1 Friday, 11 April 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning to everybody in and around the
8 Madam Registrar, could you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
10 everyone in the courtroom.
11 This is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus
12 Rasim Delic.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Could we have the appearances for the day, starting with the
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Good morning, Your Honours, to my learned colleagues from the
18 Defence, General Delic, and everyone in and around the courtroom.
19 Daryl Mundis and Matthias Neuner for the Prosecution, assisted by
20 Alma Imamovic, our case manager.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 And for the Defence.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Good
24 morning to my colleagues from the Office of the Prosecutor, and everyone
25 in and around the courtroom. I'm Vasvija Vidovic and Nicholas Robson for
1 the Defence of General Delic, with our assistant, Lana Deljkic.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
3 And good morning to you, Mr. Loncaric.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. You deserve a special greeting.
6 Just to remind you that you made a declaration at the beginning
7 of your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else
8 but the truth. You are still bound by that declaration. Okay.
9 All right, Mr. Neuner.
10 WITNESS: ALIJA LONCARIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Neuner: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, Witness. Yesterday, we stopped at the point when
14 we were talking about the book of rules of acknowledgments, you will
15 remember. I want to pull the book of rules up again on the screen, and
16 this time we are choosing the Exhibit D978, which is identical to PT6291
17 which was presented yesterday.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say Exhibit D978?
19 MR. NEUNER: I'm sorry, PT -- D978.
20 Q. We see here the page from the RBiH gazette and the rules of
21 acknowledge, and I'm interested in Article 2, we talked yesterday already
22 about it. The first sentence, and you told us something about the
23 reasons when units were awarded. I want to move on to the second
24 sentence now and read it to you. It says:
25 "In extraordinary cases, acknowledgments may also be awarded to
1 foreign citizens, foreign international bodies and organisations."
2 My question to you is: Could you explain what are reasons which
3 constitute extraordinary cases?
4 A. Extraordinary citations could be awarded to anyone who assisted
5 in a defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, either materially
6 or in some other way.
7 Q. I understand. What I'm trying to find out is we're talking here
8 in this second sentence about awards to foreigners. What are
9 extraordinary -- what were extraordinary cases at the time, according to
10 which awards were granted?
11 A. Those -- the circumstances and the criteria were determined by
12 the proposer, and in the proposal they would say why -- state why they
13 were proposing this individual or unit.
14 Q. Now, we will later on see maybe one or two such proposals. I
15 want to move on to Exhibit 111 which was shown to you yesterday.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want to do with PT978?
17 MR. NEUNER: Since the witness also commented upon the first
18 sentence yesterday and this morning on the second sentence, I would ask
19 that it be admitted into evidence, please.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Just a second, Madam Registrar.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you agree?
24 MR. NEUNER: Your microphone is on, Your Honour.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
2 please be given an exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become Exhibit
4 number 1375.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. NEUNER: May I have Exhibit 111 being shown, please.
7 While it is coming up, I can introduce it briefly.
8 Q. You have seen it yesterday already. It is, as you can see, a
9 document from the 3rd Corps, from the 10th of November, 1995, and you
10 said -- you will remember that there was some handwriting on certain
11 pages of this document, and you said, therefore, that it was a draft
12 only. And I understood you also to mean that you did not obtain such a
13 document because it was type-signed, this version. Do you remember?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I just want you for a moment to look at this reference number on
16 the top left corner. I'm referring to 04/15-114. Please remember that
17 number. And I want now to show you another version of that document,
18 which is signed, and that's PT6290.
19 If we could scroll in maybe on the top part for a moment so that
20 the witness can see the reference number and the date.
21 Do you see that this has the same reference number, 04/15-114?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it's also the same date as the previous document, 10th of
24 November, 1995? Could you confirm that, please?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. NEUNER: If we could for a moment go to the last page to show
2 the signature to this witness.
3 Q. Have you ever seen this signature?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Whose signature is it?
6 A. Mr. Mahmuljin's.
7 Q. If we look for a moment at the addressee here to the left-hand
8 side, and in English we need to go to the last page, actually, it says
9 here: "Delivered to." And if you look at the second hyphen, please, it
10 says here:
11 "Delivered to the Main Staff of the ARBiH Army Administration for
12 Personnel and Legal Affairs."
13 Do you remember that you have received this document?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So, in fact -- I withdraw that.
16 Could we go to the first page again now, please, and I'm
17 referring here to the section C(1). It is proposed --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, but for
20 the record I would like to mention the documents, the English and the
21 Bosnian version of this document, P6290, do not correspond, because in
22 the Bosnian version there is no key that is mentioned in the English
23 version, nor the explanation of what the acronyms mean.
24 Your Honour, in the BiH Army -- if we can now see the last page
25 briefly. This was the reason why I stood up, because the last page is no
1 longer on the screen. So the last page of both the Bosnian and English
3 Now, if you look at the English version, it says "Legend" or
4 "Key," and then there is a whole list that does not exist in the document
5 in the Bosnian language. And, Your Honour, I would like to mention
6 something in regard to this key.
7 The Yugoslav People's Army, as well as the BH Army, had regulated
8 what acronyms stand for, so the Translation Service cannot just do it on
9 their own and interpret these acronyms.
10 In addition, this is not part of this document, and I would
11 request that it be struck from this document because it does not exist in
12 the Bosnian version.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
14 MR. NEUNER: I can say I thank my learned colleague for this
15 remark, because two days ago, when I tried to get a translation done, I
16 noticed the same, that here indeed is a legend, and I, in fact, spoke to
17 the translator herself about this fact, that here is a legend. I can
18 explain what I have learned on that occasion.
19 This document here is basically, apart from the signature and the
20 missing handwritings, the same as the Exhibit 111, and the translation
21 relating to Exhibit 111 also carries this legend. So I was speaking to
22 the translator about the fact why is here a legend and why is Exhibit 111
23 or the translation of it a legend, and I was informed by the translator
24 that there are a lot of abbreviation used in this lengthy proposal by the
25 3rd Corps, and as far as I understand it, the Translation Service, which
1 is doing on a day-to-day basis translations, they understand what these
2 abbreviations mean, and in order to provide a full translation of it,
3 they are attaching here this type of legend to it. This is the
4 explanation which I was given. I don't, from the Prosecution side, have
5 any further remark to this. I cannot assess it. This is what I was
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you say what you want to say,
8 Madam Vidovic, is this legend there in the B/C/S version of Exhibit 111?
9 MR. NEUNER: It is not there, and that's why I actually
10 approached the translator and said to the translator, "Shouldn't it be
11 taken out," but I got the response I just referred to.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first I would like to
15 say that Exhibit 111 and these exhibit are not identical. One part of
16 the document only is identical. That's the first thing I wanted to say.
17 As for the key, it does not exist in the original, in the Bosnian
18 version, it isn't there. And secondly, Your Honour, in another case we
19 had a major issue about this, and we discussed this with the Prosecutor,
20 as to what these acronyms mean, and it turned out that their translators
21 translated these acronyms rather freely. In other words, this does not
22 correspond to the official acronyms that were used either in the BH Army
23 or the former JNA. And even if they were in this document, even if the
24 key was in this document, we would not accept the translation of it. And
25 I don't believe -- I mean, last week we had an issue about a single
1 sentence, a single word, that was crossed out, and here we have a whole
2 page, almost, of explanations added in the English version that doesn't
3 exist at all in the Bosnian version. And I would appreciate for you to
4 order the Prosecutor to strike this legend or this key from the document,
5 because it doesn't exist in the Bosnian language.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
7 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honours, with all due respect, I think perhaps
8 the simplest solution is simply for the Chamber to send a memo to CLSS
9 and ask them to explain that. I believe this has come up in a number of
10 cases. CLSS has a glossary of military terms. CLSS does not work for
11 the Office of the Prosecutor, they are part of the Registry, they are the
12 official translation service. If they put something on a document, we
13 submit it based on what CLSS or the translation services do. It's a
14 relatively simple process to get clarification as to why certain
15 abbreviations are put on documents and abbreviations are used within
16 documents, and I think that would certainly be the simplest solution.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may reply.
18 The document, the Bosnian version, the original, has -- the
19 translation has to be true to the original. This key does not exist in
20 the original. What the Prosecutor can do is to provide to Your Honours a
21 list of acronyms, or perhaps a document with acronyms, and then the
22 Defence will reply to that and say whether it accepts that list or not.
23 So it is not up to the Translation Service to interpret documents or
24 translate them. We can sit down with the Prosecution and agree on what
25 these acronyms mean. But adding something that is not in the document,
1 that is unacceptable. I also claim that this is not the practice so far,
2 because we had a similar situation in the Oric case, and the Trial
3 Chamber ordered the parties to sit down and agree on what the acronyms
4 mean, and it ordered the Prosecutor to provide a list to which the
5 Defence will provide an answer. Following that, the Defence provided an
6 official list of acronyms. And believe me, Your Honours, it differed
7 significantly from the acronyms and the translation of the acronyms
8 provided from the Translation Service. They cannot interpret and add
9 onto documents what was not in the original, and I think that is
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Your Honours, I simply need to note that
14 within CLSS there is the reference terminology and document processing
15 unit, a specialised department within CLSS which, among other things,
16 maintains the official terminology database and compiles glossaries for
17 use of language staff, and manages CLSS's library of reference materials,
18 and I would be very low to be in a situation where the parties are
19 agreeing upon acronyms when, in fact, the official translation service
20 has a unit within it that is the official compiler and maintainer of this
21 type of information.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just looking at this
24 briefly, cursorily, looking at this key, I can tell you that it is
25 completely mis-translated. For instance, there is an acronym "DKoV."
