1 Wednesday, 28 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, you're to continue with your
8 WITNESS: VAHID KARAVELIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 Cross-examination by Mr. Tapuskovic: [Continued]
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Karavelic. Let us continue what we started
13 yesterday. In order not to come back to this issue later, let me ask you
14 this. If your superior commander or the Chief of the General Staff would
15 give you an order and you failed to carry out that order, what kind of
16 consequences would you suffer as a result?
17 A. At any rate, negative consequences.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the witness
20 Q. That was the first document presented to you by my learned
21 colleague the Prosecutor.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It's P498. Document P498 is an
23 order dated the 7th of November, 1994. Please, it's not a map. Can my
24 learned friend, the Prosecutor, help me? It's an order dated the 7th of
25 November; an order issued by Mladic.
1 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Registrar, is that the ter number 02777?
2 Because I think the order that my friend is looking for bears the ter
3 number 02106.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. 65 ter 02777 is P498, which is what we have
5 up on screen right now.
6 MS. EDGERTON: I think my learned friend might be looking for P496
7 then, 02106.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the document.
9 Q. Witness, with regard to this document, you personally know
10 nothing. You have no knowledge except what you can see here that it was
11 drafted by General Mladic's office. Is that right?
12 A. I don't know anything about the document per se, but I know about
13 the activity and how it took place.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness's second microphone be turned
15 on, please.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. If you look at this order and under items 1, 2, and 3, each one of
18 them stipulates that certain things are explicitly forbidden. So if such
19 an order is being issued, is then a subordinate officer allowed to act in
20 contravention of that order; in this instances, the commander of the
21 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
22 A. This order has a very specific significance .
23 Q. That's not what I was asking you. That was not my question.
24 Please answer my question which reads: If there is an explicit thing
25 forbidding something three times in an order, can then a subordinate
1 officer fail to comply? Is he allowed to do that?
2 A. Allow me just to briefly clarify.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I kindly ask for my
4 question to be given an answer.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear your answer, and I will determine
6 whether you have answered the question.
7 Go ahead.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes and no.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, yes in what respect; and no in what
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the sense that my answer
12 was no, if you look at item 3, which reads: "I forbid all use of weapons
13 of bigger calibre on civilian targets in Sarajevo without my approval,"
14 which means, in other words, that this order was issued on specific
15 circumstances. And, therefore, General Ratko Mladic or the superior
16 officer who issued this order puts a kind of restriction on this activity
17 not to be pursued at this moment due to specific political consequences
18 that might arise, and that in the previous period this was a practice.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a very
20 simplified explanation, and I don't think the witness should be allowed to
21 do that.
22 Q. You know nothing about this, but now you have ventured upon a kind
23 of analysis that does not stem from any direct knowledge that you might
25 A. I'm talking on the basis of what I'm reading here, and I issued
1 identical orders to those of General Milosevic. We went to the same
2 school, and we had the same education and training. I'm only construing
3 what I can read here.
4 Q. In the event that you gave an order to someone, can your
5 subordinate abuse his position and fail to comply?
6 A. The issue here is what the he is ordered to do. If it is
7 something in contravention of the Geneva Conventions or against the state,
8 then he must not carry out this order, irrespective of whoever issued it.
9 Q. Not you yourself, but your subordinate?
10 A. Makes no difference. It applies to the entire chain of command,
11 irrespective of what level we're talking about.
12 Q. Let us continue where we left off yesterday. In response to His
13 Honour Judge Robinson's question about Light Infantry Brigade, I would
14 like to you to tell me whether within the 1st Corps of the BH army there
15 was engineer unit, military police, artillery? Yes or no.
16 A. Everything that existed in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in terms of
17 structure existed in my corps as well.
18 Q. Was there a light artillery division of anti-aircraft Defence?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Was there an HVO brigade?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Was it based in Sarajevo?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was the strength of that HVO unit?
25 A. I cannot give you a precise number, but I think it was about 2.000
2 Q. After that you also had communications units; is that correct?
3 A. Of course.
4 Q. You also had under your command and control, special MUP units,
5 Lasta Bosna was the name?
6 A. No, I didn't.
7 Q. Were all police units subordinated to your command?
8 A. No, not a single one.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have displayed for
10 the witness DD00-1636. That's Sefer Halilovic's book entitled, "The
11 Cunning Strategy," page 10 in the B/C/S version, page 3 in the English
13 There's a translation.
14 Q. So you can see what is written here. A decision on
15 resubordination of units of reserve forces of the Minister of the Interior
16 to the units of the army of the Bosnia and Herzegovina, and item 1 reads:
17 "All reserve unit of the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina are to be resubordinated to the Main Staff of the armed
19 forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina for the purpose of carrying
20 out military actions against the aggressor. 27th of June, 1992," signed
21 by the President of the Presidency about much the army of BH Alija
22 Izetbegovic? Yes or no.
23 A. I believe that precisely as a result of this order issued by Sefer
24 Halilovic, he experienced what he later experienced. And I think it is
25 very important for me to give the answer, and it is good for the Chamber
1 to know.
2 He attempted to put the entire MUP under his control, which
3 resulted in a very serious conflict between him and President Izetbegovic;
4 and after that, this disagreement was never resolved between the two, and
5 he never managed to place any police units under his control.
6 Q. Thank you. I didn't ask you that. It was published in the book
7 called, "The Cunning Strategy." However, this is an order issued by Alija
8 Izetbegovic personally on the 27th of June. I'm asking you about this
9 order to resubordinate all reserve police units to the army of the
10 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
11 A. I believe that Mr. Pusina was dismissed from his duties; and as
12 far as I know, there order was never carried out.
13 Q. Therefore, you don't know that there was an order in place all the
14 time instructing the police to be permanently under your jurisdiction that
15 is the army leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo?
16 A. That's not true.
17 Q. Thank you. Well, since you mentioned Sefer Halilovic, you know
18 that in his book, I presume you have read this book?
19 A. I read parts of the book not the whole of it, because I don't take
20 to be a serious book.
21 Q. Very well. His assertion in the book that his wife and his
22 brother were -- and his wife's brother were killed by an explosive planted
23 and activated by remote control, because they were thinking that he would
24 be also there; is that true?
25 A. I think this is sick. The people who think that must be sick.
1 Q. So the second thing is true, that it was a shell fired from the
2 VRS positions.
3 A. In my view, most probably.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have this order
6 admitted into evidence. It's been translated and it's a book that was
7 published, and I received this translation from the CLSS as an official
8 translation because the entire book has been translated. And I would like
9 there book to be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see Ms. Edgerton on her feet.
11 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. Your Honour, of course, I have no objection
12 to the admission of pages from the book of Mr. Halilovic admitted into
13 evidence, and would simply request that the record reflect that these are
14 pages extracted from the book of Sefer Halilovic, rather than a copy of a
15 decision implemented by the Presidency.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: What are the pages to be admitted,
18 Mr. Tapuskovic? I see page 10. Is there another page?
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, at this moment page 10, which
20 is the 225th page of that book in B/C/S. Well, I don't know what the page
21 is in English, but it's page 3 in the English version of this document.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: This document is already marked for
25 identification, pending translation. So since we now have a translation
1 of -- at any rate, this page, page 10, we will admit it.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become Exhibit D133.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Q. Mr. Karavelic, now I'm going to show you document DD00-1175, dated
5 the 20th of May, 1995.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a
7 translation. The document is of the 20th of May, 1995. The Sarajevo
8 division and then underneath it says: "Howitzer 105 millimetres, first
9 smaller artillery" -- it has to do with a howitzer that is being
10 resubordinated to the 102nd Combat Brigade; is that right, is that what is
11 it written in this document?
12 And Fikret Prevljak orders as follows. Prepare a VP, that is
13 correct is to say, a military position for the 105th millimetre howitzer
14 in accordance with the last order. Immediately camouflage the artillery
15 piece in the area of the military sector obvious and protect it against
16 reconnaissance by UN forces.
17 My question is: Lasta is a MUP unit; is that right?
18 A. I think that in this order it has nothing to do what you have been
19 saying. Lasta is a signal.
20 Q. All right. So it's not the MUP unit called Lasta?
21 A. I think it is not.
22 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that this order of Prevljak's, the order
23 issued by the commander of the 102nd Division, to camouflage artillery
24 pieces and to hide it primarily from the UN, is that correct? If this was
25 written by your immediate subordinate for the 12th Division?
1 A. Properly. Artillery pieces were hidden from everyone except for
2 one's own crew. And why would one have to trust the members of the
3 international force?
4 Q. Were there many weapons in Sarajevo that were hidden from the UN?
5 A. Well, there were hardly any, if any at all.
6 Q. Is it correct that what it says further on that positions should
7 be prepared for this weapon in order to cover certain axis Krivloci,
8 Blagovac, Medakovic, Trebevic, Lukavica for certain actions, activity. Is
9 that correct?
10 A. Well, yes, probably. If there is a surprise attack that we have
11 weapons that nobody knows of, that we have those weapons there in order to
12 prevent an attack or repel it.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could document DD00-1175 which
15 does have a translation, be admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D142, Your Honours.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation].
19 Q. That was in May 1995. Here comes another order issued by
20 Prevljak. The document is DD00-0745.
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. See? The command of the 12th division on the 8th of May,
23 preparation and engagement of MUP units that is to say in the month and
24 May and paragraph 1 says: "Establish permanent communication with the
25 chiefs of the PS in the zone of responsibility of the brigade and state
1 precisely the place, role and task of MUP units.
2 Again what we have here is a decision clearly stating the tasks of
3 the MUP on the 8th of May, 1995 issued by the commander of the 12th
4 division, Prevljak. I got all these documents from the archives of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is this correct or not?
6 A. We have to clarify something here. This document only has to do
7 with the local police, police stations in municipalities. This has
8 nothing to do with police units or say special police units at a higher
10 So what is this all about? In order to use police forces from
11 time to time for certain combat actions police forces doing nothing
12 otherwise in municipal organs an agreement was reached between the
13 commander of the General Staff and the Minister of Police, that these
14 police forces from local level be used -- could be used by brigade
15 commanders that are there in a specific area.
16 In order to avoid a lengthy procedure of sending requests from the
17 brigade commander to the division commander; then the division commander
18 to the corps commander; and then the corps commander to the General Staff;
19 the General Staff to the Supreme Command Izetbegovic; and then he takes
20 this down to the Minister of the Police; and then down their chain. It's
21 a lengthy process.
22 That is why this order says that at a given point in time, the
23 defence line was in jeopardy at a given point, and he give as green light
24 to the commander or commanders, to be able to use those police forces at a
25 given point in time.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could DDOO-0745 be
3 admitted into evidence, along with the official translation thereof.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As D143, Your Honours.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to put D61 to the
7 witness now, the one that my colleague, the Prosecutor, already put to the
8 witness yesterday.
9 Q. Mr. Karavelic, this is an order of the 6th of June -- of July,
10 1995, and you said yesterday that that was correct. But you said it was
11 all done in accordance with the agreement, as you explained to us
12 yesterday, for defence purposes, right?
13 A. I think that's it.
14 Q. My question on the 6th of July, 1995, in the zone of
15 responsibility of the 12th Division, what was under way was an offensive
16 of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina that had started as far back as the 15th
17 of June. So in that stage the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was on the
18 offensive. Is that right or is that not right?
19 A. On the 15th of June, we started an offensive from the outer area
20 of the city of Sarajevo with a view to deblocking and opening up the city
21 of Sarajevo.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. I haven't finished. This offensive ended towards the end of June,
24 and immediately after that the forces of the SRK started fierce offensive
25 activity from Grbavica towards the Presidency, trying to inflict a deadly
2 I think this has to do precisely with that period, precisely the
3 beginning of July.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as far as this
6 document is concerned, D61, I don't know whether we've clarified this
7 actually. This was a document that was awaiting translation, so it was
8 mark the for identification as D61. So now it should not be MFI, but it
9 should be a full-fledged Defence exhibit. Oh, yes. It became an exhibit
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It became an exhibit yesterday,
13 Your Honours, and it was an oversight on my part when the Prosecutor was
14 dealing with it. It was admitted because there was a translation there.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: It was admitted yesterday? I will just ask the
16 court deputy to confirm that.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. It was originally used by the
18 Defence on the 14th of February, and we have marked it for identification
19 at the time as D61; and, yesterday, the 27th of March, it was actually
20 admitted through the Prosecution as D61.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Very well. Thank you.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now I have document
23 DD00-0727. Up until this moment, it was marked as D62, MFI, because there
24 was no translation for it. But now I do have a translation that I got
25 from the CLSS, and now I would like to put it to the witness.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, put it to him.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. That's the document, Mr. Karavelic. The Republic of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
5 command of the 12th Corps, on the 23rd of August 1995, order to carry out
6 active combat operations.
7 Is that right? Is that exactly what it says there?
8 A. No. That is not the way it is written there. It's the command of
9 the 12th Division.
10 Q. All right. But in that order -- I'm not going to read 1.1, but
11 1.2 says, under the heading of MUP units, you said it was a code, Lasta.
12 "The Lasta units are to take up positions from the positions of the
13 104th," and then it say what is the position is. "At the UN checkpoint
14 for Kula where they are to be at the ready to prevent enemy incursions
15 from the direction of Kula."
