of
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may stand down, sir.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner. You wanted to say something.
12 MR. NEUNER: It has disappeared in the meantime from the
13 transcript. I believe it was on page 91, lines 19 and 20, the witness has
14 given an answer [sic], and it was twice referred to "witnesses." I don't
15 speak B/C/S, so I didn't understand what the witness was saying in
16 original, but maybe the transcript or the audio can be revisited. Probably
17 the witness meant to say "prisoners of war," but it was twice noted
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Page 91?
20 MR. NEUNER: I'm sorry, page 90, lines 19 and 20.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, my learned colleague
22 Neuner. It's obviously a reference to prisoners of war, Your Honours.
23 MR. NEUNER: I assumed so, too, but I didn't understand the
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, it says:
2 "That document does not contain the names and surnames of the
3 prisoners of war."
4 That's what it says:
5 "This one does. Therefore, I cannot confirm whether these
6 documents refer to the same people."
7 Is that what you're referring to, Mr. Neuner?
8 MR. NEUNER: My problem is at this late stage, I cannot stop the
9 transcript here. One second, please.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, there is a transcript you can control if you
11 have two screens.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend
13 Neuner is trying to point your attention to page 90, lines 16 and 17, and
14 16 -- and it says:
15 "You mentioned several prisoners ... "
16 And what is reflected in the transcript is "witnesses."
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what you are saying, that those "witnesses"
18 should be replaced with "prisoners of war"? Okay.
19 Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic. Thank you, Mr. Neuner.
20 The Court stands adjourned to Thursday, the 25th of October, at
21 9.00 in Courtroom II.
22 Court adjourned.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.12 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of
25 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.