1 Monday, 8 July 200
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
8 Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I do understand that we are waiting for the Dutch interpreter but
11 perhaps meanwhile we could deal with a few minor -- at least not very much
12 time, concerning procedural issues. The Chamber still owes the parties a
13 decision in respect of the report of Professor Zecevic. It is admitted
14 into evidence in its entirety. It is not quite clear to me, Mr. Ierace,
15 since one part of the report bears a "P" number, that is P3276, and the
16 curriculum vitae and the two supplemental information sheets, they do not
17 bear any "P" number. Or is there -- or is the report with all its
18 annexes -- well, when you find out exactly about the numbers -- yes.
19 MR. IERACE: I apologise, Mr. President. That is P3276.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Attached to it are curriculum vitae, two
21 supplemental information sheets and the statement of Professor Zecevic.
22 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President, that is all part of the same
23 exhibit number.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So it exists of five parts. It's called in its
25 entirely P3276. It has been redacted -- the part has been taken out. No
1 further redactions are necessary and the two supplemental information
2 sheets are, the witness has testified that he recognises them and that
3 these are the -- this is the additional information he gave to his report.
4 So it's admitted in its entirety.
5 Then, I have another issue I would like to raise. That is about
6 expert witnesses. Mr. Ierace is the Chamber right in understanding that
7 through the expert, Mr. Higgs, the Prosecution intends to submit to
8 witness statements, statements that we have not seen before, witnesses
9 that have not been testified in this court, a certain Mr. Kadric and a
10 Mr. Gasi.
11 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. The relevance of that is it is
12 information which the witness, the expert witness, Mr. Higgs, has taken
13 into account and therefore, it is appropriate that the Trial Chamber
14 should be aware of that information and of course it is a matter of
15 weight as to what reliance one places on that aspect of his opinion,
16 which depends on that information.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One of the problems of the Chamber might be,
18 Mr. Ierace, is that the statements of Mr. Kadric and Mr. Gasi contains
19 some very specific information in respect of the shelling incident
20 concerned and the Defence has had no opportunity to cross-examine these
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would you allow me the opportunity of
23 discussing that with the relevant member of my trial team and perhaps
24 responding to it later in the day. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so. And then a last issue is about
1 the expert reports of Mr. Hinchliffe and Mr. Higgs. These reports have
2 been presented as reports of experts. The Chamber for practical
3 reasons, announces that it might feel the need after the Prosecution has,
4 I would say, summarily introduced the expert and his report, that we
5 might feel the need to test whether the evidence could be admitted as
6 expert evidence. If so then of course, the normal course of
7 examination and cross-examination will further take place. If not, we
8 might have a gap in the programme and the Chamber thinks it -- we would,
9 having no idea yet on what our decision will be, but we would really
10 deplore it if we would lose one or two days because there is no
11 alternative filling up. And since the Chamber also noticed that as just
12 as the Defence noticed, that some of the experts, also other experts, are
13 working for the OTP. It might be a suggestion, perhaps, to prepare for
14 their presence, if the evidence of these experts would take less time.
15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I think that Ewa Tabeau is
16 unavailable for part of the remaining four weeks. I will check whether
17 she is available to come in, should it be required, in place of either or
18 both Mrs. Higgs and Hinchliffe. Mr. President, it is an issue which you
19 are in a position to indicate at this stage, the issue which troubles the
20 Trial Chamber as to the qualifying of those two witnesses as experts?
21 JUDGE ORIE: I will deliberate within the Chamber whether our
22 development of thought is such that we could say anything more about it.
23 But of course, we are only recently confronted with these statements and
24 it was for practical reasons mainly at this moment that we draw your
25 attention to that.
1 Having dealt with these procedural issues, I wonder whether --
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, pardon my curiosity but it occurs to
3 me that if there is a problem in the mind of the Trial Chamber in
4 relation to both Higgs and Hinchliffe might I enquire as to whether the
5 affects Mr. Kovac?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Since we neither did discuss that, I will put
7 it on my list to be discussed within the Chamber as well. Can we find
8 out whether Mr. -- Mrs. Eva Bodor has arrived. Okay. Could you please
9 bring in the witness. It would be Mr. Van Baal who will be further
10 examined in chief.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 WITNESS: ADRIANUS PETRUS PAULUS MARIA VAN BAAL
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated. General Van Baal and Mrs. Bodor
15 may I remind both of you that you are still bound by the solemn
16 declaration that you gave at the beginning of your testimony.
17 The cross-examination by counsel for the Prosecution will now be
18 resumed. Mr. Ierace, please proceed.