16 First question: It is stated clearly here that Lasta is a MUP
17 unit? Yes or no.
18 A. There is absolutely nothing in dispute there.
19 Q. But in the case of the previous document that they were dealing
20 with a few moments ago, you said that Lasta was some kind of a code?
21 A. Right. That's what I'm saying again. Take a look at it and you
22 will see for yourself.
23 Q. All right. Under 1.3 -- or rather, 1.2, 3. "PTD unit of the Bosna
24 Detachment is to reach the rampart from the airport neighbourhood to the
25 hangar within the airport."
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please see the
2 previous page again. That is where the relevant text is.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you show the previous page again for the
4 benefit of the interpreter.
5 MS. EDGERTON: And since this is a two-page document, perhaps I
6 could -- I have a hard copy here, and it might assist the witness in
7 answers -- clarifying his question, if he is able to see both pages of the
8 document before answering a question. It's a two-page document.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may pass that to him.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Is it correct what it says here under 1.2, or rather, this other
13 asterik, what I read out?
14 A. Well, that is what is written in the document. What is there for
15 me to confirm, whether it is correct or not? The document itself says
16 that that is correct. It is not my document.
17 Q. But the document belongs to your subordinate officer. I hope that
18 he could not have issued this kind of an order without your approval?
19 A. He could have. He could have. Of course, he could have.
20 Q. But in the spirit of your orders and instructions?
21 A. In the spirit of general yearly plans of activities and action.
22 The division commander is an independent commander with regard to a great
23 many issues, just as I am corps commander in relation to the General
24 Staff, and also brigade commander vis-a-vis the corps commander.
25 Q. Yes. But you are the commander of the 1st Corps of the 12th
1 Division, and the 14th and the 16th, and it is for you to say what your
2 divisions are going to do? Yes or no.
3 A. Through general plans. It depends on the degree of detail you go
4 into, and what you mean by that.
5 Q. Only what is stated in the document?
6 A. He could have carried out these things independently without my
7 knowledge. This is minor activity.
8 Q. Thank you. Let's look at the second page now. In the English
9 version, it's the second page, too. You have the document, and at the
10 end, it is the one-but-last instruction in the order, stating that "Lasta
11 according to the plan is going to provide fire support."
12 A. What was the number you gave?
13 Q. The one-but-last paragraph. The one-but-last paragraph of that
14 document, page 2.
15 A. The one-but-last paragraph. Well, there are numbers aren't
16 there? 1.7, 1.8?
17 Q. Let's not waste any time. It's the one but last?
18 A. "Fire support according to the Lasta plan." Can you not see that
19 this it a signal? Can you not see that this Lasta has nothing to do with
20 the Lasta unit? It is just a coincidence, so then there is this unit
21 called Lasta, that is indeed referred to, but then there is this plan
22 Lasta, as well. These are two completely different things.
23 Q. Honourable Witness, my point is that this has to do with the what
24 I first read out to you, the MUP units?
25 A. Well, there is no disputing that.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this document DD00 --
3 A. Please, look at the end of the second page. It says who this
4 document was submitted to, and see it is not submitted to the command of
5 the 1st Corps. It is not submitted to me, that is.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You want to say that was done without your knowledge?
8 A. Well, don't you see the document, that it wasn't sent to me? If
9 it had been of importance for me, it would have been sent to me and that
10 was up the commander of the division to decide.
11 Q. I'm not going to interpret this?
12 A. But I'm going to interpret this because you said that I was the
13 responsible person.
14 Q. So you're claiming that Prevljak as the commander of the 12th
15 Division and you were the commander of the entire corps --
16 A. Alija Izetbegovic was commander in chief of the entire army. You
17 don't understand the chain of command and the essence of command.
18 Q. I don't understand. It is going to be up to the Chamber to
19 decide, and I kindly ask for this document to be admitted into evidence.
20 It's number DD00-0727 with a translation, and that a number be assigned to
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: We admit it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this is was previously marked for
24 identification on the 14th of February as -- as D62, so we will admit it
25 as D62.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have one of the
2 very rare documents that I'm going to show today without the translation;
3 and according to the CLSS, I will get the translation on the 10th of
4 April. The number of the document is DD00-1177. Can we just please show
5 this document to the witness?
6 Q. This is the document, Witness. It's dated the 11th of June. It's
7 another order, and it again refers to Bosna. And the instruction is to
8 form a number of units MB 120-millimetres and mortars 82 metres four
9 pieces and the deployment of troops. It has also been signed by Fikret
11 Can you tell me that since this is the document you see and signed
12 by Prevljak is something that has to do with the activity of your units in
13 Sarajevo on the 11th of June?
14 A. This document shows that he has been assigned a police unit of the
15 MUP Bosna or part of the units in order to carry out a specific task.
16 Since this unit didn't have mortars, it probably requested support, and he
17 complied and established a temporary formation; i.e., a mortar company
18 with a number of mortar and attached it to the last unit and this unit, of
19 course, operated under his command.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can document DD00-1177 be marked
22 for identification, please, pending translation.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And under item 3, I'm sorry, if I
24 may, it says that the mortar company will be resubordinated to the Bosna
25 detachment until the execution of the task and thereafter the combatants
1 will be returned to their base units.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We mark it for identification.
3 May I ask the court deputy to investigate the temperature in the
4 courtroom. I find it's a bit warm.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that will be taken care of and this
6 will be marked as D144. Correct, this will be marked for identification
7 as D144.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Karavelic, you provided an explanation with regard to MUP
10 activities as part of the activities of the 1st Corps of the ABiH army.
11 Let me ask you directly. In the offensive that began on the 15th of June,
12 did the 3rd and the 7th Corps took part, as well as some other corps?
13 A. Yeah. My corps, the 3rd and the 7th.
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I stand corrected. My corps, the 4th and the 7th.
16 Q. You know that as part of the 3rd and the 7th Corps there was a
17 very important unit called El Mudjahid, made up of several hundred
18 combatants from Arabic countries?
19 A. I know something about it but not much.
20 Q. I'm going to show to you a document that I received a long time
21 ago from the Prosecution. The Prosecution have their own translation. It
22 hasn't been translated by the CLSS, but, rather, probably by the
23 Prosecution administration.
24 It's DD00-1672. We have a translation of this document as well.
25 Q. Mr. Karavelic, take a look at this. Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 army of the RbiH 1st Corps command military security service section. It
2 has its reference number, Sarajevo, the 9th of June, 1995. And in this
3 document, in the first paragraph it says as follows: Acting in accordance
4 with the order bearing the above mentioned number, operation Vranduk was
5 introduced to the 1st Corps aiming to discover and eliminate possible
6 intelligence activities and other illegal activities of citizens of
7 African/Asian countries within the force of the RBiH Army 1st Corps.
8 And in paragraph 3, it reads as follows:--
9 MS. EDGERTON: This is a document of several pages. It's a 4 page
10 document and perhaps the witness could be given a copy of the document
11 before being asked to comment on any portion of it.
12 I'm only raising that, Your Honour, because it's several pages
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, do you have a copy?
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in B/C/S there are
16 only two pages and I can easily show it to the witness. There are only
17 two pages --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed. Proceed.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. In paragraph 3, it reads as follows: "OSVB of the 115th Mountain
21 Brigade as part of the 12th division through interview with a source, a
22 former member of the 306th Mountain Brigade within the 7th corps which had
23 taken part in combat operations together with El Mudjahid , acquire the
24 following intelligence about this detachment and its members, persons from
25 Asian and African countries.
1 I'm not going to read the whole document to you, and on page 2,
2 this is what the document says.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: One moment, please.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, would you explain to the Chamber
6 the significance of this line of cross-examination and, in particular,
7 how -- how the issues, raised by it, impact on the question of guilt or
8 innocence of the accused?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
10 would like to read only one portion of this document that is linked to my
11 question. First of all --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: What I asked to you explain and not to read
13 something else in defiance of what I told to you do.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Honourable President.
15 I wanted to use this document as a basis for establishing the fact that in
16 the offensive that lasted from the 15th of June, 1995, several hundred
17 members of this unit took part, and it is written here that they operated
18 on the principle that they didn't know what the notion of the "prisoner of
19 war" was. It says here that there were 300 foreigners from Arabic
20 countries taking part in this operation and according to this document --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the significance of that? What if they
22 did take part in? What if, as you say, 300 foreigners took part in this
23 operation. How does that impact on the guilt or innocence of the accused?
24 That's what we are concerned with here. We are not writing a history of
25 these events. Our concern is far more specific. And if you can't explain
1 to me, I'm not allowing you to ask any more questions along those lines.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I will have to do my best and
3 explain this to you.
4 The intelligence service of the VRS already had information that
5 once a prisoner in other battlefields falls into the hands of this
6 detachment they were immediately executed. Therefore the fear of loosing
7 positions would result in every captured soldier of the army of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina be executed on the spot because they did not recognise
9 the notion of a POW. That was very important in view of why they so
10 desperately defended their positions.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: And if -- assuming all of that is true, how would
12 that operate to absolve the accused of any of the charges? This is what
13 I'm keen to find out, how it impacts on the question of guilt or
14 innocence, which is all that we are concerned with here.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we're, first of all
16 dealing here with an armed conflict that lasted permanently and at this
17 stage that we are discussing, there was fierce conflict that these units
18 were participating in, and due to that, the defence of the VRS became more
19 persistent in order to prevent this what was threatening them from
21 If they lost their positions and if their troops fell into the
22 hands of these detachments, it gave them additional impetus and motivation
23 to act permanently in those days an and defend their positions in order to
24 avoid the situation in which every prisoner, as is written here in this
25 document, being executed the moment he is captured.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, would any of this provide, in
3 your understanding of the law, a defence in respect of the charges against
4 the accused? I understand you to be saying that the Serbs were fearful of
5 being captured by these foreigners and the ABiH and, therefore, they had
6 to fight strenuously to prevent being captured.
7 But you haven't gone further to say how, if that is so, that
8 impacts on the guilt or the innocence or just more generally the liability
9 of the accused.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what the Defence is
11 trying to do here, to prove here, that has to do with the time when
12 General Dragomir Milosevic was commander, is that at that time, especially
13 at the time of this offensive, the intensity or the fighting was such that
14 they had to take all measures to save their lives and houses, primarily if
15 they knew within that moment within the units that were operating then
16 there were these numerous units consisting of foreign participants that
17 could additionally endanger lives if the positions were to fall.
18 Everything that happened during this period had to do with
19 intensive offensive fighting.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you are coming closer to linking it now.
21 You say that the intensity of the fighting was that they had to take all
22 measures to save their lives and houses, which, as I understand it, is
23 something akin to saying that they had to defend themselves.
24 Ms. Edgerton, any views on --
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, precisely. Precisely.
1 They had to defend themselves from things like that as well, and only
2 within the Geneva Convention, to respond with adequate fire and thereby do
3 what has to be done. In this period, only along those lines.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, can you just clarify this, because
5 I think this is crucial to the case. My question is: Does the fact that
6 the Serb soldiers would have to defend themselves so fiercely from being
7 taken prisoners by these foreigners, would that constitute a legitimate
8 reason to violate the laws of the war?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge Harhoff, that
10 is the right question. I haven't fully explained this yet. I don't think
11 that there were any violations of laws of war at that point in time, when
12 in those days you had against you a much better armed enemy and much more
13 numerous enemy, including units that had such categorically principles
14 guiding them. That is the only reason why I'm trying to explain this
16 So in that situation, when you had against you an enemy which in
17 terms of weapons and in terms of personnel levels was so much stronger,
18 the only reason to act was to fully defend oneself and fully observe
19 conventions of international law. This is a good example of that.
20 And additional example of that, because within these units that
21 were attacking the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, there was this unit consisting
22 of 300 foreign internationals which is a large number, as it says in this
23 document, and their guiding principle was there is no concept of a
24 prisoner of war. That's what the document says.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: But, Mr. Tapuskovic, if no violations of the laws
1 of the war were committed by members of the VRS, then how is this whole
2 discussion relevant to the case?
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, quite simply, how could it
4 not be relevant to the case, if it only reinforces one's wish to defend
5 oneself? I think that that is clear enough. And these were units that
6 were within the units that were carrying out the offensive at that point
7 in time, within the 3rd and 7th Corps. As Mr. Karavelic said, the 3rd and
8 the 7th Corps was among the units that were attacking the zone that was
9 under the control of the army of Republika Srpska. He already confirmed
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 Ms. Edgerton.
13 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Whiting is going to respond, Your Honour.
14 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, I am not sure I have captured exactly
15 what Mr. Tapuskovic has said. The way I understand it is it's -- and I
16 think Judge Harhoff sort of got -- was getting to this point. If there
17 are no violations of war, then it is irrelevant, because you don't need to
18 go there. You just need a justification if no crime has occurred. If
19 there are violations of war, then we're getting into the area of either
20 self-defence, which I don't really understand Mr. Tapuskovic to be saying,
21 because I don't think it's linked closely enough. I don't think it is
22 imminent enough that it is a matter of self defence. What I think what I
23 understand him to be saying is that it is a matter of reprisal, since it's
24 the defence of reprisal, which is a kind of form of tu quoque.