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've told us that already.
2 The Prosecution is ordered to strike off this legend. The
3 Chamber will make no order as to future conduct on legends. If the
4 parties want to agree, it's up to you to agree, and you can contact CLSS
5 on your own and make sure that what you agree upon is agreeable also to
6 what CLSS does. But to the extent that there is no legend on the B/C/S
7 version of this document, the Chamber orders that the legend on the
8 English be struck off.
9 You may proceed, Mr. Neuner.
10 MR. NEUNER: Thank you.
11 Q. Witness, I want to go back to the first page, where we were a
12 moment ago, yes, and I asked you, before that intervention from my
13 learned colleague, whether you could please look at letter C.
14 If we could scroll down in English, please. Yes.
15 It says here -- Mr. Mahmuljin says:
16 "We propose that ..."
17 And number C:
18 " ... written commendations be granted to the following units of
19 the RBiH Army."
20 And then you see, under number 1, the El Mujahedin Detachment
21 headed by Abu Maali. Do you remember this request or that instance that
22 you received this request or this proposal?
23 A. Yes, I'm aware of this proposal, and I actually processed it.
24 Q. I just want to point out the second person which is also
25 mentioned in the proposal, and this is in section J of it.
1 We need to go for a moment in B/C/S to page 4 and English to
2 page 5, please. I think the English is not right. I need section J. In
3 English, I said "page 5," and I see it's "page 4" in English.
4 This is just to show you the heading, and I think we need to
5 scroll up a little bit. I'm sorry, then it must be maybe 6 in English.
6 I need section J. 7, thank you.
7 It says here -- I just need the heading for a moment: "Written
8 Commendations." You find that also.
9 And now I need to go to number 72, which is, in B/C/S, on page 5,
10 and in English, I believe at the second-last page, penultimate page. So
11 written commendation is proposed here for Abu El Maali, as we can see
12 from the El Mujahedin Detachment under number 72.
13 Do you remember this?
14 A. I remember the whole order. But individually, no.
15 MR. NEUNER: With the entire explanations given about that
16 document, I would ask that it be admitted into evidence as a refreshing
17 example, especially since the witness could yesterday not remember that
18 this document had been received by him, and today he has said it
19 repeatedly, and he said that even he has processed it.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first a reply to this
22 last comment.
23 The witness did not see this document yesterday. He saw document
24 E111, which is at least five times as long as this document and it is
25 different. And he said that this was the draft document, so it is not
1 the same document.
2 Now, this document here has to do with the establishment of the
3 guilt of the accused, so it is not a refreshing exercise. The witness
4 accepted the contents, so it has nothing to do with the credibility of
5 the witness and exploring that aspect. He said yesterday that the El
6 Mujahedin Detachment did get this citations, and I object to this
7 document being accepted into evidence because I think that this is in
8 contravention of Rule 85 of the Rules. And as I explained in detail
9 yesterday, I gave the reasons for my objection in general, and this is
10 one of those documents that I feel should not be accepted, where I
11 offered my explanations at the interlocutory appeal pursuant -- against
12 your decision of 18 March of this year.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
14 MR. NEUNER: If I recall correctly, but I stand to be corrected,
15 yesterday, in relation to Exhibit 111, the witness was asked whether this
16 document had a receiver -- had sender information.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Neuner.
18 MR. NEUNER: If I remember correctly, this witness was asked
19 yesterday whether Exhibit 111 had sender information on it or bore any
20 sign of being sent, meaning that it was received by this witness, and as
21 the -- if I remember correctly, the outcome was that this initial
22 Exhibit 111, that the answer was that there are no sender or receiver
23 signs on it, so that it was possible to draw the inference that the
24 document did not even reach this witness's office. I stand to be
25 corrected on this.
1 I believe that the Prosecution has now shown, by showing this
2 document to the witness and getting the answers from the witness, that
3 the document was signed, that the document was received, and was even
4 processed; so I believe that with this document, I could refresh the
5 witness's recollection about the fact that a proposal had not only been
6 drafted, but even sent to the General Staff Administration for Personnel,
7 was on that basis even processed by this witness.
8 I think this is a lot of new information which, due to the fact
9 that the witness has seen it, was signed, was addressed in the receiver
10 field to his unit, I think based on this new document, I've really
11 refreshed the witness's memory and I've received completely different
12 answers now, and therefore I believe I have refreshed the witness's
13 recollection successfully.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Neuner, just for clarification, could you
15 please explain to us what is the difference between Exhibit 111 and the
16 document we have in front of us? In other words, what's the difference
17 between the document that was shown yesterday and this document?
18 MR. NEUNER: Yes, I can.
19 On Exhibit 111, there indeed, I believe on the second page -- I
20 don't have the exact pages in front of me now -- there are a couple of
21 handwritten remarks, encirclements of persons, and there is one person, I
22 believe it's Mr. Karalic, who is, according to an arrow, drawn on this
23 Exhibit 111, allegedly being moved from one category of incentive to
24 another category of incentive, so the Prosecution accepts that this is
25 indeed a working version. On this document, we can clearly see there are
1 no arrows any longer. It is a final version which is obviously signed
2 and thereby authorised by Commander Mahmuljin and sent in this form to
3 the General Staff.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: So what you're saying is that Exhibit 111 was a
5 draft version of the document that we now have in front of us, which was
6 the final version?
7 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has checked, for example, this
8 arrow, the handwritten arrow, and it looks like that the proposal to move
9 Mr. Karalic from one category of incentive to another category of
10 incentive --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you going to testify now?
12 MR. NEUNER: I'm asked --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not a response to the question. The
14 question put was: Are you saying this exhibit is a draft version of the
15 document before us? Yes, it is. No, it is not. Now you want to give us
16 reasons why something has been moved from somewhere else. You're
17 beginning to testify, Mr. Neuner.
18 MR. NEUNER: I understand.
19 We have compared both documents, and I personally believe that
20 they are the same except for the handwritings.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Be short and concise with your answer.
22 MR. NEUNER: Yes.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So the answer is this is the -- sorry. 111 was
24 the draft version, or what?
25 MR. NEUNER: Was the draft version, which was not signed, which
1 contains handwritings. This one is the typed-out version without further
2 changes. The handwriting is omitted.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
4 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is one
5 difficulty that stands before the Prosecution. That document, 111, had
6 74 pages. This one has six pages, so it's not the truth.
7 Secondly, we do not accept that this is an identical document,
8 and there are obvious differences there.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you stand up, can I ask the parties to
10 address the Chamber on this point: Forget about Exhibit 111. This is a
11 new exhibit in its own right. In terms of the rules of admission of
12 evidence into -- of exhibits into evidence, what is it that makes this
13 document inadmissible? Can the parties address me on that, please.
14 Madam Vidovic, you are objecting. Why is this document
15 inadmissible on its own right, unrelated to Exhibit 111?
16 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object on the basis
17 that this document was not included in the Prosecution 65 ter list, that
18 the document was intended to establish guilt, and on the basis of all the
19 reasons that I went into yesterday extensively. I do not wish to repeat
20 them here and take up your time. They have to do with the interlocutory
21 appeal of the 18th of March.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Because of the decision we took yesterday, I don't think it is
24 necessary to hear you, Mr. Neuner. The decision was that pending that
25 appeal, we will admit. So we will admit this document, pending the
1 outcome of the decision.
2 You may proceed, Mr. Neuner.
3 May it please be given an exhibit number.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document will become Exhibit
5 number 1376.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
7 You may proceed, Mr. Neuner.
8 MR. NEUNER: Before we --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Neuner, can I just -- I was looking for the
10 PT number of the document on the screen. Can you --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: 6290.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Say again?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: PT6290.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
15 MR. NEUNER: Before we leave this document, could I have the
16 first page being shown again, please.
17 Q. I just want you to remember again the reference number,
18 04/15-114, Witness, because I want to move on to the next exhibit, and
19 that's Exhibit 817.
20 You remember this document, Witness? I believe you have
21 testified about it yesterday, that you drafted it. Correct?
22 A. Yes, I'm the author of the document. I remember that well.
23 Q. I don't want to get into the detail of whether you're the author
24 or the drafter of it. I just leave it here.
25 I want to put your attention to the first paragraph of it, and it
1 talks, in the last line, about the proposal of the 3rd Corps commander,
2 on which this document is based, and if you look at the reference number
3 here, could you confirm that that number, 04/15-114, is indeed the same
4 reference number as the document which was just admitted a moment ago?