19 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I indicate
20 for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, including the Defence, that the
21 document which are showed to the witness at the conclusion of his
22 testimony on the 13th of June, I don't pursue there was an error in the
23 translation and as a result of that error, the document now lacks
25 JUDGE ORIE: Are we talking about the 7th of June or?
1 THE REGISTRAR: May I have the document number, please.
2 MR. IERACE: The document number is 1347 I think. Excuse me. I
3 am sorry it is 2753. So I don't wish to show that document to the
5 JUDGE ORIE: And do we agree that General Van Baal was here the
6 7th of June?
7 MR. IERACE: I am sorry, Mr. President. The 7th of June, yes.
8 Mr. President, I will then move on to the remaining document,
9 which is P2840. Could that please be shown to the witness. I am sorry,
10 Mr. President. I think we need to go into close said session for this
12 JUDGE ORIE: If we need to, we will.
13 MR. IERACE: Yes, we do.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We will turn into closed session and wait for the
15 further distribution until we --
16 [Closed session]
13 Page 11326 – redacted – closed session
13 Page 11327 – redacted – closed session
17 [Open session]
18 JUDGE ORIE: We now are in open session, Mr. Ierace.
19 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. General, have you heard before the term, "collateral damage"?
21 A. Certainly, yes, I am familiar with that term.
22 Q. Could you explain to us what you understand by that term?
23 A. It can best be described as unintentional ancillary damage.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well the question had an
1 answer, so.
2 JUDGE ORIE: If you wanted to object then --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
5 MR. IERACE:
6 Q. Does a commander have a responsibility or duty to minimise or
7 avoid collateral damage?
8 A. In -- generally speaking, one should say, yes. In the situation
9 of UNPROFOR, there were very clear rules of engagement mentioning very
10 clearly that collateral damage was to be avoided.
11 Q. During your time in Sarajevo, were there decisions taken by
12 UNPROFOR which involved fire and which involved taking into account
13 possible civilian casualties as a result of the fire?
14 A. As far as I have seen this was always a fairly important issue
15 in the decision on whether or not to use violence. And I have an example
16 myself whereby in August close air support was applied for, for arms
17 systems which were located within the total exclusion zone and were not
18 authorised to be there. And whereby we gave a brief warning to the
19 representative of UNPROFOR with the Serbs, that was Major Indjic. To
20 make sure that the personnel manning those armed systems would be warned
21 that the systems would be attacked by NATO. And by doing so, we wanted
22 to avoid that when these armed systems were eliminated, unnecessary
23 victims would be made. This was all the more important because the arms
24 systems were often set up in residential areas or hidden there.
25 And, therefore, it could be that not only the people manning the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 systems, but also innocent civilians might be hit.
2 Q. I would like to ask you some questions on this issue of
3 collateral damage in relation to the warring parties in Sarajevo now, not
5 You were on the ground from January 1994 until the end of the
6 indictment period, that is, August 1994, and beyond. Firstly was it the
7 case --
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like
9 to have a more accurate question, what we mean by "on the ground."
10 Because I believe that the position of this witness was that he was in
11 Sarajevo and in February not in January. See, he was elsewhere in
12 January perhaps somewhere else in the former Yugoslavia but not in
13 Sarajevo. Thank you.
14 MR. IERACE: I stand corrected, Mr. President.
15 Q. You were appointed in January 1994 and you took up your position
16 in February. Were there military targets in civilian areas in the city
17 of Sarajevo, and by that I mean military objects, military personnel,
18 that would be military targets for the purposes of the Serb armed forces?
19 A. As far as heavy arms systems are concerned I have not been able to
20 see that on the Muslim side in Sarajevo the items -- systems were located
21 amidst the civilian population. As far as UNPROFOR was aware of this, a
22 number of the armed systems were hidden under a fly-over which had been
23 closed, but from there, they couldn't be used. The arms systems of the
24 Serbs were under the control of UNPROFOR and were part of Lukavica Works.
25 And in other places, the arms had been assembled but were reasonably
1 separate from the civilian population. As soon as the Serbs got their
2 arms out of the weapons collection points, they could regularly be found
3 in inhabited areas. And they tried to hide them there.
4 Q. I want to ask you a hypothetical question. Assuming that the
5 accused, General Galic, was aware of a military target located in an
6 urban area, what factors would you consider the accused as commander
7 should take into account in determining whether the target should be hit
8 and, if so, what type of weaponry would be appropriate, having regard to
9 its location in an urban area, that is, where civilians may be nearby?
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is a too general
13 question because I think the situation was quite -- is quite different.
14 If we speak, for instance, for the fire coming from Sarajevo and then a
15 unit going through Sarajevo or as perhaps you have seen already in the
16 headquarters which is by definition an immobile target, therefore, I
17 think that the question is asked in too general terms and that it should
18 be made more to the point.