25 And I think it's quite clear under the law of the Tribunal that
1 reprisals against civilian targets is not allowed under international law,
2 and so I don't think that this is a valid Defence. So I -- it seems to me
3 that it's either irrelevant if the defence is that there were no
4 violations of the laws of war, or it's an invalid justification for the
5 violations of the laws of war; and in either event, it doesn't seem to
6 advance the case.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, after all of this, I
9 have to add the following. This has nothing to do with tu quoque. There
10 is no dispute, and we've heard from that ample evidence here, that on both
11 sides there were a great many casualties because of this intensive
12 permanent activity on both side. At this moment, I don't want to go into
13 which side inflicted more casualties on the other. But at that point of
14 intensive fighting, there were casualties on both sides. I assume that is
15 not in dispute, in view of everything that we have heard so far.
16 So from that point of view, in order to protect themselves from
17 even greater casualties on their own side, they had to step up resistance,
18 and the number of casualties stemming from the intensive fight is evident
19 on both sides.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, as to whether the defence that you
21 are seeking to make out would hold up in law is another matter, and that
22 is not for to us decide. At this stage, I'm satisfied that you have
23 established the relevance of the line of cross-examination that you are
25 Let us proceed.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't want to dwell on this
2 document any further, but the English, page 3, last paragraph, and in
3 B/C/S, it is the fourth page from the back, why I asked all of this so
4 there is no repetition.
5 "While combat activities were taking place, the foreigners from
6 the detachment have displayed fanaticism that is based on religious
7 fanaticism. The notion of a prisoner of war is unheard of as far they are
8 concerned. War booty is only used for the purposes of the unit itself."
9 This document is addressed to you by your security service, and it
10 was signed by Colonel Cudic, assistant commander. Did you get this
12 A. I must admit that I don't remember, but I have heard of this
13 document, later, though. Because this document was referred to in the
14 Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case, as well.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could this be
16 document, since it does have a translation, be admitted into evidence.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D145.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, could you just repeat it me,
21 because I can't see the date of the document?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The date of the document is the
23 9th of June, 1995; that is to say, a few days before the offensive
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there are a number
2 of documents that are being translated now. I expect this one to come on
3 the 10th of April, but I translated the relevant parts through a sworn
4 court interpreter. Those are the parts that I would like to read out to
5 the witness. DD00-0648.
6 MS. EDGERTON: Now, if I may, once again, I -- I respectfully that
7 the witness be allowed to see the whole document.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, what is the whole document, Mr. Tapuskovic?
9 How many pages?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Six pages with the certification.
11 I'm just using a few sentence; namely, those that were translated into
12 English by the sworn court interpreter and translator, and they're in
13 e-court. The document is being translated and I will receive it on the
14 10th of April.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well I'm so -- just a minute. I'm so impressed
16 by your self-help that I think we should proceed, since you went to the
17 trouble of having a sworn court reporter translate the relevant passages.
18 So we will proceed and in the end I will make a decision as to the
19 admissibility of the document.
20 MS. EDGERTON: I have a hard copy in the witness' own language of
21 the document. It has some highlighting on and my note. But since my note
22 is in English, I don't think the witness would be able to understand it in
23 any case. And it might assist the witness in answering the question, if
24 he is able to have the whole document in front of him.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have a copy in B/C/S?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have it in e-court. The whole
2 document is in e-court.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us proceed, and we'll see whether the
4 witness can say whether is he disadvantaged by not having the document in
5 its entirety.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document was
7 signed by Mr. Karavelic personally, the 21st of November, 1994. Later on
8 you can take a look.
9 Q. Before that, I would like to ask you something. You know that --
10 that there different kinds of rifle grenades with instant effect -- well,
11 actually, did you say yes?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is the range of one type and what is the range of the other
14 type; that is, what is ejected from the shoulder, or rather, you shoot
15 from the shoulder, as far as I know as a layman?
16 A. Yes, that's right, and the range is, say, from 100 to 200 metres.
17 Q. Thank you. Please look at the beginning, the first paragraph,
18 where you talk about the aggressor. Where you talk about the aggressor,
19 towards the end. In English, it is page 1 of this translation of mine.
20 Towards the end down here, you say: "In the region of the technical
21 school museum, the aggressor acted with the grenade launcher upon the tram
22 when the only tram driver was wounded. The 21st of November, 1994."
23 Is that right?
24 A. I don't see it here.
25 Q. Towards the end, "aggressor," and then further down.
1 A. Well, there is "Operative Group 2."
2 Q. No, no. I'm reading out what I think is interesting, towards the
3 end of the paragraph?
4 A. First paragraph?
5 Q. First paragraph. "In the region of the technical school museum,
6 the aggressor acted with grenade launcher upon the tram when only tram
7 driver was wounded.
8 A. I see something else written here. Has this been changed in my
9 version? I don't know.
10 Q. No. But look at it, towards the end. "In the region of the
11 technical school," do you see it now?
12 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Is that right?
14 A. Yes, yes. Just a moment, please. Yes. Yes, I see it.
15 Q. It is correct that 200 metres is the maximum range of that type of
17 A. Well, look, I mean, an approximation is taken because it
19 Q. All right.
20 A. Well, right. 200 metres, because the tram is not more than 200
21 metres away from the Miljacka river.
22 Q. Oh, well. You put that well, didn't you? I don't want to ask you
23 about it any further, but this place where the tram was hit, according to
24 the statements made by several witnesses, is at least 500 metres away from
25 the Miljacka.
1 A. Rifle grenades can be launched from different make-shift devices,
2 as well.
3 Q. Thank you. Now, on page 3 in the B/C/S; and in the English
4 version, it is page 2, the first paragraph. You see 2.1?
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. That is not the paragraph I
6 want, the next one.
7 Q. "In the operation zone OG 1, in the afternoon during the changing,
8 aggressor forces active in the region of Privadol, BVG 1S, MTBR with 34
9 granites, MB 83 millimetre --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Note: And 19 shells.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] -- from MB 60 millimetres very
12 precisely, but we do not any data on aggressor's losses. With two MB 120
13 millimetres, one MAD proskok [phoen] and ostojice [phoen] were shooting."
14 Is this correct? Is that what is stated in this report that you
16 A. Not necessarily.
17 Q. Thank you. And, finally, in English it's page 2, paragraph 3 and
18 page 4, paragraph 1, UNPROFOR activities. Please look at page 5 of the
19 B/C/S. It says:
20 "It was noticeable that you units of UNPROFOR were given increased
21 measures of combat readiness. There were no special activities during the
22 date. Today UNPROFOR did not allow the transfer of a Howitzer from Dugo
23 Polje. It will be transferred in parts during the following day.
24 "UNPROFOR is intensively working on the road towards Kostraca in
25 the area of Podlugovo, a protest was launched, and the response was that
1 they would deploy aircraft if their work is jeopardised by our unit."
2 Is that correct, and is that your signature on the document?
3 A. I don't understand this last bit about UNPROFOR.
4 "UNPROFOR intensively working on the record towards Kostraca, zone
5 of responsibility OG 3, in the area of Podlugovo, probably in the area of
6 Podlugovo; whereby, a protest was launched -- lodged, and the response was
7 that they would deploy aircraft if our units would jeopardise their work."
8 Who would deploy aircraft?
9 Q. UNPROFOR, NATO.
10 A. Whose aircraft? Aircraft for support?
11 Q. Please. It is clearly written here what it was that you wrote.
12 First of all, that you were forbidden to transfer a Howitzer, and then you
13 take it apart and take it --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down. The
15 interpreter did not hear the question -- the answer because the question
16 was still going on.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're being asked to slow down by the
18 interpreters; don't overlap.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. So this is correct?
21 A. What I said is correct.
22 Q. But it is not in the transcript what you said, your answer to my
23 question, and even my question is not in the record. That means that I
24 will have to repeat it.
25 It was noticeable that UNPROFOR units were given increased
1 measures of combat readiness. UNPROFOR today did not allow the transfer
2 of a Howitzer from Dugo Polje; and, therefore, during the course of the
3 following day, it will be transferred in parts, in separate parts.
4 Is that correct?
5 A. You're asking me whether that was correct. Well, this was
6 prepared by officers. I just signed it. Now, is it correct? Is it
7 correct? Probably, it is correct. UNPROFOR did not let me take a
8 Howitzer down the road that goes through the demilitarised zone, then my
9 centres probably decided that they would disassemble it and have it
10 carried on horseback and go around the demilitarised zone and bring the
11 Howitzer in separate parts on horseback. That is probably it.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could this document
14 DD00-0648 please be marked for identification, pending the translation
15 that I will receive shortly.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll mark that for identification
18 as D146.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I have document DD00-1885.
20 It's been translated by the CLSS.
21 Q. Mr. Karavelic, this letter is addressed, Major-General Gobillard.
22 The sector commander is sending this letter to you on the 4th of November,
23 1994, and it reads as follows:
24 "Dear General: On the 3rd of November 1994, during an escort
25 scheduled to pick up the Bosnian Prime Minister, Mr. Silajdzic, a convoy
1 composed of four vehicles, two VBL and two APCs, came under fire in the
2 vicinity of Krupac," and then we have the coordinates of this location.
3 "As the shootings were coming from the top of the quarry, it is
4 clear that the origin of the two firings was from the area under the
5 control of the BH army. After the investigation, see the photos enclosed,
6 eight impacts were detected on different vehicles. This deliberate action
7 is unacceptable, and I would remind that we were accomplishing this
8 mission to the benefit of your prime minister. Regards, General
10 My question is: Is it possible that you were prepared to each
11 shoot even at your own prime minister?
12 A. That's ridiculous.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have document
14 DD00-1885 be admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit because we have the
15 translation thereof.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D147.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document is DD00-1459,
19 which has also been translated by the CLSS.
20 Q. It read as follows. This is the document dated the 14th of
21 October 1994, and here again this document was signed by Cudic, and it
22 read as follows:
23 "Yesterday, on the 14th of October 1994," and this is addressed to
24 Gobillard. "Yesterday, on the 14th of October 1994, one of our soldiers
25 tried to defect in the area of Grbavica. Our soldiers opened fire and
1 probably wounded him. Members of the RusBat then came in APCs into the
2 no-man's land and pulled out our soldier to the opposite side. We demand
3 that you immediately return our soldier to our side; otherwise, we shall
4 publicly accuse you of cooperation with the opposite side."
5 My question is: Everyone who tried to cross over the separation
6 line came under your fire? Yes or no.
7 A. I guess that's the fundamental and basic mission of every army
8 engaged in a war with the opposite side.
9 Q. Even if we're talking about civilians?
10 A. Don't treat me like a child. I'm not a child.
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have this document
12 DD00-1459 be admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have the translation, too.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, if I may. Based on the position that
16 this Chamber took yesterday, I would suggest it would be more appropriate,
17 especially given the witness' responses with respect to this document, for
18 it to be marked for identification.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. Marked for identification.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked for
21 identification as D148.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he gave an answer
23 and he said it was ridiculous, and he said it was something normal. I
24 don't see how he didn't answer this, and this document was translated. I
25 don't have anything to do with identification. He said it was ridiculous.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I said it was ridiculous to
2 claim that my soldiers shot --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please move on, Mr. Tapuskovic.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note the speaks are overlapping
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on and do not overlap. There's another
7 request from the interpreter.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Now, document DD00-1809 --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskvoci, It is time for us to take the
11 next break --
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] -- I will end with --
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We are at the time for the break.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're at the time for the break. And when we
16 resume, I'll just spend two minutes before the witness comes into court to
17 deal with two administrative matters.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: The first matter relates to a confidential second
22 motion filed on the 16th of March, 2007 by the Prosecution for the
23 testimony of Dr. Beslic to be heard via video link conference. Now the
24 Defence response is expected on the 30th of March, 2007. Originally this
25 witness was expected to testify on the 2nd of April, but it is now the
1 intention of the Prosecution to schedule him to testify between the 3rd
2 and the 5th of April, the same dates as seven other witnesses who will
3 also be testifying by video-conference link.
4 In light of the need to make arrangements for the witness'
5 testimony if he can not testify via videolink, the Prosecutor may wish to
6 revert to the original plan of the 2nd of April. But in that event it
7 would be helpful if we could decide this motion before the week of the
8 scheduled videolinks. That is before Monday, the 2nd of April, and for
9 that reason we would need to know whether the Defence response would be
10 provided earlier than is required by the rules. Ideally then, I would
11 think sometime this week.
12 So I am to ask Mr. Tapuskovic whether the Defence would be in a
13 position to provide their response.
14 Oh, yes, I've just been reminded that tomorrow would be our last
15 day, because we are not sitting Friday.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my colleague can
18 give you an answer immediately.
19 MS. ISAILOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Now, regarding the testimony of Dr. Beslic, Defence is not against
21 a video-conference -- a videolink being established for his testimony and
22 so we're -- we are giving you the answer today.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. Yes.
24 Now the next matter is that on Monday, the 2nd, we are scheduled
25 to hear Captain Hansen. But I note that the Prosecution only has Captain
1 Hansen scheduled to testify. The Prosecution therefore needs to have
2 additional witnesses because we have scheduled, I think, probably at the
3 most, one session for Captain Hansen's testimony.