5 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
6 Q. If you look at number 1, can you confirm that indeed the
7 El Mudjahedin Detachment was commended, as proposed by Mr. Mahmuljin in
8 his document on the 10th of November?
9 A. I can confirm that it was not just one detachment that was
10 commended. There were eight more units, too.
11 Q. Five other units, if I count correctly.
12 If we could go on to the next page, please.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it's the third-last person that's mentioned here. Could you
15 confirm that, in fact, Abu El Maali was commended as proposed by
16 Mr. Mahmuljin?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You remember a moment ago we spoke about the rules of
19 acknowledgments and incentives in the ARBiH, and I showed that provision
20 and Article 2 of it, that only in exceptional circumstances foreigners
21 could be awarded. Could you explain what the exceptional circumstances
22 were in the case of Mr. Abu El Maali?
23 A. I cannot answer that question. That question should be answered
24 by the party who proposed this gentleman whom I don't know, and this is
25 the first time I hear of him.
1 MR. NEUNER: Can we have a look at Exhibit 111 again, please.
2 And I'm interested, in the English, in page 21; in B/C/S, in page 74.
3 I think in English, we need to scroll down a little bit.
4 Q. If you look under number 72, please, this is from the proposal,
5 if you could just read that to yourself, please.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document is the
8 same as the one you saw before. This is page 74, and that one had six
9 pages. This is the document that the witness said yesterday he had never
10 seen before and that it was a draft, and the Prosecutor again wants to
11 show the document to the witness.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is wrong with showing the document to the
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness said
15 explicitly that this was the draft of the proposal of the 3rd Corps. He
16 said that yesterday, and that he had never seen the document before.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
18 MR. NEUNER: Well, I would have hoped that the witness would have
19 given me that answer or, let's put it this way, that he, on his own
20 initiative, would have given me an answer. Now, I mean, maybe this
21 refreshes the witness's recollection and he says, "I have seen it," or,
22 "I have not seen it." I think at this point in time it's a little bit
23 premature to suggest to the witness that he hasn't seen it. He could
24 have looked at me and given an answer, "It was like this," or, "It wasn't
25 like this." I don't know.
1 So far, I don't see a reason for the objection. The witness can
2 speak for himself.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The point is yesterday the witness told you
4 already that he hadn't seen the entire document. This is what
5 Madam Vidovic is saying, to ask him once again and expect him to say,
6 once again, "I haven't seen the document," is to harp on the same
7 question all over again. That's the nub of the objection.
8 MR. NEUNER: But the witness has said he received the proposal
9 from Mr. Mahmuljin --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which is a six-page document and not a 74-page
11 document. If you can show him this paragraph on that document that he
12 received, it would be better.
13 MR. MUNDIS: I can explain that briefly, Your Honour. I can show
14 the six-page document, which has in the second-last line of it, a
15 reference to an attachment, and the attachment is what Your Honour is
16 seeing in front of you, but this is the attachment --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: If it's the attachment, the attachment is what we
18 see in front of us. Let it be attached to PT6290 [Realtime transcript
19 read in error "PT2690"], not Exhibit 111.
20 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has gone to the archives, and if I
21 understand it correctly, in the archive we could find an elaborated
22 version containing some 70 pages which was established was a draft
23 version, and a signed version.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, it is not particularly of interest to
25 the Chamber what investigations the Prosecution did. The Chamber is
1 looking at what should be done in court. If you're saying this page is
2 an annex to PT6290, let it come as an annex to PT6290 and not as an annex
3 to Exhibit 111. Exhibit 111 this witness has disavowed.
4 MR. NEUNER: I accept that, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: In now, if he's disavowed that and you're saying
6 that PT6290 does have an annex, an annex which this witness would have
7 received together with PT6290, go to page 74 of that annex, not this
8 annex. Simply do that.
9 MR. NEUNER: I don't have that annex --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you don't have it, then --
11 MR. NEUNER: -- produced, so I would then drop --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You better. Thank you very much.
13 MR. NEUNER: Okay. I want to come to the --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just for the record, I see I've been saying
15 "PT6290" and the transcript keeps saying "PT2690." I hope that can be
16 corrected, please.
17 MR. NEUNER: Okay.
18 Q. So yesterday -- I want to move on. Yesterday, my learned
19 colleague showed you six documents from the 1st and from the 23rd of
20 December, 1995, and you all saw them. And I'm referring here to
21 Exhibits 79, 817, 827, 829 and 1134. And each document contained awards
22 for ARBiH soldiers, and you said yesterday you had drafted each of these
23 documents. Do you remember?
24 A. Yes, I processed the documents.
25 Q. I want to show you another document, which is PT1916/A, and I
1 want to give you a little bit the background to it.
2 The Office of the Prosecutor had filed an RFA, request for
3 assistance in 2002, to the Bosnian authorities, and received this
4 response which you'll see in a moment in front of you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, what is an RFA?
6 MR. NEUNER: Request for assistance, I said.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. We didn't know.
8 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The
9 Prosecutor is testifying, and this way of proceeding can have a
10 significant bearing and influence the witness's answer.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
12 MR. NEUNER: I didn't intend to testify. I just wanted to
13 explain to this witness the background of this document so that he can
14 study it for himself. This is a response. It says here on the top:
15 "Request of the ICTY from The Hague, the response submitted by ..." I
16 just wanted to introduce the document, that is all.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Okay, the objection is overruled.
18 MR. NEUNER: Thank you.
19 Q. Witness, you see this is from the Federation Ministry of Defence,
20 do you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If you could just have a moment to study it, please.
23 If we can scroll it down a little bit so that the witness can
24 read it. Thank you. And in English as well.
25 Maybe after a moment if we could flip the English page, because I
1 believe the Judges have read. Thank you.
2 If you could maybe now also flip the B/C/S page for a second.
3 So I believe you have read it. I'm interested in not necessarily
4 the letter. This is just the background. I'm interested in the table
5 which is attached to that letter here from the Ministry of Defence.
6 If you could go to the next page, please. We see here there are
7 some tables and -- sorry, it's actually the following page in B/C/S.
9 If it is easier, I would have also a handout for you, because I
10 see it's relatively small. If I could ask the usher just so that the
11 witness can properly read it. And this can be shown to the Defence,
12 please, first. Yes.
13 If you please look at the other page which is below, yeah, the
14 one with the smaller table -- the second page, yes. No, it's actually --
15 yeah, it's this one, exactly. And maybe since the witness has it, could
16 we enlarge a little bit on the English table. I think the B/C/S table is
17 fine as it is. On the English table, could it be enlarged, or is it not
18 possible? I see it cannot be fully seen --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute, Mr. Neuner. Is what we see on the
20 English the exact same thing as what we've just seen on the B/C/S? It
21 doesn't look like those two look alike.
22 MR. NEUNER: Because we are pressed for time, we couldn't
23 translate the names, but I'm only interested, for the time being, in the
24 columns. I want the witness to explain to us a little bit the document,
25 because he has worked in that section.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can the document please be enlarged slightly more,
2 if it's possible. If it's not, we'll order double-lens spectacles.
3 MR. NEUNER: I'm sorry. I foresaw that situation, but -- yeah.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's okay.
5 MR. NEUNER: Yeah.
6 Q. If you could just look at the table for a second, and we see here
7 we have in the second column the last name. Can you follow? Yes.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And, for example, in the sixth column, we have the corps, the
10 unit in the seventh column. Could you tell me, in the list which you
11 have in front of you, which unit was -- is mentioned here all the time?
12 A. First of all, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't want to comment on other
13 people's documents, since I know nothing of them. If it was a document
14 of mine, then I would comment upon each and every one of them. This
15 is -- this was also the first time I saw some of the documents that were
16 made in 2002, while I was already retired.
17 Q. I understand. I just selected this document for you because I
18 believe that it relates to -- it's a statistic which relates to your
19 office. If you could just for one second look at the last column of the
20 document, which says: "Order number" here; is that correct? Could you
21 look at the last column, please? And we see here, under the "Order
22 number," "8/2" at the beginning in each entry. Can you follow me?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And am I correct in that you testified yesterday that "8" is the
25 Administration for Personnel in the General Staff, the number 8?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And "8/2" is, in fact, your section, the Section for Medals and
3 Awards and Incentives within that administration, is it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So am I correct in concluding that the documents listed in the
6 last column, they all refer to documents issued by your unit?
7 A. I don't know if this is all accurate. I can't know that, because
8 I didn't make this document. That's why I can't give you a yes-or-no
9 answer. You're asking me something that took place 15 years ago.
10 Q. I understand that, but isn't it that all documents which were
11 issued by -- or which had the reference number 8/2 were documents
12 produced in your section?