19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I will rephrase the question to take
20 out the element of the accused.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. IERACE: But I stand by the question in every other sense
23 because it is then open to factor in additional factors such as, if there
24 had been fire coming from that area and so on. But in my submission, the
25 question is otherwise not only in proper form, but relevantly probative
1 of an issue which has particularly arisen last Friday.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It always has to balance. If you become too
3 specific, then it might easily be a leading question. But the witness,
4 by now, certainly will be aware that if any distinction should be made
5 between mobile military targets or immobile military targets then of
6 course he is free to do so in his answer.
7 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. General, I will rephrase the question and split it up in two
9 separate questions to make it easier.
10 If a commander is made aware of a military target which is
11 located in an area where there are civilians then in your opinion, what
12 are the factors or at least some of the factors that a responsible
13 commander should have regard to in deciding whether the target should in
14 fact be hit?
15 A. The main element in deciding this is the effect the possible
16 target may have, the influence it may have on the development of the
17 fight and the elements it may have on the development of the fight in the
18 longer term. And the more direct the effect and the bigger the effect,
19 then a consideration may take place whereby it may be inevitable that
20 civilian victims be made. Coming back to your earlier remark with regard
21 to the hypothetical situation, since we are talking from the 24th of
22 February to the end of August, which is a period when I was Chief of
23 Staff, that there was a clear agreement regarding the total exclusion zone
24 of Sarajevo. And generally speaking, people adhered to that agreement.
25 The situation before that was totally different. The war simply went on.
1 After the proclamation of the total exclusion zone, the situation
2 was totally different. So from time to time it happened that the Serbs
3 fired at the city and the same happened when the Muslims fired back at
4 Serb -- Serbian targets. And to what extent they have reflected on and
5 actually prevented the creation of collateral damage, of course, I do not
6 know. But generally speaking, one might say that the defending positions
7 of the Muslims, as well as the positions of the encirclement of Sarajevo,
8 were not being separated from inhabited areas.
9 So, even though during an attack there was no intention to cause
10 collateral damage, then even so it was never to be excluded since the
11 people lived very close to the confrontation line.
12 Q. All right, now, in relation to my next question, I remind you that
13 we are in open session. You have told us and we have heard evidence from
14 other witnesses to the effect that there was an anti-sniping unit within
15 UNPROFOR, in other words, snipers against civilians were targeted by the
16 UNPROFOR anti-sniping unit so as to stop the threat to civilians.
17 The evidence is to the effect that the method used by the
18 anti-sniping unit was to fire back, in other words, with small arms, with
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that
23 on Friday when I referred to the -- to some other evidence that we heard,
24 I was told that that would not have been the case. Now, Mr. Ierace is
25 now making reference to other evidence, to other testimonies, and once
1 again they so should not be the case. Thank you.
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, last Friday I made a point of saying
3 that I did not object to references by counsel to other evidence provided
4 it was noncontentious. If my learned colleague is telling me that he
5 disputes that there were anti-sniping units used by UNPROFOR, then that
6 is another matter. Perhaps he should clarify that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please, that is what the words of
8 Mr. Ierace were last Friday in reference to other testimony would not be
9 allowed if it was a contested issue. So, therefore, could you please
10 explain the position of the Defence.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I am not sure -- I am
12 not sure, as a matter of fact that this was done or this had to do with
13 small arms. I don't know how that came about. And I do not think that
14 that matter is a matter disputed by other party.
15 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, to save time I will rephrase the
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
18 MR. IERACE:
19 Q. General, if a sniper was operating from a room in an apartment
20 building that was occupied by civilians, would you think it appropriate
21 to take the sniper out by, say, artillery fire against the building?
22 A. In my view, that would be disproportional.
23 Q. If the information available to the commander was that there may
24 be civilians living in the building, perhaps there were and perhaps there
25 were not would that change your opinion or would your opinion remain the
2 A. If there is no certainty with regard to the presence of
3 civilians, then I myself would not like to be responsible of that. I
4 would not use artillery against a single sniper.
5 Q. In your answer 5 or 10 minutes ago where you responded to the
6 hypothetical situation that I gave you, you referred to one of the
7 relevant factors being the -- and I don't think those were your words --
8 but the degree of threat or the significance of the military object or
9 target. Are you able to indicate something of the comparative value of
10 targets, say for instance, infantry soldiers off duty, as opposed to
11 soldiers at the front line or say, a piece of military hardware that had
12 a significant potential for damage?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this seems to
15 be a highly hypothetical question. It is not a question about concrete
16 fact, but hypothesis and I do not think that the witness needs to answer
17 to something which is a pure hypothesis.