4 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, we had hoped to squeeze in another
5 witness in the extra time on Monday, the 2nd ever April, but we also did
6 not want that witness to go into Tuesday, because the videolink is very
7 compressed. We have eight witnesses in three days by videolink. And so
8 we cannot go into Tuesday. We had two possibilities of witnesses to bring
9 on the Monday, the 2nd, that we thought that the only two that we thought
10 could fit into that little gap, neither one is able to come. One of them,
11 in fact was Dr. Beslic and the other witness that we thought could fit
12 into the -- that gap is simply unable to come on that date.
13 So, unfortunately, we are going to be left with a gap on that
14 Monday. And I apologise for that. It will have been the first time that
15 has happened in this trial, and as I said t is necessary because we have
16 got to start the videolink on Tuesday.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can Dr. Beslic be videolinked on Monday.
19 MR. WHITING: Well, setting up the videolink is a lot -- there's a
20 lot of people involved and a lot of technology and we have scheduled it
21 for Tuesday, and I don't know if it would be possible -- it's perhaps
22 possible for it to be -- that we could start it on Monday and I can look
23 into that.
24 I'll send some e-mails right away and see if it's possible that we
25 could actually start it on Monday and perhaps start either with Dr. Beslic
1 or one of the other videolink witnesses and get the ball rolling. That is
2 -- that is a good suggestion. Although I'm not sure it is possible,
3 given all the people that have to come together to make the videolink
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think it would a feasible solution because also
7 to have eight videolinks in one day is -- or in two days, is a bit much.
8 So if we could start the videolink process Monday, then that means that we
9 could have Captain Hansen and maybe one other videolink testimony on
10 Monday, and so that will alleviate the stress on Tuesday and Wednesday.
11 MR. WHITING: From our side it should be no difficulty, from the
12 side of the OTP. It's just going to be a matter of getting all the
13 personnel there. But, I think they will be there anyhow, so by then so
14 -- I'm optimistic that we can do that and I'm grateful for the session.
15 Before I sit down, I have another matter to raise regarding
16 scheduling which I can raise now or if there are other things that the
17 Court wants to take up.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: No I have concluded.
19 MR. WHITING: It has to do with scheduling today and tomorrow. As
20 Your Honours know this witness was scheduled for four hours of
21 cross-examination and there was 45 minutes yesterday and if today -- if
22 all of today is used up that would be four hours and 45 minutes -- or four
23 hours and 50 minutes of cross-examination. The -- my concern is about the
24 witness tomorrow, the expert witness. He must finish tomorrow, because
25 he -- he is in the Dutch military and is being re-deployed after his
1 testimony tomorrow and he was brought from a location far away. He -- he
2 is scheduled to testify one and a half hours on direct and two and a half
3 hours on cross-examination.
4 We will shorten or direct to one hour, in order to assist in
5 having him complete tomorrow. Also, in the event that the Defence is
6 unable to finish the cross-examination today and Your Honours are inclined
7 to grant more time, I would note that we could sit extra time tomorrow.
8 There courtroom space available. I know that I'm not sure that Judge
9 Mindua would be available and that might be an impediment, but there is
10 courtroom space available.
11 I'm just making any suggestion possible so that we can finish the
12 witness tomorrow.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see absolutely no reason why this
14 cross-examination should go beyond four hours.
15 MR. WHITING: If it finishes today, if this witness finishes
16 today, we will have no difficulty finishing the witness tomorrow.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: Because we can start with the examination-in-chief
18 of the next witness today?
19 MR. WHITING: No. We had actually planned to start him tomorrow
20 at 2.15 and take an hour, and then that would leave well over two and a
21 half hours for the Defence to do their cross-examination, actually that
22 would leave three hours. We anticipated -- because we got an indication
23 that he needed the rest of the day, we anticipated starting the next
24 witness tomorrow.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Tapuskovic has made no such application
1 to me. I expect Mr. Tapuskovic to utilise the time that has been
2 allocated. The Prosecutor used two hours and seven minutes, and normally
3 Mr. Tapuskovic would have the same amount of time. So far he has used an
4 hour and 38 minutes. I will, of course, hear any application for an
5 extension, but it certainly will not be going beyond the end of the day.
6 MR. WHITING: I would just note, Your Honour, that since this was
7 a 92 ter witness, according to the schedule from Your Honours, we were
8 granted two hours, which we basically adhered to, and Defence was granted
9 four hours for cross-examination. But even if they used four hours, that
10 would be completed by the end of the day.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, please bear that in mind.
12 And let the witness be brought in, so that we can move ahead
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may say
15 something, please. Tomorrow's witness is not so much interesting for the
16 Defence. I will probably cut my time allotted in half. However, this
17 witness of today is the only military officer, the only commander who came
18 to this Tribunal; and unless I question him as fairness would require,
19 then I won't be in the position to raise any significant issues relating
20 to the defence of the General accused.
21 But no one should have any concerns. I will terminate my
22 examination tomorrow the minute the gentleman in question needs to go. I
23 kindly ask for the four hours to be granted to me. Tomorrow's witness can
24 rest assured that I can release him after half an hour.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Tapuskovic.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I will
4 just move from one document to another.
5 Q. Witness, the document DD00-1809 was signed by you. I only
6 translated portions of it via a sworn in court translator.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So can we please have the
8 document, DD00-1809, be -- have displayed. It's dated the 6th of April,
10 Q. I'm interested in one sentence only from the portion entitled,"Our
11 forces." Towards the end of the first paragraph, you say as follows: "In
12 the evening by action from infantry weapons prevented the attempt of
13 defection of one person to Grbavica."
14 It's a document signed by you.
15 The question is: Does this imply that this person was killed and
16 thereby prevented from crossing over?
17 A. He was caught by the shoulder and pushed back.
18 Q. But this is what it reads in the evening, by action from PN, not
19 that he was tapped on the shoulder and told to go back, but he had been
20 fired on and thereby he was prevented from crossing over. He was killed?
21 A. That's what you claim.
22 Q. It says here a person; it doesn't say a soldier. So I put to you
23 that it was a civilian who was killed from infantry weapons. What do you
24 say to that?
25 A. That's not what I'm saying.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have DD00-1809 be
2 tendered for identification. I provided a translation of this one
3 sentence only, and the signature is that of Karavelic.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Edgerton.
5 MS. EDGERTON: In -- just in advance of a submission with respect
6 to the document, perhaps Mr. Tapuskovic could direct us to exactly where
7 in the B/C/S original it says that somebody was killed.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, can you do that?
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't understand
10 the objection. I put a direct question to the witness and said that this
11 person was prevented from crossing over by fire from infantry weapons, to
12 which he said that he would just pulled by the shoulder and returned back.
13 I was only saying to the witness that this person was killed from this
14 kind of weapons and thereby prevented from crossing over, which he denies
15 as being untrue.
16 This is his document.
17 Q. I say that it is not true that he was just tapped on the shoulder
18 and returned, but rather shot dead.
19 A. I cannot see it written like that anywhere.
20 Q. Read the third sentences: "In the evening, by action from our
21 forces," et cetera, read it for yourself.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is the relevance of this?
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, every man who tried
24 to cross over was immediately executed by firing at this person. This is
25 describes one incident only, and this is a document produced and signed by
1 Mr. Karavelic. This document shows that by firing from infantry weapon, a
2 person was prevented from crossing over to the other side. This is what
3 it literally says. I don't understand how this is irrelevant. On the
4 contrary, this is very much relevant.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: How is it relevant to the guilt or innocence of
6 the accused?
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No one was allowed to cross over
8 and remain alive, Your Honours. I can't believe that a question can be
9 raised about the relevance. Every person in town who tried to get out,
10 according to this, was immediately executed by being fired on. Not a
11 single Serb --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry. Explain the relevance again for me.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Between 40 and 50.000 Serbs were
14 in Sarajevo, and they couldn't leave Sarajevo. Whoever tried to get out
15 and get across the separation line met the destiny described in this order
16 issued by General Karavelic. If had is irrelevant then --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. It's not for to you. The Chamber is
19 deliberating on the matter.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, and this was always
21 portrayed as a consequence of sniping carried out by the Serbs. Always as
22 a rule, a person was shot dead --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Where is the evidence of that?
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all the civilians
25 who got killed in Sarajevo were in huge numbers registered as victims of
1 sniping. This is an indisputable proof that everyone to tried to cross
2 the separation line was subjected to fire and, thereafter, it was depicted
3 as a result of action by the other side.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: The last part is interesting, that, thereafter,
5 it was depicted as action by the Serb.
6 But where is that? Are you bringing evidence of that? Have we
7 had evidence of that so far in this case?
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] A few moments ago, and as a
9 matter of fact, this document is not reflected in the transcript, I
10 mentioned DD00-1459, which shows that -- well, this document has a
11 translation, too; and not only a translation, but it shows that a person
12 was fired at that had been taken over by the UNPROFOR battalion. We don't
13 know what happened to that person, but at any rate that person had been
15 And this document was not even admitted. 1459 is the document. I
16 cannot find -- I beg your pardon. It wasn't even marked for
18 MS. EDGERTON: I think it was, D148.
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please, these are
20 two documents. I cannot find many such documents but here are two of
21 them. I have some other documents, too, but I don't want you to burden
22 with all of that. But these show --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Tell me this. Let us assume now you're making
24 your closing your argument. Let us assume that the case has ended, and
25 you're making your submissions on this particular issue. What is your
1 submission on it to have your client walk through the door a free man?
2 Show me how this evidence enables to you do that.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I assert, Your Honours, I assert
4 that up to now not a single case of intentional firing at civilians has
5 been proven. Out of all this evidence that was called here as instances
6 of sniping, I categorically assert and I will prove that when the time
7 comes for my own case that these people actually lost their lives in
8 combat, not through intentional sniping.
9 These two documents show that it was the other way around, that
10 whoever tried to leave Sarajevo was liquidated in this way, as shown in
11 the documents. And the victims were always portrayed as casualties of
12 sniping from the Serb side. That is my closing argument.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: So the sniping incidents with which the accused
14 is charged, you will answer in the way that you just said? That they were
15 victims, they were victims of fire from the ABiH side and that was --
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- attributed to the Serbs.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] There were also casualties where
19 representatives of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina fired at their own
20 people. All other victims in this period of time that we are dealing with
21 are victims of fighting that was permanent, especially during the time of
22 the offensive, because most of the shelling victims were affected by the
23 action coming from both sides.
24 I'm not going into all of that now. However, since it is stated
25 in general terms that all civilians who were killed in Sarajevo were
1 killed because they were intentionally targeted, and these two documents
2 show -- I'm simplifying things at this moment in time. I cannot deal with
3 all of this now, but --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, bear in mind that the indictment
5 charges that victim A died as a result of sniping or shelling. Victim B
6 died as a result of sniping or shelling. These are specific charges and
7 that is what have you to answer. I must also make it clear that in making
8 these comments I'm not suggesting there is any burden on you. There is no
9 burden on you at all to do anything, to disprove anything. You can remain
10 silent. The burden remains on the Prosecution.
11 But it is my duty as the Judge to understand your defence, and
12 this is what I am trying to do. I'm having some difficulty understanding
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. May I just add one
15 more thing.
16 You see, he, General Milosevic, General Dragomir Milosevic, was
17 primarily accused of killings. Everyone of those incidents was a specific
18 killing. If the Prosecution proves all of that beyond a reasonable doubt,
19 everyone of these incidents are things that the Defence has to deal with
20 specifically; and when the time comes, we are going to present our own
21 arguments stating why this was not intentional killing in any one of the
23 I don't have to explain it now. It is not my duty to do it now,
24 and that is not what you are asking me to do. However, these two
25 documents show how people got killed at the separation line. From the
1 Serb side, nobody was crossing over into Sarajevo, and nobody was
2 liquidated the way these two people were, as reflected in these two
3 documents. These two documents are very telling, in terms of these
4 examples as to what happened when somebody tried to cross the separation
5 lines, what happened to these people.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: And what is the inference you would be asking us
7 to draw from that?
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, you see, Your Honours, one
9 matter is what the indictment contains and the incidents. These incidents
10 are given as representative of something that otherwise happened on a
11 massive scale. All the civilian casualties that happened in Sarajevo,
12 according to the Prosecution, are the result of intentional firing of the
13 civilian population.
14 This is one piece of evidence saying that it was actually the
15 other way around. It is actually opposite to that. These are just two
16 examples for which we found arguments for the time being; however, this
17 was a mass phenomenon. So I think that these two documents are quite
18 telling and quite self-explanatory. I cannot find 100 examples now in the
19 documents that the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I had trouble enough
20 finding this, too.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you applying for the documents to be
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have a translation for the
24 first one, and I want it to be admitted into evidence. The last digits
25 are 1459. As for the other one, I have a translation and I don't
1 understand why this would not be admitted into evidence as well, because
2 the translation is there, just of that part. If somebody needs to have it
3 translated in its entirety, then they can do it. But these two documents
4 really deserve to be admitted as Defence exhibits.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have these documents been admitted? I'll ask the
6 court deputy.
7 THE REGISTRAR: I show the document ID DD00-1459 was marked for
8 identification as DD00-148 or D148. Additionally, the second document
9 used by Defence, document ID DD00-1809, is not yet been tendered.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit both.