13 A. Yes. They have a reference number.
14 Q. And if you look for a moment to the ninth column, which is called
15 "Proposal number," do you find here the proposal number in the first line
16 04/15-114? Do you find that number?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Isn't that the document you have just seen a moment ago from the
19 10th of November, the proposal by Mr. -- signed by Mr. Mahmuljin? You
20 remember, I asked you to memorise the number.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And if you look in the column left to that number, you see,
23 indeed, the date of the proposal, the 10th of November, 1995?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if you look to the seventh column, which is entitled "Unit,"
1 "VJ" in your language --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. -- do you see that the proposal relates to the [indiscernible]
4 El Mujahedin?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So if we go back to the very last column, is it not that all that
7 is done here on the table is the documents which were discussed yesterday
8 and today, they were just listed here by the Ministry of Defence, and as
9 you can see in the last column, this is just the reference number given
10 by your office to that particular document which awarded that person?
11 A. Well, yes, there's nothing controversial there. We discussed
12 this yesterday in relation to the documents. We have two dates, the 11th
13 and 3rd of December --
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure if the 11th refers
15 to November.
16 A. -- of 1995. That was at the time when this detachment was
17 supposed to be disbanded, and it was being worked on.
18 MR. NEUNER:
19 Q. Could you just repeat the dates, because the interpreters
20 couldn't get the dates.
21 A. The dates are the months of November and December of 1995. So
22 that was toward the end of the year, on the eve of, or during the signing
23 of the Dayton Accords.
24 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can the witness
25 repeat his answer in the entirety, because one sentence which had to do
1 with the disbandment was not entered into the transcript.
2 MR. NEUNER:
3 Q. Could you repeat your answer, please?
4 A. Yes, I can. All these documents were produced in the months of
5 November and December of 1995. It was on the eve of the signing of the
6 Dayton Accords or thereafter, which meant that this was done on the
7 dictate of the political circles where the intention was to have these
8 men disarmed and to have the matter of this unit resolved.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where do you get it, that it was done under the
10 dictate of the political circles, and what do you mean by that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer that, although I
12 partly answered that yesterday.
13 I was a member of the SDA party and a member of the town board of
14 Sarajevo. I knew what was going on. We had knowledge about this unit,
15 and Mr. Izetbegovic was telling us what was supposed to be done for the
16 Dayton Accords. To solve this matter, he summoned Mr. Vranj, and
17 Mr. Vranj told me in turn that Mr. Izetbegovic had told him that these
18 people should be given these awards and that the intention was to have
19 this unit disbanded, so that we avert any possible conflicts with them.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: And by "Mr. Izetbegovic," you mean the president
21 of the Presidency of the Armed Forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
24 You may proceed, Mr. Neuner.
25 MR. NEUNER: I would just like to ask that this document is
1 admitted into evidence.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we do that, because I understand that you
3 said you were under pressure of time, Mr. Neuner, but in the transcript
4 you have referred to a number of particulars that are in these columns,
5 which are not there in the English version, and for our sake if you can
6 make sure and agree with the opposite side that at least to what you had
7 referred to in evidence is mentioned in the various columns.
8 MR. NEUNER: We will produce -- sorry. We will produce a
9 fully-fledged translation of that table, containing all the names and all
10 the data, so that will then be uploaded to e-court, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have two objections
14 against the admission of this document into evidence. First of all, it
15 is quite apparent that the witness commented only upon the table and only
16 that part of the document can be tendered into evidence. The witness
17 clearly said that he had no knowledge of this letter.
18 I would like to draw Their Honours attention to a practice
19 adopted by the Prosecution which is highly unfair. The letter by the
20 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina was signed by none other than Mr. Ferid
21 Buljubasic, a witness for the Prosecution who testified a while ago.
22 This document dates from 2002, and is a document that the Prosecution had
23 in their possession under a different number. However, Your Honours,
24 they did not show the letter to Mr. Ferid Buljubasic, or perhaps they had
25 and we're not aware of the comment he may have made, but they did not
1 lead the document during his testimony. What they what want to do now is
2 to have this document introduced through the back door and through a
3 witness who has no knowledge about the document.
4 Therefore, first of all, I object to the admission of this
5 document into evidence. What is possible, that this document is admitted
6 into evidence to the extent and only with regard to the page that the
7 witness commented on.
8 Now, I want to say that this document that the Prosecutor marked
9 P1916/A was also not on the 65 ter list. It was also intended to be used
10 to establish the guilt of the accused, which means that it is applied in
11 contravention of Rule 85 of the Rules. Let me not go again into that
12 matter. It has to do with the interlocutory appeal.
13 MR. NEUNER: Can I just answer briefly, because there is one
14 thing which is not correctly presented here.
15 This document was, since the very beginning of this trial, on the
16 Prosecution's 65 ter list. It is PT1916, so it was available to the
17 Defence. And this document is an excerpt out of this PT1916, and the
18 Prosecution has therefore, since it's only an excerpt, introduced this
19 today and a few days before to the Defence under the name PT1916/A.
20 That's the established practice which was used by the Prosecution
21 throughout this trial, if only excerpts from greater or larger portions
22 are submitted. So also the translation of this document has been
23 communicated in advance --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you take your seat, please, Madam Vidovic, and
25 let him finish.
1 MR. NEUNER: Other than that, the Prosecution believes that the
2 reasons brought forward by my learned colleague go to the weight this
3 Chamber may address to that document, and the Prosecution has chosen this
4 witness to comment upon it because he was, in fact, the chief of the
5 section for medals and awards, and we therefore believe that this witness
6 is better suited to comment upon a list, listing his own documents which
7 he has, as he testified yesterday and today, drafted. Then Mr. Ferid
8 Buljubasic, who as Your Honours can see according to the signature, was
9 at the time deputy minister and in that form had only -- as one of his
10 several tasks the task to forward letters and correspondence to the ICTY.
11 We believe that this witness is better suited to comment upon documents
12 which he, even in 1995, has drafted. Mr. Buljubasic did not draft a
13 single document which was discussed yesterday and today in the year 1995.
14 He only was, in 2002, in the position as deputy minister to forward
15 correspondence to the ICTY.
16 So we believe this witness is better suited to comment upon this
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is up to you to
20 assess whether it is preferable for a witness, who has never seen a
21 letter -- this letter, to comment on it or to show it to the author,
22 Mr. Ferid Buljubasic, who drafted this letter and who could testify on
24 What I would like to stress, once again, is that this is not the
25 same document as P1916, it is not the same document. By just glancing at
1 the first page, you can see that it's not the same document, and my
2 objection remains.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Two issues are not determined here. The
5 parties are in dispute about them: One, whether PT1916/A is the same as
6 PT1916, and also the question whether it was on the 65 ter list and
7 therefore subject of the pending appeal or not.
8 To the extent that there are those two issues outstanding, the
9 document will be marked for identification, and may it please be given an
10 exhibit number, pending the resolution of those two disputes.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the documents will become Exhibit
12 number 1377, marked for identification.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Will that be a convenient time, Mr. Neuner?
15 MR. NEUNER: The Prosecution has no further questions, Your
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Absolutely convenient time.
18 Thank you very much. We'll take a break and come back at --
19 what, is this the time?
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Yes. Quarter to 11.00.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Quarter to 11.00. Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner, you said you have no further
1 Any re-examination, Madam Vidovic?
2 MR. NEUNER: I actually would have a clarification with regard to
3 the two open points, and I tried to --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, you did send the message, but, sorry, we --
5 MR. NEUNER: Yes. I hope this takes a very short time. I have
6 already given the document to my learned colleague, and I have three
7 other documents for the Bench, just to clarify the two contentious issues
8 which Your Honours have raised before the break. If I could ask the
9 usher, please.
10 What Your Honours have in front of you are two things. The first
11 two pages is an excerpt of the exhibit list. You will remember I had
12 asked that PT1916/A should be introduced into evidence, and what you find
13 here in the second row is the entire exhibit as it was on the exhibit
14 list -- 65 ter exhibit list of the Prosecution on the 31st of October,
15 2006. If you look here at the B/C/S ERN range, it's the second-last
16 column in the second row, Your Honour, you'll see it's the range is
17 0217-1248 to 0217-1260. And if you go to the next page, Your Honour,
18 you'll find a printout of the entire range, I believe some 13 pages, and
19 if you, in this printout of the entire range, go to the fifth page with
20 the ERN 0217-1252, you'll find the excerpt of -- you'll find, first of
21 all, the letter and the excerpt which I have shown a moment ago. You'll
22 find here the two-page letter of Mr. Buljubasic, followed by a list --
23 two lists, actually, and these are the two lists which I have shown.
24 And the other documents which follow thereafter are, indeed, also
25 exhibits by now which have been tendered under different numbers and
1 which were discussed yesterday and today by my learned colleague and
2 myself with this witness. But with my last application, I was just
3 trying to get the letter and these two tables into evidence.
4 I hope this explains everything.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, any response?
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I do have a
8 I still consider these documents to be different, because
9 obviously this document has -- contained far more -- many more
10 communications, and if the Prosecutor wanted to show the witness this
11 table, which is what he wanted to do, I don't see any reason why he could
12 not use the P1916 document and rather chose to pick out from this entire
13 communication, and I cannot comment on the rest of the document at this
14 point, Your Honour, but obviously he's singled out this letter, the
15 letter from Mr. Buljubasic, who at this time was the Chef de Cabinet of
16 General Delic and who has already testified here, and has several pages,
17 so it cannot be claimed that this is the same document, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, hasn't it been done right through
19 this trial that parties have come with voluminous documents, but have
20 referred to just parts of them, and in fact we have a guideline that says
21 that in that event the Chamber will admit just the pages that are
22 referred to or something to that effect?
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's exactly
24 what I was pointing out. There was no reason then to use a document
25 which was not on the list and the document P1916/A was not on the list,
1 so there was not a single reason why he shouldn't use this document,
2 which was on the list and which then he could use, in part, the tables
3 that he used, and then to propose that these tables be entered into
4 evidence. The problem here is that the Prosecutor wants this letter also
5 to be entered into evidence, and the witness did not comment -- make any
6 comments on the letter. He did make comments on the table.
7 So I do not have an objection to this part, his using document
8 P1916, which was on the 65 ter list and which contained in it the table,
9 but my objection is to the other part. And on the other hand,
10 Your Honour, had he placed this document on the list for us as document
11 1916, then I would have prepared differently for this. I really don't
12 know what else there is in this document. That's the problem.
13 So to summarise, I agree completely with you, I have no
14 objections to using that part of the document that the witness did make
15 comments on, but the witness did not comment on the letter. So this was
16 one basis for my objection. The other basis was the fact that P1916/A
17 was not on the list.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. There's something I'm missing here.
19 I understand Mr. Neuner to be saying that these documents that he
20 has just hand out are part of -- wait a minute, that the documents that
21 he used are part of the 65 ter list, Exhibit number 1916, and that entire
22 document, which was voluminous, was disclosed to the Defence and the list
23 was given to the Defence right at the beginning. But from that
24 voluminous document, he took the part that he used today, which is
25 tantamount to having a thick document, but using just part of it.
1 Can you confirm that I am understanding you correctly? Just
2 "yes" or "no."
3 MR. NEUNER: Yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If that is so, then that position differs
5 from your position, where you are saying the document that was shown,
6 that is, 6290, is not part -- is it 6290? No, no. 1916/A is not part of
7 1916. Your positions are different. You are saying it is not part of
8 1916, and he says it is part of 1916.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, that is not what I
10 am claiming. I accept that this was part of the document P1916. It is
11 part of that document.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fine. Let's just stop there, because this is
13 where my confusion is.
14 Now, if you accept that, what is wrong with taking part of --
15 discussing part of 1916 with the witness, because this is a document that
16 you had notice of through the 65 ter list?
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what is wrong is that
18 the Prosecutor took a piece of -- a part of this document and put it --
19 and assigned a different exhibit number to it, and as such it was not on
20 the 65 ter list, because had he done so, then I would have prepared
21 myself differently for today's session, because the problem is not that
22 this document is very voluminous, because -- that is not the crux of the
23 problem. Had he done what he should have, and I still claim that it's
24 not the same document, I would have prepared myself differently. So he
25 could have just taken a portion of the document and use it. This has
1 been done many times until now, so I could propose P1916 and say, for
2 instance, "Could you just take a look at page 15," and only page 15 would
3 then be tendered into evidence. That's not what he did.
4 What he did is he took portions of the document and then assigned
5 new numbers to it, saying that this was P1916/A, and then informed me
6 that he would be using this number. That's one objection.
7 The other one is that this document, the letter that is really in
8 dispute here, he did not show to the witness, his own witness who was in
9 a position to give his own explanation and comment on this letter because
10 he was its author. And, secondly, what I said was this witness did not
11 comment on the letter at all. He only commented on the table.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me understand you. Are you using the fact
13 that he did not show it to his own witness as a ground for objection,
14 because I want to believe that it's not for you, nor for anybody, to tell
15 him how to prosecute his case. If he thinks there is a witness that can
16 comment on any document, he can use any witness. That's his right. But
17 I heard him say, if I may respond to the point you're raising on the use
18 of "/A," I heard him say before the break that this is what is being done
19 when you take only a portion out of a document that you have already
20 disclosed through a 65 ter list, you give it the same number, but then
21 you "/A." This is what he said, and I haven't heard you comment on that.
22 In other words, the substantial -- substantive difference would be that
23 he would be arguing that it is not a new number, it is not a new
24 document, it is a part of an existing document. And you're saying
25 because he has given it the same number and just slashed it with an "A,"
1 that makes it a different document?
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, because in this
3 way he actually made it impossible for me -- or rather he denied me my
4 duty to check this whole document and prepare differently for today.
5 And, Your Honour, with due respect --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues]... the document,
7 the whole document. Why didn't you go through the whole document, even
8 before he produced 1916/A? The purpose of giving you this 65 ter list
9 and disclosing the documents under Rule 66 is for you to go through the
10 whole documents and prepare. And you can't then say, "I can't use part
11 of the documents that I've handed over to you because you've taken them
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course I went
14 through all the documents, but not at this point while this witness is
15 testifying, because this is when I should have been told that P1916 would
16 be used, because I'm entitled to prepare for my Defence with this
17 witness. That's one thing.
18 The second thing: What you said, that the Prosecutor cannot be
19 told how to lead his evidence, Your Honour, there is Rule 94, I believe,
20 (H) which makes it incumbent upon the parties to present their cases, and
21 then they cannot turn their backs on the witnesses and present documents
22 after the witness has left. Perhaps he was in a position to give us very
23 relevant information, that earlier witness.
24 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Ms. Vidovic, because of what you
25 said, or through what you said, do you mean to say that when you saw the
1 document 1916/A, you thought that it was a new -- a novel document when
2 you prepared for the testimony of your witness, so you didn't connect
3 this document with the one in the 65 ter list? Is that what you're
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's right.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I thank you for this
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Madam Vidovic, can I just ask you: When were you
9 notified of 1916/A?
10 MR. NEUNER: I could maybe answer that very quickly.
11 JUDGE HARHOFF: I want to hear from her.
12 MR. NEUNER: Okay.
13 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe it was
14 yesterday, around 12.30. I will check, but I think it was around 12.30
16 And another thing, Your Honour. This issue has been resolved in
17 our case law, when a document can be used which was not on the 65 ter
18 list. In the Hadzihasanovic case, it was resolved or ruled that such a
19 document has to be presented to the other party at least 24 hours ahead
20 of time. Of course, I'm aware of the fact that this has not been an
21 issue that was resolved in our guidelines, but it is in the practice of
22 this Tribunal that it should be 24 hours ahead of time.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Neuner.
24 MR. NEUNER: First of all, I want to say I'm sorry for the length
25 of this discussion.
1 The Prosecution has checked its e-mail traffic from yesterday,
2 and we have seen that the document -- or the Prosecution's exhibit list
3 was communicated at 2.06 in the afternoon, so before the
4 examination-in-chief started. And we have looked at our -- at the lists
5 relating to Mr. Loncaric which we have sent, and it turns out that we
6 have twice referred to this particular exhibit. We have referred to it
7 under 1916/A, and we have also referred to it as 1916. So we have two
8 rows on the exhibit list which we sent -- communicated before the
9 examination-in-chief started. So we have even referred to the entire
10 exhibit, as well as to the portion of it, so it cannot be claimed that
11 the Prosecution tried to introduce a new portion of it or whatever. Both
12 the excerpt and the entire exhibit have been referred to, and I believe
13 this was all but -- all and fair.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if that is the case,
15 and I'm sorry that my colleague should point it out in this way, but what
16 he says, that the document P1916 was mentioned, there was no mention of
17 "P" or "A" or "D" or anything. And I asked my Colleague Neuner
18 yesterday, before our session, what this meant, particularly because
19 there are two question marks in front of this document. We've discussed
20 this yesterday.
21 MR. NEUNER: I can clarify this very, very briefly.
22 I'm very sorry for this discussion, but it is true I delivered
23 a -- in addition to the e-mail which I sent to my learned colleague, I
24 brought a hard copy to my learned colleague when I entered the courtroom,
25 and my colleague looked at the numbers which I had stated in the 65 ter
1 column, and so to speak reminded me that there is no "P" number or no "D"
2 number mentioned. I then talked to our case manager,
3 Ms. Imamovic-Ivanov, and she reacted immediately and clarified that
4 point. And seven minutes later, I think at 2.22 -- 2.27, I'm just
5 informed, she re-sent the list with adequate "P" numbers in front of it.
6 So the omission that there was no "P" in front of the "1916" was
7 immediately after I was informed by my learned colleague, and rectified
8 by the Prosecution. It was simply an oversight. As I had stated, I made
9 two efforts before, via e-mail and via hard copy when I entered the
10 courtroom, to notify my colleague adequately about the 65 ter list the
11 Prosecution was using. We were then rectifying the omission that there
12 was no "P" in front of it, and this took a few minutes' time, and the
13 document was resent in an adequate manner.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, of course I was
15 engaged in the examination of the witness, and it is quite possible I
16 didn't have a chance to look at that.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Look, this has taken too long to discuss, and I
19 would like to suggest a modus operandi and a modus vivendi for the
20 parties for the future.