12 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honours. May I just make one note or raise an
13 issue with respect to DD 180 -- DD00-1809. My friend has asserted several
14 times that is that document of General Karavelic's, and I wonder if I
15 could suggest that the last page, which would normally bear the signature
16 block, be shown to General Karavelic so he can, in fact, see whether or
17 not this is his document.
18 And, secondly, Your Honours, again, in his submissions, his latest
19 submissions on the document, page 46, lines 23, Mr. Tapuskovic said nobody
20 was liquidated as these two people were. Now, if that's his submission, I
21 would ask again that he refer to -- refer us to the evidence in the
22 original version of this document, as to the liquidation of that
23 individual, or perhaps correct his statement on the record.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, show the document, the last page of the
25 document so that the witness can see the signature.
1 And that's your document?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says "General Vahid Karavelic,"
3 but it was signed by a different individual.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: And why would that have been?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because at the time I was not in
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: So that's a procedure with which you are
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: May we ask who signed the document, and was that
11 done after delegation from you?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a type of regular procedure in
13 the chain of command. It was signed by the Chief of Staff, Brigade
14 General Nedzad Inerdic.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on. We have admitted both. Would you
16 give them a number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. DD00-1459, previously marked
18 for identification as D148, will become Exhibit D148. Document ID
19 DD00-1809 will become Exhibit D149.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to explain something to
21 the Trial Chamber, if you allow me to do so.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. What is that you wish to explain?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, indeed.
24 Mr. Tapuskovic is trying to launch a monstrous fact.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want to hear that. Let's move on with
1 the case.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Document D64 MFI DD00-0723. I
3 now have a CLSS translation of it. This is a document from the 19th of
4 September, 1995, which included an order signed by Fikret Prevljak, in
5 which it says,
6 "On the basis of the order of the 1st Corps commander and pursuant
7 to specific information and data of UNPROFOR in the area of the city of
8 Sarajevo, sniper fire from our units is intense. Regarding this the
9 attention of the President of the Presidency was drawn to this and a
10 protest was sent asking him for immediate cessation of these attacks.
11 "In view of the warnings received from UNPROFOR and orders from
12 the President of the Presidency, I hereby order: Immediately stop firing
13 all types of weapons, particularly sniper rifles."
14 Mr. Karavelic, did you order this, what is stated here, to
15 Prevljak, to have things done as stated here.
16 A. Because of constant complaints, or, rather, I beg your pardon.
17 Due to constant firing from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps at the city and
18 the civilian population and enormous casualties sustained in the city and
19 because of the all the protests, the many protests we sent to UNPROFOR to
20 stop the suffering of the civilian population in town, the other side, the
21 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, asked for agreements to be reached saying that
22 this was allegedly done by both sides when they were discussing this with
23 UNPROFOR, that is. UNPROFOR forces never went to either side, generally
24 trying to remain neutral. It was always easier for them to ask for the
25 teams to get together. So, among other, I had to go and attend a few
1 meetings. I think I even had one meeting with the commander of the
2 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, General Milosevic, if I remember correctly.
3 Purportedly we were supposed to stop the sniping but this was an attempt
4 made by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to conceal what it was that they were
5 doing. Of course, I had to do that in order to lessen the suffering of
6 the civilian population. So when such a complaint comes to the President
7 of the Presidency from UNPROFOR, the President absolutely has no idea
8 about any of this. He sends it further down though the chief of staff to
9 me. I, as corps commander, don't know anything about this either this
10 because --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Heard enough.
12 What is the next question.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation].
14 Q. The next question, Mr. Karavelic, please look at the date, the
15 19th of September, 1995, the time of the most intensive NATO bombings. I
16 claim, and that's why I'm asking you this, that you took advantage of
17 September, October and November to fire incessantly at the area of
18 responsibility of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps because isn't it correct,
19 you were doing then everything that NATO was doing and that you took
20 advantage of the situation?
21 A. I beg your pardon. Your Honours. As for this date mentioned by
22 Mr. Tapuskovic the 19th of September, 1995 I was not the commander of the
23 1st Corps.
24 Q. All right. Who was, because there was done on the order of --
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, Please tell the Chamber what is the
1 relevance of this?
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in November, or,
3 rather in September, October, and November there was no sniping at all
4 from the side of the VRS, vis-a-vis Sarajevo, because NATO and the army of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina were acting in concert and an order is issued here to
6 stop sniper activity against the positions of the army of Republika Srpska
7 because this NATO bomb was under way as well. The date is 19th of
8 September, 1995.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: So what? Please relate it to the issue of
10 liability. That's what you must do. We're not carrying out an
11 investigation into -- generally into what happened between 1993 and 1995.
12 We have an indictment. How is it relevant to the question of whether the
13 accused is guilt or innocent?
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours, in
15 November or in September, October and November, there was no firing at the
16 positions of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially not in respect of
17 Sarajevo. Absolutely none whatsoever because NATO bombing was on and the
18 representatives of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were sniping at the
19 positions of the army of Republika Srpska, absolutely. In September,
20 October, and November there was no activity. And he is accused -- or,
21 rather, indicted for that period of time as well.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: So let us look at the indictment.
24 Do you have the indictment? Show me the incidents in the
25 indictment to which this would relate and how this would impact on the
1 guilt or innocence of the accused, how it relates to the charges.
2 You were speaking of September 1995.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We are talking about September,
4 October, and November. Count 1 of the indictment, terror, and there is an
5 insistence of terror pursued by VRS, however in September, October and
6 November there was no shooting.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Start again. Show me the incident to which this
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's start from count 1 crime of
10 terror. From on or about 10th August, 1994, that's count 1, crime of
11 terror. That's the first count of the indictment.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop there. Count one, crime of terror. And show
13 me how -- show me how the -- the document which is on the screen addresses
14 this issue.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Look at the date. It's the 19th
16 of September. I didn't read the whole document but the date is the 19th
17 of the September.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... 19th of
19 September 1995.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you're starting with the 8th of October,
22 1994. In the first schedule to the indictment.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm talking about
24 September, when NATO bombing started, as well as about October and
25 November. At the time there couldn't have been any terror carried out by
1 the VRS, nor the other way -- or it was actually the other way around they
2 were the only targets of NATO and of the BH army who took the advantage of
3 the situation. So I have to go by stages.
4 In these last three months there couldn't possibly be any
5 activities carried out against Sarajevo. They were just trying to save
6 their bare lives. However, he is being charged with this period as well.
7 That is why I presented this document to you, although I have some other
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: So, in fact your defence really is that the
10 perpetrators of the violence that led to the death or injury of all these
11 victims was in fact the -- the ABiH.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in September,
13 October and November, there were no incidents of which the accused has
14 been accused. In there were no operations pursued by the VRS against
15 Sarajevo, and it is absolutely true there were no activities, maybe some
16 desperate attempts at defence but in these three months there is was not
17 even self-defence.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, can I just ask you: Are you
19 saying that the indictment should be temporary limited so as to exclude
20 the last three months of September, October, November 1995 from the -- is
21 that what are you aiming at?
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that in my view and
23 when the time comes for you to render your decision, I think that these
24 three months should be removed and not dealt with at all, because if you
25 look at the indictment there were no incidents taking place in that
1 period, so there can be no mention or talk of any terror in these three
3 I'm going to pursue this argument for other periods as well, but
4 this is completely out of the question when we're talking about these
5 three months. I'm talking about terror and about all other things.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, of course, I'm
8 checking the indictment. The last incident mentioned in the indictment,
9 which mentions terror and shelling, stops on the 28th of August, 1995. Is
10 that right? Is that what you have?
11 Have you checked that?
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. We're talking about Markale
13 2. That's Markale 2, and this was followed by NATO bombing.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] The accused, of course, is
15 accountable for the period that runs from the 10th of August, 1994 until
16 the 21st of November, 1995. If I have understood you correctly, you are
17 saying that as far as terror and shelling is concerned, we should exclude
18 the period that starts on the 29th of August, 1995 because the last
19 incident takes place on the 29th of August, 1995.
20 Have you understood you correctly?
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] You can also see in the
22 indictment that thereafter there was no shelling or sniping on Sarajevo.
23 There were only sniping incidents committed by the BH army. There was not
24 a single sniping incident that Dragomir Milosevic was accused after the
25 28th, and there was not a single shell fired and attributable to him after
1 the 28th of August, 1995.
2 This document that I show you talks about the sniping committed by
3 the BH army and using it precisely to target the permanently bombed area
4 held by the SRK. And there was not a single incident of shelling or
5 sniping committed by the VRS that the General has been accused of.
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Could you please remind me of or
7 explain to me what connection there is between all of this and the order
8 we have before us dated 19th of September, 1995. What is the relevance
9 with which -- with what you put forward now, please?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, precisely this sniping
11 activity is the best proof that in that period NATO and BH army acted in
12 concert. Is only one of the examples. Sniping activity targeted
13 civilians on the side of the VRS, and this is not the only order. There
14 are others as well. I took one as a -- as the most striking example.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: What if NATO and the BH army acted in concert?
16 Suppose that is substantiated, what are the consequences for the liability
17 of the accused?
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like you to
19 notice precisely this that is clearly reflected by this -- in this
20 document. You have to weigh these things in the overall context. The
21 allegation is that terror persisted through the whole period. This is a
22 reverse situation. It shows that the Serbian population was subject to
23 the terror exclusively and thereby any accusation of Dragomir Milosevic is
24 eradicated in this particular period of time.
25 But given the incidents cited in the indictment and the sniping
1 that were pursued on a permanent basis that the Presidency was prompted to
2 issue and order for them to stop is more than evident, and this clears
3 Dragomir Milosevic of any responsibility for this period.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to look at what you just said.
5 It says that it shows that the Serbian population was subjected to
6 the terror and thereby any accusation of Dragomir Milosevic is eradicated
7 in this particular period of time. Wrong reasoning. It doesn't follow.
8 It doesn't follow. Even if the Serbian population was subject to terror,
9 that, by itself, that, in and of itself, does not necessarily, to use your
10 word, "eradicate" any accusation in relation to Dragomir Milosevic.
11 You would have to go further and to show how the terror inflicted
12 by the Serbs impacted on the incidents set out in the indictment, whether
13 by way of self-defence or by way of some other legitimate defence.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have to separate
15 two things. It is not up to me to talk about the period, and the time
16 will come for that, between 10th of August, 1994 and 28th of August, 1995.
17 For that period, I have to produce for you much stronger arguments and
19 I'm talking to you about the period during the NATO bombing. In
20 the indictment pertaining to this period, there is not an incident cited
21 that was committed by the VRS, either in terms of shelling or in sniping.
22 There is not a single action attributable to Dragomir Milosevic carried
23 out in the last three months.
24 The Prosecution does not -- cannot cite any single incident from
25 that period of time involving the VRS, and this document is the best
1 illustration of what I'm saying. And it shows that the Presidency had to
2 intervene in order to put a stop to the sniping against the other side,
3 and probably this was drawn to their attention by NATO.
4 As I said there was not a single incident in the period after the
5 28th of August, 1995, not even in the indictment, and therefore we --
6 there is nothing to be discussed here with regard to the activities of the
7 VRS within the framework of the indictment. As for the previous period,
8 however, I will have to produce different arguments for you.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, it seems to me that we are perhaps
10 confounding two different aspects of two different issues. One is the
11 temporal extension of the indictment; and if I understand you correctly,
12 you're saying that the last three months of the period for which the
13 accused is charged with allowing terror and other crimes to be committed
14 in Sarajevo, that this should be excluded from the indictment because no
15 crimes were committed from the VRS in that time. That is one issue.
16 The other issue, as far as I see it, is the incidents that have
17 been scheduled, both sniping incidents and shelling incidents, and I guess
18 that for those incidents there is a case for to you answer. This is why
19 we are here. So I suggest that we separate the issue of the temporal
20 extension of the indictment from the other issue of your client's
21 responsibility for the incidents that are scheduled in the indictment, and
22 let's move on.
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is precisely what I'm
24 saying, the indictment itself shows that after the 28th of August, there
25 was not a single incident that the accused is being charged or either in
1 terms of shelling and sniping, not a single incident. And I'm going to
2 prove, of course, that in August he wasn't even there. He was undergoing
3 medical treatment at the time, and it is going to be up to you to weigh
4 that fact.
5 But in any case the indictment doesn't show a single incident in
6 September, October, and November. As a matter of principle, I assert that
7 the VRS, even before the 28th, did not commit a single war crime, and that
8 particularly refers to the last three months --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Please, I have to stop you. I have understood
10 your point of view. The Bench has clear understood your point of view.
11 The difficulty I have is that I'm not sure that I can extract the same
12 interpretation from this particular document that you are actually trying
13 to -- to extract. But I again, I repeat, I think we should separate the
14 two issues of the temporal extension from the scheduled incidents, and
15 let's move back to the line of defence.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed, Mr. Tapuskovic.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not even going to tender
18 this. I take into account your objections.
19 Now we have document 65 ter 01989, and until now, it was D65,
20 MFI. And now I have a translation. It was signed by Mr. Karavelic.
21 Q. You see, Mr. Karavelic, this is a letter that you are writing to
22 minister, Dr. Hasan Muratovic.
23 "Dear Minister: In relation to" such-and-such "letter, I wish to
24 inform you of the following. In the building of the executive council,
25 there are no units of the 1st Corps or sniper shooters."