21 Usually, the one presents a case, either it's a motion or it's an
22 objection, there's a response and there's a reply, and that's the end of
23 the discussion and we get a ruling. Any further discussions can only be
24 with the leave of the Court, and I think we must stick to that practice
25 for the sake of expeditiousness in the future.
1 On this issue, the Chamber decides to admit the document. May it
2 please be given an exhibit number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, according to the record, the
4 document is already Exhibit number 1377.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Without the MFI?
6 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. The MFI becomes Exhibit 1377.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
8 Any re-examination, Madam Vidovic?
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have but
10 a few questions.
11 Re-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Loncaric, once again.
13 During your testimony yesterday, the Prosecutor put a series of
14 questions to you, suggesting that you did not meet with Delic after his
15 appointment, nor did you have occasion to review the minutes from these
16 meetings. In your evidence, you also told us that you were a member of
17 the town board of the Party of Democratic Action.
18 Can you tell us what the SDA town board was?
19 A. The town board of the Party of Democratic Action was the party's
20 board for the town of Sarajevo. Every municipality nominated five
21 candidates, and they were members of the board.
22 Q. Was that the governing body of the ruling party or not?
23 A. Yes, that was the governing body of the ruling party in Sarajevo.
24 Q. Was that body ever visited by President Izetbegovic?
25 A. Yes, it was visited by President Izetbegovic.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sorry.
2 Yes, Mr. --
3 MR. NEUNER: As far as I remember, I didn't put a single question
4 in my cross-examination about the SDA, about Mr. Izetbegovic, and about
5 the town board to this witness. Therefore, I object against the line of
6 question -- the entire line of questions which was just pursued by my
7 learned colleague.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I ask these questions
10 of the witness in order to establish what the basis of his knowledge of
11 some facts was, and these were facts referred to by the Prosecutor. His
12 question was whether he, the witness, attended meetings, and I want to
13 establish what the basis of his knowledge was, if the knowledge did not
14 come from his attendance at the meetings.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, you can ask questions, but, you
16 see, when you start asking questions by giving a whole speech and
17 introducing issues, like, "During your testimony yesterday, the
18 Prosecutor put a series of questions to you, suggesting that you did not
19 meet with Delic after his appointment, nor did you have occasion to
20 review the minutes from these meetings. In your evidence, you also told
21 us that you were a member of the town board of the Party of Democratic
22 Action... "
23 There's no question.
24 Now, you're bringing in things that he's objecting to. If you
25 want to ask questions about the facts that he raised, ask those questions
1 directly, go straight to your question. And if you want to direct the
2 attention of the witness to a particular topic, say, "I would like to
3 direct your attention to this topic," and then ask your questions. The
4 way you're doing it, it's not it.
5 So to that extent, I'll hold up the objection.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will rephrase the
8 Q. Witness, what was the basis of your knowledge of the events you
9 testified about concerning the General Staff and the relations in the
10 General Staff in the course of the summer of 1993? And I'm referring to
11 yesterday's testimony.
12 A. The basis -- or the source of the information was my membership
13 of the town board of the Party of Democratic Action in Sarajevo, which
14 discussed military matters, matters which had to do with the situation in
15 the army. Furthermore, President Izetbegovic and other party members
16 would attend these meetings of the town board and discuss matters and
17 events taking place outside of Sarajevo, and I attended these meetings.
18 Now, when it came to these issues of the General Staff, we, the
19 Patriotic League, met regularly in the Staff of the Supreme Command and
20 discussed various matters which had to do with the current developments
21 and the state of affairs in the Staff of the Supreme Command.
22 Q. Thank you. On page 66, lines 20 and 25, the Prosecutor asked you
23 who General Vranj reported to, and General Vranj is your superior. Your
24 answer was: "For the most part, to President Izetbegovic."
25 What I would like --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you referring to yesterday's transcript?
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I apologise.
3 That was your yesterday's testimony on page 66, lines 20 and 25. You
4 said there that General Vranj, for the most part, reported to President
6 Q. Can you please explain what you meant by that?
7 A. I will explain what the situation was like.
8 With General Delic being appointed head of the army,
9 General Vranj was automatically appointed the head of the Personnel
10 administration and I was appointed head of the department, so Sulejman
11 Vranj and I were both members of the party, though admittedly
12 General Vranj had more authority and was better acquainted with
13 President Izetbegovic and other members of the SDA party. Therefore, the
14 personnel administration was manned with people from the political
15 circles, so that whatever was topical in political terms could be
16 resolved through administration.
17 Yesterday, the Prosecutor wanted to downplay my role by saying
18 that I was a desk officer and that I wasn't aware of some matters. Well,
19 I have to tell you that I knew some matters better than my superior,
20 because I was present where discussions took place and I took part in
21 these discussions myself.
22 I stated yesterday that I had no military experience at all. My
23 first promotion was in 1994, when I was promoted to the rank of colonel.
24 Then as Sakib Mahmuljin became assistant minister, during his term of
25 office I was promoted to the rank of brigadier and was retired in 2000
1 with that rank. This meant that after all, I did have a role to play, I
2 did have knowledge, I had the relevant information, and I did make
3 decisions on some matters.
4 Q. Could you please clarify the following: Wherein did your
5 authority lie? You said that you held a lower rank, but you did make
6 certain decisions?
7 A. I explained yesterday that I was a member of the SDA town board
8 and that I was on good terms with the leaders of the SDA party, including
9 President Izetbegovic, whom I knew from the electoral campaign and from
10 the time of the Patriotic League.
11 Q. I only wanted to ask you to slow down a bit.
12 My question dealt specifically with what you said, that
13 General Vranj was the one who passed information on to
14 President Izetbegovic. Can you explain this a bit?
15 A. Of course. If it is the politics that appoints you to a certain
16 post, that it is only normal that you should report back to the politics
17 on what is going on.
18 Q. In answering my question, you said that you passed information
19 on. Were you, in fact, talking about reporting to President Izetbegovic
20 or only discussing matters with him?
21 A. I was referring to discussing matters with President Izetbegovic
22 and passing on information to President Izetbegovic from the Main Staff.
23 Q. Again, I don't think the transcript reflects what you've said.
24 Your Honour, the witness uses a very clear term which is not
25 entered into the transcript.
1 Can you please tell what you said in your last answer? I
3 A. Sulejman Vranj received assignments from President Izetbegovic,
4 processed them, and that, along with the tasks he processed in the
5 Main Staff, he would go back to President Izetbegovic and report to him,
6 convey that information to him, and all this behind the back of
7 General Delic.
8 Q. Tell me, was this standard procedure, based on your knowledge on
9 how the Main Staff works?
10 A. Well, of course this was not standard procedure. The normal
11 procedure would have been for General Vranj to send all his proposals to
12 the army commander. However, this did not take place. We worked quite
13 differently. I explained how it went when I talked about citations and
15 And I want to add something else. When we're referring to my
16 department, the Department for Education, Citation and Decorations,
17 decorations lay within the purview of the Presidency and not within that
18 of General Delic. Now, I wish to explain why it was that my department
19 included that word in its title.
20 Mr. Izetbegovic asked that these matters be included in my
21 department as part of the duties of my department, that the department
22 should process these matters and refer them to the Presidency, because he
23 fully trusted the work of that administration and that particular
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I would have thought that what you told us
1 yesterday about decorations would be different from what you and Vranj
2 report to Izetbegovic behind Mr. Delic's back, because yesterday you said
3 the only reason Mr. Delic didn't sign some of the documents, it was
4 because he would be absent. So if he would have been present, he would
5 have signed. So these are documents that would have gone through him,
6 anyway, but what then you discuss with Izetbegovic behind his back, it's
7 what you do behind his back, whether he's present or not present. Aren't
8 these two different scenarios? Would you agree that these two are
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were two different scenarios,
11 and I'll explain that.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't have to explain. I just wanted to know
13 that they are different.
14 So you can't liken them. I'm just saying this because you said
15 something that decorations are the same thing as what you tell
16 Izetbegovic behind Mr. Delic's back. I thought the one is, so far as I'm
17 concerned, gossip, and the other one is work. Wouldn't you say so?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you think that they are
19 different things, no, it's just the decorations and citations that are
20 different, because the citations and incentives were within the purview
21 of the commander and the decorations were within the purview of the
22 president of the Presidency. This is something that I explained
23 yesterday, that we did not actually deal with the matters that had to do
24 with decorations at all. We only dealt with citations and incentives
25 because they were within the competence of the commander. Decorations,
1 which were within the purview of the president, we did not discuss
2 yesterday at all. I only said that they were the highest-level awards
3 and were within the competence of the president.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that very well. You're introducing
5 something new now.
6 You may continue, Madam Vidovic.
7 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Witness, did you explain the purview or competence yesterday, and
9 did you explain the difference between decorations, citations and
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Who had the competence to award decorations?
13 A. The president or, actually, Presidency; that is to say the
14 president of the Presidency.
15 Q. Very well. And who has the competence to sign citations and
17 A. That was the commander of the army.
18 Q. And this is something you said yesterday?
19 A. Yes, and I'm saying the same thing today. I only wanted to
20 explain the worthiness of this department, because they were given, in
21 their name, the decorations to deal with, although they lay within the
22 purview of the Presidency -- of the president of the Presidency and I
23 would approach him on that matter.
24 Q. Very well. I want to ask you something else.
25 Yesterday, when talking about the awarding of citations, the
1 Prosecutor asked you whether you, that's to say the administration,
2 consulted with the Military Security Administration concerning the
3 proposed recipients of awards and, in particular, concerning their
4 possible criminal records. My question to you is the following: Who had
5 the competence of vetting or screening the individual who was to receive
6 the award and that individual's possible criminal background?
7 A. I believe I gave my answer to the Prosecutor yesterday. The
8 competence and the duty to screen the individual who is proposed for the
9 award lies with the proposing party. It is not regulated anywhere that
10 we should be the ones to double-check the person's background and see
11 whether the person is eligible for the award.
12 Q. Thank you. There were also questions either from the Prosecutor
13 or the Honourable Chamber regarding the reasons stated for why these
14 proposals were as they were, and you said that these were short
15 statements of reasons where it was mentioned that they had accomplished a
16 certain mission. I would like to ask you this: When speaking of the
17 El Mudjahedin Detachment, do you remember whether such a statement of
18 reasons was given and what it was?
19 A. There was no statement of reasons, I mentioned this yesterday,
20 because it was Mr. Izetbegovic who was most involved in the awarding of
21 citations to them. And there were only two dates here. They are either
22 the 1st of December or the 21st of December. There is no mention of them
23 anywhere before that. So these were dates around or on the eve of the
24 signing of the Dayton Accords.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Your Honour, I have no further questions.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions?
3 JUDGE LATTANZI: Yes, I have some questions.
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I do have some questions for
7 Witness, you told us that with regard to citations and
8 incentives, it was within the purview of General Delic, whilst when it
9 came to decisions on decorations, they were in the purview of President
10 Izetbegovic; is that so?
11 A. That's correct. According to the rules and book of rules, that's
12 how it was meant to be.
13 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You added -- when looking at a
14 document submitted by the Prosecution, I believe, you said that there was
15 a decision for a citation to be given to the El Mudjahedin Detachment.
16 Can you confirm that?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Therefore, this decision was
19 within the purview of General Delic only, wasn't it?
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Why not? What was the purpose
22 of this? Why wasn't the competence of General Delic that was involved
24 A. I'm not sure I understood your question. What kind of
25 competences are you talking about?
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] The power to decide to give a
2 citation to the El Mudjahedin Detachment.
3 A. Your Honour, I explained yesterday that this decision was the
4 decision by President Izetbegovic, by the political circles, and this
5 document that Sulejman Vranj brought to me, this document had been seen
6 by the president and Sulejman Vranj said that he knew what this was about
7 because he was the one who had brought this document, this proposal from
8 the 3rd Corps. And on orders from the president of the Presidency,
9 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, this was done.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Well, I'm confused now. So that
11 decision apparently would have been an exception to the normal procedure
12 under which citations were granted by General Delic; that would be an
13 exception, what you're saying right now. I hadn't understood that
14 before. So an exception to the normal procedure for citations, not
16 A. Yes, you are right. This was quite exceptionally a decision --
17 an exceptional decision, extraordinary, because these were foreign
18 citizens, and under the Dayton Accords they were to leave there, so their
19 fate was decided by the political or politicians.
20 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I wanted to know something else
21 from you in the same matter. Because of the position you had in your
22 department, which delivered citations and incentives, do you know whether
23 a citation or an incentive was given to a foreigner, to an individual who
24 would have taken part in fights, in fighting, to defend Bosnia and
1 A. Yes, I know, and I can quote examples. Karmen Konda is a woman
2 who was killed at the beginning of the war, and she was awarded a
3 citation for recognition or merit. I think she was from Split. I think
4 there was another recipient, a soldier who came from Germany, that he was
5 also given this award. He was killed in Bosnia.
6 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And was it General Delic who
7 decided to give those awards, if it was decided after the 18th of June,
9 A. I prepared the decision. I was the author of these documents,
10 and Delic signed the order that I prepared.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, you were the drafter, the
12 one who drafted the documents, and General Delic is the one who took the
13 responsibility for the documents by signing them. Is that what you mean?
14 A. Well, not in that context. Mr. Delic was the person who signed
15 it. He was the commander and he signed it, but the decision --
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Sorry. Maybe this is a question
17 for the Chamber.
18 There was something else I wanted to know. Are you aware of an
19 opportunity or occasion when General Delic signed a decision to award a
20 citation or incentive to an Arabic member, to a foreign national coming
21 from a country of Muslim faith, for their contribution to the defence of
22 Bosnia and Herzegovina? I'm speaking about a foreigner, a foreign
24 A. I testified yesterday, Your Honour. I said that it wasn't just
25 one individual; there were a number of people. There were documents that
1 were signed on the 1st and 23rd of December, 1995.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes, but they were dealing with
3 single individuals, even if there were several of them; this was not to
4 do with one unit, but with individuals; right?
5 A. This concerned individuals who were members of the 3rd Corps.
6 So let me just explain this a bit. I do not regard them as
7 individuals, but as a unit. I see the corps behind them, because the
8 corps is the one who proposed them. They could not address the General
9 Staff directly for any citations or incentive, as individuals or as a
10 unit. If -- whenever this was done, whenever proposals were made, they
11 were made by the corps.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I thank you for your
14 Do you know when the 3rd Corps made that proposal? And when it
15 arrived, do you know whether there was any opposition or objection from
16 General Delic? And if he did object, did President Izetbegovic intervene
17 to overcome that problem?
18 A. Mr. Delic did not even see this proposal. It came to my office
19 directly, to my department. And as for consultations with
20 Mr. Izetbegovic, there were such consultations; mine, but also more of
21 General Vranj consulted with Mr. Izetbegovic.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] And who signed the decision to
23 award the citation to these individuals who were members of the
24 3rd Corps?
25 A. The order was signed by General Delic, like all the orders that
1 were signed for all the other units.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
4 Mr. Loncaric, I, too, have two questions for you. One question
5 relates to the purpose of giving awards to the El Mujahedin Detachment,
6 and my other question relates to the role that General Delic had in this
8 Now, as to the first question of the purpose of giving awards to
9 the El Mujahedin Detachment and to individual members of the El Mujahedin
10 Detachment, what I have been able to learn from your testimony here
11 before us is that the purpose for which these awards were considered and,
12 indeed, given to the El Mujahedin Detachment and to some of its members
13 was to motivate them to leave the country after the signing of the Dayton
14 Agreement. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have
15 testified that this truly political motive for giving them these awards
16 was the reason why no substantive arguments were advanced in support of
17 these awards. So, in other words, what was proposed by General Mahmuljin
18 and sanctioned by -- or approved of by the president of the Presidency,
19 was given without any substantive support, because it didn't matter
20 whether actually they deserved these medals; the purpose to give those
21 medals and those awards to them was just to motivate them to leave the
23 Is that correctly understood?
24 Can I have your answer for the record?
25 A. Yes, Your Honour, you understood me well. And if you look at the
1 dates, you can see -- if we are talking about December 1995, this was on
2 the eve or after the signing of the Dayton Accords, so it's obvious that
3 it's a political issue and that it was important to get rid of them.
4 Had there been any other reason, then they would probably have
5 been awarded these citations earlier on, maybe in 1994 or earlier.
6 I think -- but this wasn't done, so I think I was clear.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: You were indeed. But you see, the difficulty I
8 have in understanding the implications of your testimony is that some of
9 these documents were dated well before the signing of the Dayton
10 Agreement. If I'm not mistaken, General Mahmuljin's proposal, the first
11 proposal that he made which you may or may not have seen was dated 10th
12 November, and so I would assume that the considerations about giving
13 these awards would have started even earlier, probably in the beginning
14 of November or maybe even by the end of October, the idea of seeking ways
15 to give them these awards were first taken up.
16 A. I will answer to the extent of my abilities or knowledge.
17 Before the signing of the Dayton Accords, a month or two earlier,
18 there was talk about the accords. The Dayton Accords were not signed in
19 a period of two days. They were under discussion for a longer period.
20 And as for the anniversary and the proposal, where it came from, I cannot
21 really answer. I cannot answer relating to that part, but I can say that
22 all this was done in the context of the Dayton Accords, before they were
23 signed and after they were signed, because it was politically obvious
24 that they needed to leave.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Who told you this? Who told you that the Dayton
1 Accord would include provisions about foreign fighters leaving the
2 country? You were not, yourself, a member of the negotiating team, were
3 you, so how did you learn about the relation between awards to El
4 Mujahedin members and the contents of the Dayton Accord?
5 A. I suppose that when discussing the anniversary, that this was the
6 motive. But as for the Dayton Accords, they were discussed in the
7 meetings of the party, the town -- at the town board meetings, and we
8 were informed, of course -- before the accords were signed, we were
9 informed of the substance.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. Now, tell me, why would receiving an
11 award provide a motivation for a foreign fighter to leave the country?