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, do we have the
2 translation of this letter, please?
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes. There is an
4 official translation, a CLSS translation. Now, I don't know. I have the
5 translation. Now, whether it is in e-court or not --.
6 Q. So you were writing to Hasan Muratovic, and you say: "In the
7 building of the executive council, there are no units of the 1st Corps or
8 sniper shooters from our units." That is the 27th of August 1994. It is
9 the MUP that is securing the building of the executive crowns with their
10 own units.
11 "As for this incident, General Soubirou informed Mr. Enes Bezdrob
12 as well, and we believe that such incidents will be avoided in the
13 future." You signed that on the 27th of August, 1994?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This was sniper shooting, which, in your assessment, was carried
16 out by someone from the MUP. Somebody from the MUP was firing at the
18 A. In my view, there wasn't any sniping there at all, so what is this
19 all about? Had I received such a document from Minister Muratovic, where
20 he asked me about this, and then he was probably informed according to the
21 same system as the one that I explain add while ago. And I'm telling him
22 that I do not have any units of my own within, and that that the building
23 is under the authority of the MUP.
24 And it was usually one or two policemen that were providing
25 security for the building. They stood in front of the entrance in most
1 cases, because the building could also be used from the basement side, and
2 it could be accessed that way and the basement was even used for important
4 I'm telling you again that I just had to use the word "snipers" or
5 "sniper shooters" just because I would get that kind of term from up
6 above. They used that term, "snipers." However, please, in order to
7 understand this properly, snipers were in rifle squads, in the lowest
8 structural unit, and snipers were -- were treated just like any other
9 soldiers or riflemen in my case.
10 Q. Thank you. You drew my attention to this in the third paragraph
11 that such incidents should be prevented. It is my suggestion that this
12 letter was written either because a French soldier was hit, an UNPROFOR
13 soldier, or a civilian, and that is why the protest was made?
14 A. Not necessarily, not at all.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this document please be
16 admitted into evidence. We now have a translation as well. Until now it
17 was just marked for identification.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this was previously marked for
21 identification as D65. It is now admitted as Exhibit D65.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Document DD00-0681 until now was
23 D66 MFI.
24 Q. In order to avoid reading all of it out to you, and there is a
25 translation of it as well, Alija Izetbegovic wrote a letter to your
1 superior, General Delic, and warned him that the French ambassador -- the
2 Ambassador of France told him that military expertise showed that one of
3 their soldiers had been hit from BH army positions. And that as a matter
4 of fact more than half of the 24 killed soldiers were killed by the
5 representatives of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 Were you aware of this letter, and did your superior, Delic,
7 inform you about it?
8 A. There were many such letters. I repeat, a great many.
9 My response to this letter would be the following and I'll just
10 going to read a paragraph from this letter. He stated that when the army
11 of Bosnia-Herzegovina allows the UNPROFOR commission to enter the
12 buildings from where the bullet could have been fired at the French
13 soldier, it will be possible to speak of normalisation of relations
14 between Paris and Sarajevo.
15 My comment: In part of this letter, in says that the VRS was
16 cooperative in investigating and touring locations in terms of the
17 possible firing position from where the bullet came from and that my side
18 conditionally speaking did not allow that. And you see from here, from
19 this part where it says quite literally that one building, or, rather the
20 most suspicious point from where the bullet was fired killing the French
21 soldier could not have been inspected because it was forbidden by the VRS.
22 Without any impartiality, without any partiality I wish to say that
23 these letters are irrelevant, such letters.
24 Q. Just one question. One more. This letter was written by Alija
25 Izetbegovic to Delic and you are saying that saying that it is irrelevant
1 in your view?
2 A. No. Alija Izetbegovic doesn't know anything about fighting. The
3 poor man, he was a person who had no idea what a rifle was and what a
4 bullet was. He just worked on the basis of what was submitted to him by
5 the army of Republika Srpska or, rather, UNPROFOR and then he would sent
6 it down to us to eliminate all these doubts and suspicions and that's what
7 we always did.
8 I would just like to say one sentence to the Trial Chamber, if I
9 may. I was commander of the 1st Corps. My assistant for legal affairs
10 was a Serb and he was the most important one there, a Serb. Zlatko
11 Petrovic was his name. My assistant commander for morale in my corps, the
12 corps that His Honour, the Judge called them Muslim army, yesterday, he
13 was a Serb, a Colonel Mihajlovic. In my corps I had very many officers
14 who is were Serbs and Croats. I was not fighting for the Muslims. I was,
15 but through my struggle for a comprehensive Bosnia-Herzegovina,
16 multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural, multi-confessional, as opposed to other
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the explanation.
19 Next question, Mr. Tapuskovic.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, in relation to this, have I
21 nothing else. But can this 66 MFI since it has a translation now, be
22 admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit?
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
24 THE REGISTRAR: This is marked for identification as D66. It now
25 becomes Exhibit D66.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Karavelic, now I have a document that was translated by a
3 sworn court interpreter and a translator in its entirety and you signed
4 it. Or, rather, it says here that it is your document. I cannot see the
5 signature here. I got it from the archive of the army of
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or, rather, from the Office of the Prosecutor, and
7 DD00-053 is the number.
8 And I will slowly read it out to you. This is a document dated
9 the 30th of September, 1994, and it is called procedure towards UNPROFOR
10 forces. The following procedure is to be taken towards UNPROFOR forces.
11 Leading of units that enter into through the zone of exclusion of 20
12 kilometres in addition to UNPROFOR forces to be carried the out in total
13 secrecy hide and mask the operation and deployment of units.
14 Units that carry out the attack at the front line in the exclusion
15 zone and in the UNPA as per agreement dated 13th of August, 1993? In the
16 stage of transporting, getting under and incoming also take measures of
17 hiding, up to arrival of units to positions.
18 In case that UNPROFOR forces uncover the presence of our units in
19 mentioned zones, through the contact of unit commanders or other
20 authorised officers, an attempt should be made to solve the situation by
21 carrying out the task.
22 In case UNPROFOR forces try physically through use of force to
23 prevent carrying out this task, to all their acts response reciprocally to
24 demonstrative acts of UNPROFOR respond by demonstrative acts, to the acts
25 of fire upon our forces, people and technical equipment, respond by fire
1 in order to protect the lives of our fighters and carrying out of task.
2 Please, is that what was done in actual fact and was that document
3 that you signed --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before that, explain the relevance.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is D53 already
6 admitted through a previous witness. And it shows that the exclusion zone
7 was affected or violated and that the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was
8 always prepared. If they were stopped from affecting the exclusion zone,
9 they would always fire at UNPROFOR initiatives. That is what the document
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. What is the question?
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The question is: Was that actually done in actual fact? Did you
14 camouflage your equipment and your movements? Did you violate the
15 exclusion zone and even fire at UNPROFOR units?
16 A. In order for things to be clear to the Trial Chamber, the
17 demilitarised zone at Igman was established after a big offensive launched
18 by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps from the direction of Trnovo via Igman
19 towards Hadzic. The objective was for Sarajevo to be placed in the second
20 ring. That was in June and July, 1993.
21 When we stopped at the very last moment, there were two kilometres
22 left for this to be joined up; and when the international community
23 reacted, the explicit request of the army of Republika Srpska was to
24 create this demilitarised zone that I cannot show you here now, but it
25 would be a very good thing for me to show it to you. It -- its shape was
1 that of a curve --
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could this be a bit
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: That is enough.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] In relation to this, I would
6 propose another exhibit signed by Karavelic on the 12th of November, 1994,
7 number DD00-1734. And I have a full translation provided by a sworn
8 in-court interpreter so that the Trial Chamber can follow the document.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, I think you said that the former
10 document was -- had been admitted as D53. Is that correct?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: D53 is a statement by Fraser, and this doesn't
13 look to me as something that Fraser could have been involved in.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This was admitted into evidence
15 through Witness W-46. We may check the number. If it wasn't admitted,
16 then I have to make a proposal in that respect.
17 JUDGE HARHOFF: That is exactly why I'm raising the point.
18 Perhaps the court deputy could confirm whether D53 was the
19 document that we have just seen.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That is the document that we
21 just saw as the order by Karavelic, and it was admitted on the 8th of
22 February through David Fraser.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mr. Karavelic, you can see this document, dated the 12th of
1 November, taking measures in the zone of exclusion around Sarajevo. I'm
2 not going to read all of it. Let's just focus on paragraph number 1. "On
3 several occasions we have been assured..."
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Counsel is not reading
5 paragraph 1.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] "... acquired information that
7 UNPROFOR has available precise data on the stated activities and locations
8 of weapons of the army of the Republic BH in the zone of exclusion. This
9 data UNPROFOR gathers by using the most sophisticated radar and other
10 reconnaissance means, and the same are very effectively used for the
11 purpose of damaging the reputation of the army of the Republic BH before
12 the international community.".
13 And now this is followed by your order: "Take immediately measures
14 to full application of --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Camouflaged
16 discipline in the region locations of disposition of weapons, calibre over
17 12.7 millimetre that is being situated in the zone of exclusion, radius 20
18 kilometres around Sarajevo."
19 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. My question is: You had heavy weapons all the time in the --
21 within the exclusion zone of heavy weaponry? Yes or no.
22 A. No.
23 Q. So you don't -- do not deny this being your document and signed by
25 A. This is the stamp with my signature, but in any case it's my
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since I have full
3 translation if someone wants to challenge it. I would nevertheless like
4 to have this entered as Defence exhibit, and its number is 001734.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: And its importance is the suggestion that you're
6 making that they had heavy weapons within the exclusion zone. Is that the
7 significance of this document?
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. And constantly firing from
9 them, as I'm going to demonstrate through the following documents.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. The witness did answer that no, but that
11 is your position. You're asking for us to admit it?
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D150.
15 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like now to
16 raise a very important topic, and I have document DD00-1819 in that
17 regard. This document is in e-court; however, its B/C/S version was a
18 little bit blurred. In the meantime, I did manage to find a more legible
19 copy, and I would like it to be put on ELMO for the witness, because in
20 e-court it is not precisely legible. And I also have a translation
21 provided by a sworn in-court interpreter.
22 Q. It's a document sent to all corps commands on the 17th of August,
23 1995. And if you look at it, this is what it reads: "In the last 15 to 20
24 days, an American peace initiative has appeared for Bosnia."
25 And it says that "President Clinton is in his fourth year of term
1 and that the unsolved question of BH is still hanging as a democracis [as
2 interpreted] sort. Due do that, he decided to take peace initiatives from
3 the hands of Europe and deal with it on his own. He will try to stop the
4 war at any cost.
5 "Due to potentially unfavorable development of the peace
6 initiative for BH and with the view to creating favourable conditions for
7 negotiations by the government, I hereby order to intensify active combat
8 operations in battlefields, but well prepared and with favourable results.
9 On page 2, you can see that this was signed by Rasim Delic.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at item number 4 in
11 both versions, please.
12 Q. "A peace initiative envisages potential cessation of combat which
13 is an additional reason for achieving favourable results in the
15 Do you know that on the 17th of August, Rasim Delic issued this
16 order? He was the Chief of the General Staff.
17 A. I don't know about it personally, because in that time precisely,
18 which is the first half of August 1995, I was dismissed from my post of
19 the corps commander. But I don't see any -- any special about this.
20 It's very normal, because at the negotiating table it was very
21 important who had advantage on the battlefield. And this was imposed by
22 the VRS, and the international community accepted that. It just stamped
23 and approved the results achieved in the --
24 Q. I'm going to try to finalise before the break, Your Honours?
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: To finalise your cross-examination?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, no.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I guess that would be hoping too much.
3 Just to finalise this question. All right. Go ahead.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. So the order was to intensify the fighting and that is what
7 A. It happened hundreds of times in war. I don't know about there
8 particular one, but it is very possible.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have this document
10 admitted as exhibit, DD00-1819, along with the translation provided by a
11 sworn in court translator.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, that becomes D151.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll break for 20 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, and you must endeavour to
19 conclude your cross-examination within the time remaining.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This is absolutely impossible,
21 Your Honours. This is out of the question. I have so many important
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: I worked with Judge May, and in these
24 circumstances he would say, Let's see how we get on. So let's see how we
25 get on. He's a good man to follow.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree. I will do my best to be
2 as efficient as possible.
3 Q. Mr. Karavelic, some things that are not in dispute we can deal
4 with quickly. Document DD00-0751; that's a schedule of passage through
5 the tunnel. You do not deny the existence of this tunnel that you used
6 for passage?
7 A. No one alive denies that, and Vahid Karavelic is the last person
8 to deny it.
9 Q. If you can take a look at this document, DD00-0751, and confirm
10 that you regulated how this tunnel is going to be used. Just look at it,
11 and confirm that this is how it happened.
12 And we also have an English translation provided by the CLSS. It
13 was signed by Prevljak by your authorisation, and this stipulates the
14 times of passage through there tunnel. This document consists of two
16 A. I see this is Fikret Prevljak's order, and in this he refers to my
17 order. I guess that is what it is.