12 A. I don't know, but I know that that's what Mr. Izetbegovic said to
13 Sulejman Vranj. So all I said here was what I had heard, that it was
14 proposed that they should be awarded these citations. This was probably
15 proposed in a meeting. And as agreed, it was acted upon.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: And your understanding of what General Vranj told
17 you was that awarding them or giving them these awards would facilitate
18 their departure; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: But you did not, yourself, understand if this was
21 conducive to the goal of having them leave the country?
22 A. I know that Mr. Vranj had good information, that he was often out
23 in the field, and that he knew them most because he was in contact with
24 the officers of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as with
25 President Izetbegovic, and I believe that he did have the information
1 and --
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the last word the
3 witness said.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Loncaric, could you please repeat the last
5 part of your answer, because it was not picked up by the interpreters.
6 A. Mr. Vranj was an officer of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina who
7 enjoyed most respect in the party, in general, and on the part of
8 President Izetbegovic, who placed the most trust in him, and I believe
9 that he had the right information and he knew what he was telling us when
10 he was talking about the need for these people to be awarded -- to be
11 given these awards in order to, in fact, get rid of them.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. I would like to move on to my second
13 question, which is the question of the role that General Delic played in
14 all of this.
15 My starting point is that I'm not sure I have understood your
16 testimony fully, because on the one hand, the rules and regulations
17 applicable to awards would seem to involve, as a natural factor, the army
18 commander. On the other hand, you have testified that this was really a
19 political decision, especially in respect of the El Mujahedin unit and
20 its members, and so all decisions regarding awards to these gentlemen
21 were political and, thus, taken behind General Delic's back. Do you
22 understand what I have said?
23 A. Yes, and that's correct. That's how it was.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: So we are told by you that the reason why
25 General Delic was kept out of all this was that it was truly a political
1 matter and that he, as army chief, should not interfere with these
2 matters; is that correct?
3 A. Yes. I believe -- or, rather, I know for sure that Rasim Delic
4 was not a member of the SDA party.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: That may well be, but still the first part of my
6 assumption was the army commander, by implication of his position, would
7 be that of course he would be involved in the awarding of units and
8 members, and indeed he did sign some of the letters, didn't he?
9 A. Yes, he signed them, but in times of war I believe a great many
10 things change. It is one matter to be a commander in time of peace and
11 quite another in time of war. In time of war, it is highly questionable,
12 the issue how far your authority goes and to what extent you can issue
13 someone with orders.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: This is a very broad answer to my question. I
15 would have thought it was really otherwise or the other way around,
16 really, that in times of war the command structures are strengthened.
17 But be that as it may, the core of this matter is that you are saying
18 that there is a pro forma authority with the army commander, a legal
19 authority, if you want, to sign some of the award letters, yet the
20 substantive dealing with awards to the El Mujahedin Detachment was really
21 a political matter that was decided upon outside the military structure?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So if this is correctly understood, then I just
24 want to ensure that I have understood correctly that although the
25 question of El Mujahedin awards was decided upon by a political body
1 outside the military structure, then, on the other hand, the army
2 commander would still formally and legally hold responsibility for these
3 matters; isn't that correct?
4 A. Formally and legally, yes.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is 12.00. We'll take a break and come back at
7 half past 12.00.
8 Court adjourned.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.00 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a few questions, sir.
12 Was President Izetbegovic a member of the Patriotic League?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: And of the SDA as well?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: And Mr. Rasim Delic was a member of neither?
17 A. No.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And Sakib Mahmuljin, was he a member of the
19 Patriotic League?
20 A. No.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was he a member of the SDA?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when you were asked by Judge Harhoff, I think
24 you said that Mr. Izetbegovic gave awards, citation awards, to units and
25 individuals. Did you say so?
1 A. No.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say he gave them to individuals?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: But I thought you had said earlier that he only
5 gave them to units. Hadn't you said so earlier, before you were asked by
6 Judge Harhoff?
7 A. No. Decorations were within the competence of the Presidency and
8 were awarded to individuals.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And citations?
10 A. Citations and incentives were within the competence of the
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And didn't you say that Mr. Izetbegovic gave
13 citations to member of the El Mudjahedin Detachment? I'm just checking.
14 I'm not sure.
15 A. He ordered that they be awarded, but it was not within his
16 competence to award them.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: So they were awarded by Mr. Delic?
18 A. Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any questions arising from the questions by the
20 Bench, Madam Vidovic?
21 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, one question only, in
22 order to clarify the last matter.
23 Further re-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
24 Q. His Honour asked you the following: They were given awards,
25 citations, by General Delic? Do you recall exactly what sort of
1 citations these were?
2 A. The unit received an incentive which is that of a commendation,
3 whereas individuals were awarded commendations and a certificate of
4 merit, which was an incentive, and these were a golden shield and:
5 THE INTERPRETER: Another thing the interpreter didn't catch.
6 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Your Honour, I believe we have the transcript a bit confused, and
8 I think it's due to the translation, and that's because both the
9 decoration and everything is interpreted with one word, and we are
10 talking about different matters because we're talking about citations and
11 decorations. That's why I put the question.
12 Thank you, I have no further questions.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
14 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, I believe we can clarify the last
15 issue, which also arose during the questions from Judge Lattanzi, by
16 simply looking at the law. I believe the law is relatively
17 straightforward on the point, who had the competence to make awards.
18 It was Exhibit 1375. The problem is that the translation is only
19 a partial translation. That's why we had earlier submitted --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I interrupt you? Do you have something that
21 you want to clear with this witness?
22 MR. NEUNER: Yes, I would.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please go ahead and clear it.
24 MR. NEUNER: If we could have 6291 being shown, please. That's
25 about the question of incentives and awards.
1 Further cross-examination by Mr. Neuner:
2 Q. Witness, if you focus for a moment at paragraph 3, please, if we
3 could enlarge because it's very difficult to read, I believe, paragraph 3
4 or Article 3. Yes, thank you.
5 We see here we have Golden Lilies, number 1, Silver Shield, the
6 Gratitude Lily, number 3, and the Plaque of the Armed Forces of the RBiH.
7 Could you explain briefly who was competence to give these awards?
8 A. This was within the competence of the commander.
9 Q. And if you refer to "commander," which commander are you
10 referring to?
11 A. The commander of the army.
12 Q. You were referring, in a couple of answers to Judge Lattanzi's
13 question, to decorations. Could you briefly explain, in contrast to
14 these four awards we see here in Article 3, what are the decorations you
15 were referring to?
16 A. Do you mean as opposed to citations and these awards here? Well,
17 the difference is in the fact that the decorations are awarded by the
18 Presidency pursuant to a different book of rules adopted by the
19 Presidency, and the difference lies also in the fact that a citation is
20 an award of a lower level than decorations, because the decorations are
21 awarded by the president of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
22 Q. I understand that. Could you briefly say what type of
23 decorations the Presidency could issue?
24 A. I can think of a couple of decorations, the Liberty Medal, a
25 medal with golden swords, a medal with silver swords, and such like.
1 Q. And could you tell briefly which office was competent to process
2 the documents which related to decorations of the Presidency?
3 A. Yes, I can. My department processed the proposals, and we took
4 them to President Izetbegovic. I've already explained that previously.
5 Q. So do I understand your testimony, then, you could get a request
6 from the Presidency, would process it, and the Presidency would then sign
7 it, the decorations?
8 A. This was not the procedure applied for decorations. The
9 decorations awarded by the president were processed in the following
10 ways: Sulejman Vranj would go to see the president, and together they
11 would make a list of army members who ought to receive decorations, and
12 then they would bring the list to me. I would process the list, and then
13 it would be taken back to the president to be signed. But this was not a
14 large group of people who were awarded this.
15 Q. I understand. So if we look back at this law here, this law
16 refers to Golden Lily, Silver Shield, and Gratitude Lily, and the Plaque
17 of the RBiH. The proposals for these four types of citations, who would
18 make the proposal?
19 A. The proposals for citations and incentives were submitted to the
20 General Staff, that's to say to my administration and department, by the
22 MR. NEUNER: I think the issue is clarified.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not clear. I'm confused. Just one or two
25 The acknowledgments mentioned in Article 3, what are they? Are
1 they decorations or are they something other than decorations?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. What it says, that's what it
3 is. That's a citation, a war citation; Golden Lily, Silver Shield, they
4 were citations, whereas the medals were within the competency of the
5 Presidency and were not regulated by these rules.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Article 3 refers to citations?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Article 4 refers to incentives?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Decorations are dealt with by another law, not
11 this law?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
14 I guess that brings us, then, to the conclusion of your
15 testimony, sir. Thank you so much for taking the time to come and
16 testify at the Tribunal. We have now come to the end of your testimony.
17 You are free to go, you are excused, and may you travel well back home.
18 And once again, thank you so much.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the next witness we
24 can call only on Monday.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. In that event, then, the matter stands
1 adjourned to Monday, the 14th of April, at 9.00 in the morning, Courtroom
3 Court adjourned.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.45 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of April,
6 2008, at 9.00 a.m.