18 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I please have
19 this admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit. This only regulates the
20 schedule of the passage through the tunnel and who is going pass through
21 it, and we have full translation of this document.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Of course, Your Honours, I have no objection to
24 this document, and the witness has spoken about it. But I think it's to
25 everyone's advantage if we can ask that we scroll through the document of
1 several pages, which actually purports to attach the witness's order, so
2 he could probably actually see his order.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Let's do that. Let's show the
4 witness the order which he himself made. Can we scroll through it? Is
5 that the technical term? Scroll down.
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness
7 explained that Prevljak issued this order on his authorisation, and this
8 is what it says on page number 1.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, what is your interest? Is that to
10 see that Prevljak passed the order on, or is it to see the order itself?
11 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] It reads here: "Pursuant to the
12 order of the 1st Corps," and this is Mr. Karavelic. Prevljak regulated
13 and designed the schedule of who is going to pass through the tunnel at
14 6.00 a.m., at 9.00 a.m., and 12.00, et cetera.
15 And I believe that Mr. Karavelic can confirm this. That's the
16 first thing. Of course, he may look at, but I think it is not a good use
17 of time.
18 MS. EDGERTON: Well, Your Honours, if I may, I think there is it
19 another question in here that hasn't been, in fact, put to the witness.
20 When my friend said at page 72, line 2, Prevljak regulated and designed
21 the schedule of who is going to pass through the tunnel at 6.00, at 9.00,
22 and at 12.00.
23 In fact, if he wants the General to confirm this, perhaps he could
24 put that to the General and see if that's indeed the case.
25 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Well, General, look at page 2.
2 A. It's not clear to me who drew up the schedule relating to the
3 tunnel. Was it me or Prevljak?
4 Q. Prevljak.
5 A. But he is referring here to my order.
6 Q. No. He is just saying that this was done pursuant to your order,
7 that he drew up this schedule pursuant to your order. For the purpose of
8 operization [as interpreted] of this facility and for the most effective
9 and efficient use of the tunnel, he determined who and when is going to
10 pass through the tunnel?
11 A. This is not what is written here. In his document, he says only
12 that he passed on my order and that is all.
13 Q. Can you tell me, did the schedule of the passage through the
14 tunnel exist or not? Was it regulated?
15 A. Of course, it was.
16 Q. Was this order that pertains to it?
17 A. I cannot say that.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Tapuskovic, what are you trying to show? Is
19 it that the tunnel was used for the passage of troops?
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 Q. And based on the existence ever this tunnel, I would like to ask
22 the following: Can we speak at all about --
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Just let me -- I'm not sure whether the
24 Prosecution is disputing that the tunnel was used for military purposes.
25 MS. EDGERTON: Not at all, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. So you needn't bother. They are not
2 disputing that. They concede it was used for military purposes, for the
3 transport of troops and weapons as well.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, then we could have this
5 document admitted into evidence. I would like to proceed immediately to
6 that stage. This document indisputably speaks about the existence of the
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: In the future, you need not concern yourself with
9 evidence to establish the military use of the tunnel, because the
10 Prosecution has conceded or is conceding that it was used for military
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. But I asked the
13 witness after he conceded the existence of the tunnel. We cannot talk any
14 longer about the siege ever Sarajevo.
15 Q. Can the witness comment on that because the units, and let me not
16 proceed with my question.
17 A. Of course, I can. Sarajevo was under siege since April 1992 until
18 the end of 1995 after the tunnel was built, and if I may just make an
19 observation, which is actually a disgrace for the international community
20 and the VRS. For me to build this tunnel and humiliate ourselves to go
21 under ground, under the very eyes of the international community, nothing
22 changed in the status of the siege of Sarajevo. The city of Sarajevo was
23 still without electricity until the end of the war. It was without gas --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have a sufficient answer to the question.
25 Let's move on.
1 Next question.
2 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you believe that I
3 shouldn't be tendering this the all into evidence?
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it. We admit it.
5 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD00-0751.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will become D152.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD00-0747. Could Mr. Karavelic
8 please have a look at it. There's a translation as well from the CLSS.
9 Q. This is a document dated the 25th of April, 1995. It speaks of
10 rotation of units, and in the first paragraph it says: "In order to carry
11 out the regular planned rotation of units, battalions of the 12th
12 Division, KOV, resubordinated to the 16th Division command and with a view
13 to taking all the necessary measures to prepare an organisation units to
14 leave for rotation."
15 Can you see this?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is this an order regulating the exit of units from Sarajevo going
18 to positions in order to help the 12th and 14th Divisions?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. A witness was heard here, and I don't think it was a protected
21 witness, Hadzic, Ismet Hadzic. The 6th of March, 2007 is the date of his
22 testimony, and the transcript pages are 3289 and 3290.
23 This is where he said that there were 15 day shifts, that they
24 would return to Sarajevo to get some rest, and then yet again they went
25 out to their military positions.
1 Did units in Sarajevo take rest so that they could be well rested
2 when being on positions outside Sarajevo thanks to the tunnel?
3 A. No, that is not correct. The units were defending Sarajevo and
4 holding positions in Sarajevo in order to prevent VRS from entering the
5 city of Sarajevo, and most often I would send reserve units outside
6 Sarajevo into combat there. Upon return, possibly some of them did get
7 some rest, but most of them did not.
8 Q. However, can you tell me any movement by the military at the
9 entrance into the tunnel and in zones that were near the exit out of the
10 tunnel, wouldn't that be a legitimate military objective for this army
11 that is on the move, moving out to a combat mission?
12 A. The exit and the entrance of the tunnel was always a military
13 objective for the army of Republika Srpska. I sustained terrible casualty
14 there at both sides of the entrance into the tunnel. There was shelling,
15 regardless of who or what was going through the tunnel.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can this document 04747, since it
18 has a translation as well, be admitted into evidence as a Defence exhibit
19 straight away.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D153.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Then I have DD00-0741, which also
23 has a translation provided by the CLSS, dated the 1st of July, 1995.
24 Q. You see it's the 12th Division again, and it says here, "Execution
25 of attacks." And in the text it says: "The experience obtained so far in
1 carrying out surprise raids both in the zone of the 1st Corps as well as
2 in the zones of the other corps has shown that there is a need and that it
3 is important to carry out sabotage actions in the PZT.
4 "Between the 26th and 27th of the June, 1995, in the early morning
5 of the 27th of June, 1995, the 2nd K corps units prepared and successfully
6 executed a surprise attack at," and then it says where. "The aggressor
7 suffered significant losses, 40 Chetniks were killed, more than double
8 this number were wounded, and a wounded Chetnik was captured and taken to
9 hospital, some 40 to 50 infantry weapons," and so on "were captured as
11 "The commanders of the units every day in accordance with the --
12 through daily assessment of the situations and use of the units in
13 carrying out combat operations, unit commanders shall plan in accordance
14 with the existing conditions and carry out surprise BD in the enemy's
15 immediate rear and deeper behind the lines."
16 And then paragraph 4, that is the only thing I am showing here
17 now: "By carrying out sabotage actions against PZT with the aggressor
18 constantly cause fear, panic," and so on. This order was issued by Fikret
19 Prevljak, commander of the 12th Division.
20 You are aware of this order at the time of the combat actions in
21 June 1995? Yes or no.
22 A. I would suggest that you read paragraph 4 in its entirety.
23 Q. I will. "And so tie down part of their forces in securing
24 features against which sabotage operations can be carried out
1 A. And its objective is to prevent continued attacks against the city
2 of Sarajevo.
3 Q. Mr. Karavelic, this refers to the period of time of the offensive
4 between June and late July 1995, so an offensive launched by the army of
6 A. This is the 30th of June, when the offensive was stopped.
7 Q. Very well.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Could this document, DD00-0741,
9 be admitted into evidence.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.
11 THE REGISTRAR: As D154, Your Honours.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Now I have a Defence Exhibit, or rather, a document DD00-0909.
14 Until now, it was D110 MFI. This is an order dated 20th of May, 1995,
15 within the 12th D KOV.
16 "Bearing in mind the importance of relations in RIK units in all
17 wartime conditions, I hereby order. All vital features, Grdonj, Borije,
18 Colina Kapa, Debelo Brdo, Mojmilo, Azici, Stupsko Brdo, Vis, Zuc, the
19 Faculty of Traffic and Transport Engineering must have wire communications
20 from two sides. Chief of Staff, Colonel Rizvo Pleh. The Deadline for
21 completion of this task is the 25th of May, 1995."
22 Is this a fact that all these hills enumerated here were held by
23 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and were linked up by wire communications
24 permanently, especially in the period referred to here?
25 A. Throughout the city of Sarajevo, I had my personal wire telephone
1 communication; and all the PTT telephone communications of Sarajevo, I
2 used from even the last houses on the outskirts of the town of Sarajevo.
3 And I took this line, this land line, all the way to the trenches outside
4 the city of Sarajevo. So I had hundreds of thousands, if I can put it
5 that way, telephone numbers on the line of siege. This saved the city of
6 Sarajevo to a great degree.
7 I see that what you think is that, for example, when Grdonj is
8 mentioned, of course, it goes without saying. Because from the very last
9 settlement on the slopes of Mount Grdonj and to the houses close to the
10 very top of Grdonj, I dug a big dugout, a communication trench from two to
11 two and a half metres so that people could come to these positions. That
12 meant I that I had one-third of -- of the slope of Grdonj under my
13 control. The rest was held by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. So also there
14 are others, and you enumerated a great deal of these locations that can be
15 discussed. Some can be discussed but then some others need not be
17 Q. Did you hold the hilltops mentioned here?
18 A. Grdonj, no; Borije, no; Colina Kapa, yes; Debelo Brdo, no;
19 Mojmilo, half of it I did; Azici, half of it I did; Stupsko Brdo, half of
20 it I did; These, I don't know which these refers to here; Zuc, yes; The
21 Faculty of Traffic and Transport Engineering, no.
22 Q. All right. Did you hold the slope of Grdonj above Sedrenik?
23 A. The slope facing town, yes. I explained that a few moments ago.
24 Q. Could we please have a look at map 500, or rather, P500, and also
25 the place where Grdonj is.
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Please, could the transcript
2 reflect that I was talking about Grdonj. Sedrenik is what I referred to
3 at the end of the sentence, because there is a question mark here.
4 Sedrenik, in line 10. Line 10, at the end of the line, there shouldn't be
5 a question mark but Sedrenik should be there.
6 Q. Before I put some questions regarding this map, yesterday, you
7 talked about some positions on the map from the Galic times, where there
8 were some heavy weaponry. Remember that?
9 I would like to ask you the following: The heavy weaponry, after
10 the 10th of July, or rather, the 10th of February, when the total
11 exclusion zone was established, these heavy weapons were no longer within
12 a 20-kilometre diameter around Sarajevo but they were under UNPROFOR
13 control, right?
14 A. Yes, within a 20-kilometre diameter, but all gathered in one
15 place, or perhaps in those places where they were under UNPROFOR control.
16 They were not taken anywhere out of this perimeter.
17 Q. But from August 1994 until May, no one touched them from these
18 positions until the end of May 1995?
19 A. Well, so many things happened that I cannot give you a precise
20 answer to that question.
21 Q. However, Witness Harland, who was questioned here on the 15th of
22 January, 2007, it was said that about 317 times between the 10th of
23 February and the 27th of April, 1994, there were 318 cease-fire violations
24 by the BH army registered in Rose's time? Yes or no.
25 A. I had stopped launching offensive actions from the town of
1 Sarajevo a long time before that, simply because I did not stand a single
2 chance of dealing with the very strong artillery of the SRK. If what the
3 representatives of UNPROFOR said -- Well, I cannot confirm that. But if
4 is it true, there was certainly a good reason for that because there would
5 be an attempted infantry attack on a certain axis, where there had to be
6 intervention so there would not be a breakthrough of the SRK force, so
7 they would not break into the city of Sarajevo. It wasn't that I was just
8 playing around with that.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please, this
10 document, D110 MFI, and also was marked as DD00-0909, could it please be
11 admitted into evidence, because we have a translation and we also have the
12 witness's answers.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the document marked for
15 identification as D110, now becomes Exhibit D110.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Honourable Witness, could we please now have a look at this map
18 that is it in front of you.
19 Yesterday, you marked some lines here that change what is on this
20 map. Is this a combat map of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the time
21 that this map pertained to?
22 A. In general terms, in principle, yes.
23 Q. You never changed it before? Is only now ten years later that you
24 put in these additional lines; is that right.
25 A. That is not right. I beg your pardon, but you really do not
1 understand things. There were hundreds and thousands of maps like this
2 that were drawn during the course of the war. Every ten or fifteen days a
3 new map is drawn, because of changes, because of new facts, because of new
4 data. And the existing one would be sent into the archives.
5 Now, if I were to change everything that a low-ranking officer
6 did, who did not know how to do things precisely as properly, that didn't
7 really matter. It was important what was the situation on the ground, not
8 on the map.
9 Q. So --
10 A. You took one map out of maybe hundreds.
11 Q. No, no. I have many more official maps, and this map was shown to
12 you by the Prosecution. I do apologise for overlapping with the witness.
13 This map was shown to you by the Prosecution not by me. Are you
14 trying to say that the map drawn up during the event does not correspond
15 to the factual situation, but rather what you drawn on the map?
16 A. What I put in this map indicates one of the longest period that
17 this line was here, but only in this little section here on the southern
18 and eastern slopes of Grdonj and southern slopes of Spicasta Stijena.
19 After consulting battalion and brigade commanders, I did that. But I
20 myself didn't know precise line around the whole of the city of Sarajevo,
22 Q. And according to these new lines that you put, if we look at the
23 peak of Spicasta Stijena, it seems that the VRS was on the slopes rather
24 than on the peak of Spicasta Stijena?
25 A. You're talking to me, and I was there and you were not. And now
1 you're telling me that they were on the slopes, et cetera. The plateau of
2 Grdonj itself has a flat area. I think it was 50 by 50 metres in size,
3 and somewhere in the middle is this trig point 906 metres. That's the
4 elevation, 906 metres.
5 In these houses here on the northern side, there was defence
6 rampart of the SRK, and I was on the other side on the southern slopes.
7 And I had vertically dug out communicating trenches towards the southern
8 settlement, and I believe, and this is my opinion, that this is how the
9 line should look like.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Edgerton.
11 MS. EDGERTON: I just think it would be easier for all us to see
12 what the witness is pointing to when he talks about geographic features,
13 Your Honour. Perhaps he can do that with the marking pen.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you demonstrate what you just indicated on
15 the map.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So, there's a cluster of houses that
17 can you see here. In these clusters of houses were the ramparts or
18 defences of the SRK. I'm showing you here now the elevation point 906,
19 and this is taken to represent the very peak of a certain feature. My
20 line was the blue line, as I have drawn it here. Only I had, if I may
21 also draw it, a trench that I had dug vertically.
22 From up there downwards to the settlement and this street, I had
23 to dig this trench more in the southwesterly direction. Because on the
24 other side, on the south of Trebevic, where SRK had their positions, I
25 wanted to avoid my soldiers while ascending the hill being fired upon by
1 the SRK and where we sustained heavy casualties.
2 Now this blue line, which goes towards east, went below Spicasta
3 Stijena; whereas, here at the very top there was a plateau, I just said of
4 some 50 metres in diameter. And we indeed encircled it from the south
5 side, and from the north it was encircled by the SRK.
6 However, Spicasta Stijena, to the east, elevation 895, on the very
7 edge and on the very top and on the very trig point, this is where the
8 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps forces had their positions.
9 If I may add one thing more, both from Grdonj and particularly
10 from Spicasta Stijena, the whole area, if I may draw a line and extend it
11 like this, all the way like this, for example, this whole area was being
12 observed with the naked eye extremely well.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. But these lines that you just now put, according to earlier
15 enumeration, you were above this ravine. However, with these new lines,
16 you have now put it inside the area of responsibility of the VRS. Now,
17 when you re-drew this map, this is what the outcome seems to be?
18 A. This is what I did initially. I said there were mistakes both in
19 terms of the red line and the blue lines, and many mistakes simply because
20 this map was drawn up inaccurately by incompetent officers. And I repeat
21 again --
22 Q. Please, if we can safe some precious time. Who was above whom?
23 Were you at a higher elevation if you were at Grdonj with regard to
24 Spicasta Stijena?
25 A. Always both at Grdonj and Spicasta Stijena the troops of the SRK
1 were above us.
2 Q. Now, you assert that these new lines that you put correspond to
3 the actual situation, and that the officers who were in charge of doing
4 that during combat did it wrongly?
5 A. You don't have to believe me. Come and talk to hundreds of
6 thousands of troops who were in Sarajevo. You could have done that
7 before, you can do it now, you can do it tomorrow.
8 Q. You did the same with Debelo Brdo. We don't have time to go back
9 to that. You changed the former lines.
10 A. I think that it was will be best if you asked UNPROFOR about this,
11 because it was UNPROFOR who had an observation point at the very top of
12 Debelo Brdo for a very long time.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MS. EDGERTON: Can we not remove this map from the screen, because
15 if we remove from the screen it's not going to be retrievable again.
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] We can just as well admit it as
17 either the exhibit for the Defence for the Prosecution --
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but you made --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Just the Defence
20 exhibit not -- sorry, just the Prosecution Exhibit not the Defence
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking you if you're going to need this map?
23 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. I thought so.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may add --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Please don't volunteer. We have counsel to ask
2 questions, and we will also ask questions.
3 Yes. We admit it.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be admitted as Exhibit
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Let us now move to document
7 DD00-1606. It's also been translated.
8 Q. Honourable Witness, we have a translation of this document
9 provided by the CLSS.
10 Supreme Command staff is sending this letter to the 1st Corps,
11 and it says, "According to the information available and intelligence
12 gathered on the ground, it has been established that there is general low
13 manpower among Chetniks," and then further on it says that "they have been
14 plagued by panic, disorder, and fear."
15 Can you see this?
16 A. Yes, I can.
17 Q. And then in the next passage, it says that they are particularly
18 angry because they are receiving no help from their -- from Serbia; and
19 according to their estimations, they cannot reply on them any longer.
20 Question is: After the sanctions had been imposed by the FRY,
21 according to the information, it should they were in a desperate
22 situation, with no help provided either in manpower or anything else?
23 A. This is -- these are rough estimates that we made. We simply
24 thought that the army of the Republika Srpska cost the army of the Federal
25 Republic of Yugoslavia so much, and that in late 1994, and indeed it was
1 felt during 1995, that they turned off the taps, at least in comparison to
2 how much had been provided to Pale during 1992, 1993, and 1994.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Please, can we have document
4 DD00-1696 be admitted into evidence as Defence exhibit.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that becomes D155.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Witness, now I have a document that on the 19th of September, 1994
9 you yourself signed. I have a full translation provided of this document
10 by a sworn in-court interpreter. No, no. Actually, I mean only the part
11 which speaks about "Our forces." You will see after you have looked at
12 the document. DD00-1700. We have a translation of this particular
14 It says here point 2 -- item 2 point 1, "Our forces, at Sarajevo
15 battlefield, our forces on the day of the 18th of September, 1994 have
16 been executing combat actions in order to occupy Spicasta Stijena and
17 Mala Kula. For these tasks, forces were engaged comprising one platoon
18 from 120 BBR; Crni Labudovi, platoon PTDO MUP Bosna; observation and
19 diversion platoon of the 105th Motorised Brigade; the second -- two
20 platoons for intervention from 105 MTBR; pioneer platoon, engineering
21 platoon, and two company in reserve also from 105th MTBR.
22 "Upon commencement of action, 120th Mountain Brigade have captured
23 a part of Spicasta Stijena. The unit PTDO MUP Bosna have executed the
24 attack right of Spicasta Stijena, and the same have, upon commencement of
25 attack, destroyed the first trench. Further advancement was not possible
1 due to," and then it says, "during the execution of the attack itself, the
2 aggressor used" so-and-so "weapons," and you held this until the morning
4 My question is: Did you very often attempt to capture Spicasta
5 Stijena? Yes or no.
6 A. Spicasta Stijena is the name that I think through the four years
7 of war Sarajevo was most frequently used and uttered by a large number of
8 people, precisely because of what was happening there and what the
10 At one point President Izetbegovic, I think, called me directly,
11 precisely because a huge number of complaints of citizens sent to the
12 President claiming that it was impossible to live at the foot hill of the
13 Spicasta Stijena. He told me, Please, can you finally do something about
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Answer the question directly. Did you very often
16 attempt to capture Spicasta Stijena?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not often. I didn't try to capture
18 Spicasta Stijena on many occasions.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
20 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. But you do know that Spicasta Stijena was the most important
22 feature for the VRS; do you know that?
23 A. I don't know, and I don't see any reason why it should have been.
24 It was an erroneous military assessment.
25 Q. Very well. After this hill was a road that was cut off -- had it
1 been cut off, the VRS would have been destroyed?
2 A. That was out of the question. That was impossible. The VRS had
3 so much free space that, if need be, they could have constructed a new
4 road. It was a piece of cake for them.
5 Q. Where was that possible among those hills? You know that very
7 A. They circumvent a hill and build another road. That's what they
8 did with this road. They built it during the war.
9 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can with he have this document,
10 DD00-170, be tendered into evidence as a Defence exhibit, and we have a
11 translation of this document as well.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As D156, Your Honours.
14 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] DD00-1703, dated the 18th of
15 September, 1994. Yes. There is a translation as well. This is a
16 document issued by Rasim Delic on the 18th of September, and it speaks of
17 combat action.
18 In the first sentence, it says: "In the zone of the 1st Corps,
19 combat operations are also planned, and your combat operations can
20 commence as soon as they start." This is sent to the IBOG command, the
21 commander personally. Do you remember that.
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right.
24 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not going to tender it.
25 Now I have document DD00-1708. It has also been translated where
1 it says -- and it is also sent to all corps commanders.
2 The first paragraph says: "In certain minor RBH army units, there
3 are quite a few individuals who are prone to alcohol abuse and are causing
4 incompetences. Some of the incidents were quite serious because they
5 endangered the personal safety of the citizens and their property, the
6 reputation of the RBH army."
7 You know about that phenomenon, about this inappropriate behaviour
8 of a large number of your soldiers?
9 A. I don't know about the behaviour of a large number of soldiers,
10 but rather minor infractions.
11 Q. Just something else from this document. In paragraph 4, the 19th
12 of September, 1994, where it says: "The RBH army has matured into a
13 strong armed force."
14 Was that correct already in September, that Mr. Delic concluded
15 that at that point the 19th of September, the BH army was a mature
16 military force? Yes or no.
17 A. Well, what was he supposed to say, that we don't stand a chance of
18 defending ourselves and that the morale of soldiers could drop below
19 zero. He had to say something to boost morale in units in order to
20 bolster the defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, whether this has anything
21 to do with the truth, that is it a completely different matter.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please, this
23 document, DD00-1708, could it please be admitted into evidence?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How can it mature into a respectable
25 army, when it is not manned properly, not even 10 percent--
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: You have already given your answer.
2 We'll admit it.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be admitted as D157.
4 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I have document DD00-1719.
5 That is an order dated the 2nd of November, 1994, addressed to all corps.
6 It has a CLSS translation, too.
7 Q. You see this? This is an order issued by Commander Rasim Delic to
8 all corps, and where it says, "In the preamble, it is evident that in
9 certain units after successful breakthroughs and achieving without many
10 losses, there follows as regular dropping and lessening of one's guard,"
11 and so on, and then the order.
12 And then the last paragraph: "Having in view the growth of the
13 offensive character of army operations, it is necessary to properly and
14 consistently carry out the points of this order so that losses after
15 successful actions are reduced to a minimum."
16 This was sent to your corps, too. Was that the way it was, that
17 the offensive actions of your army went up in 1994?
18 A. This is a general question. I tried to take the initiative.
19 Whether I actually did, I don't know myself.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. Since I didn't manage to liberate Sarajevo, I didn't.
22 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] This document, 1719, which has a
23 translation, could it please be admitted into evidence as a Defence
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Tapuskovic, you promised us a whole batch of
1 very important documents. I wouldn't mind admitting this into evidence,
2 if you insist, but I really can't see the relevance.
3 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the next one is
4 supposed to corroborate this in the right way. One document has to be
5 link the up with another.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I can't wait.
7 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Did you admit this into evidence?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will become Exhibit D158.
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, throughout the
11 Autumn of 1994, these operations were on permanently. Document
12 DD00-1728. It has a translation, too, and it says in paragraph 1:
13 "Units and commands of the 1st Corps engaged in the Nisic
14 battlefield encouraged by previous success in crushing the Chetniks along
15 the axis that run from Olovo and Vares towards Srednje, crushed the
16 Chetnik forces and liberated large areas comprising of dozens of villages;
17 Cece, Gornja Korita, Trebina, Kostica, Pakline, Matici, Visnjica,
18 Nisici, Ilici, Buljetovina, Hadzici, Zubeta," et cetera. And important
19 features: Macak, Toljenak, Vrhovi, Borovo Brdo, Krst, and Kicelj.
20 Mr. Karavelic --
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this related to any of the charges, any of the
23 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] The intensity of the fighting,
24 Your Honours, was such that this was ongoing, permanently from September
25 1994 and particularly in the summer of 1995, and there were casualties on
1 both sides. To the greatest possible degree this shows how many
2 settlements in the area of responsibility of the 1st Corps had been
3 captured with fierce fighting and major casualties on both sides. That
4 has to do be relevant.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: What does it have to do with the charges?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, everything that is
7 a result of the great number of casualties sustained in this area of the
8 1st Corps and the army of Republika Srpska, all these casualties of the
9 intensive fighting on both sides - at this moment, I am not going to
10 access which side more, which side less - but this was a front line.
11 And from one minute to the other, there were offensive or defence
12 activities going on, and there casualties sustained by both sides and the
13 casualties were primarily the result of this offensive action.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the night to deliberate on this matter
15 of the general line of questioning, and I'll give my view on it when we
16 resume tomorrow.
17 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] But let this document be admitted
18 into evidence, DD00-1728.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
20 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour --
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have 1995 to deal with in
22 particular, Your Honours, and that includes most of these orders.
23 MS. EDGERTON: Your Honour, if I read the record correctly then,
24 you would have just admitted the document into evidence about which the
25 witness has not been asked a single question. I stand to be corrected,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're right because I stopped him before
3 he was able to ask a question, so we'll take that up tomorrow.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of
6 March, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.