18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I certainly do not want the witness to
19 answer unless he is comfortable to do so. However, the fact that they
20 are hypothetical situations, I would suggest is no reason to not allow
21 the evidence. In fact, I think it is of considerable value to the Trial
22 Chamber because it is hypothetical. It has obvious significance and
23 relevance, I should say, to the evidence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The question is about the
25 clarification of the words of the witness that said that the -- that for
1 decision, it was the effect the possible target might have. The
2 influence it might have on the development of the -- the translation says
3 fight, and the elements it may have on the fight and the longer term.
4 The witness used different words, I think, the second time. He was using
5 the word which would be "combat" rather than fight.
6 So, ask for a clarification of this answer, the question may be
7 put to the witness. Please answer the question.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This question in my view should be
9 placed in the context of the time, the point in time in the war. At
10 different stages in the conflict, considerations may be made regarding
11 direct interests or -- I am sorry. I can hear the translation in my
12 headset. By the effect in the short time and in the longer term and in
13 the medium term. So that means, if the parties are in an armed conflict
14 that all targets, so to speak, can be attacked at the same time, the
15 situation in 1994 in Bosnia-Herzegovina was no longer a situation of full
17 So at that time too -- in fact there was no more reason, for
18 example, to fire at Tito Barracks from the Serb position where the Muslim
19 forces were concentrated and were being trained. And in the previous --
20 the period prior to that that this happened, for various reasons, and I
21 think because of the proclamation of the total exclusion zone there was
22 absolutely no more reason to fire at those Tito Barracks or other
23 military targets using a heavy arms. The fact is that the war was not
24 over, but the combats had been reduced to a minimum, at least, in and
25 around Sarajevo.
1 Q. So that I can understand your evidence --
2 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interfere.
3 MR. IERACE: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If it disturbs you to hear the English translation
5 at the same time you may choose another channel. If, however, you
6 appreciate to listen to the translation of your words into English by the
7 interpreters, then, of course, leave it as it is. If you don't want to
8 hear it, I think -- I take it that you are on channel 4 by now. And
9 channel 2 would be...
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, two.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think you will not hear the English translation
12 any more.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
14 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. You said that because of the proclamation of the total exclusion
16 zone there was no more reason to fire at, for instance, Tito Barracks or
17 other military targets, using heavy arms. Is that because the arms were
18 under, that is the Muslim arms, Bosniak arms, were under UN control or is
19 it for some other reason that you say that?
20 A. To the extent that was relevant during the period of February,
21 the Muslim weapons were under the control of UNPROFOR. Afterwards, it
22 turned out that some of the heavy weapons were not -- had not been
23 transferred to UNPROFOR and had been stored in a tunnel, the fly-over
24 that I mentioned earlier. In practice however, very sporadically, the
25 Muslims succeeded in placing a mortar or a tank and having that fire,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 especially with respect to the Serb section where 99 per cent of the
2 heavy weapons were controlled by UNPROFOR there [as interpreted].
3 But the military units still in Tito Barracks could not influence
4 the Serb installations in any way whatsoever in the city. So there was
5 no reason to shoot at the Muslim in Tito barracks either. Into the -- I
6 can recollect that didn't happen in the period I am speaking about of
7 either. There was however firing between Serb and Muslim fighters in
8 which they accused each other of trying to conquer new territory and the
9 Serbs certainly did deploy heavy weapons there.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I again interfere. I know that you understand
11 at least some English. Can you please look at your screen page 18, line
12 1, starts with the words, "especially.". I don't remember you having said
13 anything --
14 THE WITNESS: No. Skip it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: There was no -- yes, it is an addition to the words
16 of General Van Baal.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
18 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, that concludes examination-in-chief.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
20 Is the Defence ready to cross-examine the witness?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. And
22 could you tell us please, when will the break be?
23 JUDGE ORIE: The next break will be at a quarter to 4.00. And
24 just to give you proper information, two and a half hours was taken by
25 the Prosecution, and you know it is not necessary to take the same time.
1 Then at least you know the limits.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, General.
6 General, I will take the liberty of asking you some questions
7 with reference to your statement some time ago and your evidence today.
8 Today you said that you did not truly -- that you did not truly see heavy
9 weaponry on the Sarajevo side with your own eyes. Do you remember that?
10 A. You mean heavy weapons on the side of the Muslim forces?
11 Q. On the side of the Muslim forces.
12 A. That's correct. I did not visit sites on the Muslim side. The
13 only weapons that I actually saw were in Tito Barracks and they were
14 under the control by the French Battalion that was stationed there.
15 Q. General, you mentioned towards the end of your evidence today
16 that there was a tank and some mortars which were not under the UNPROFOR
17 control and which the Muslim forces could have fired, would have fired.
18 What do you know about this tank, that is my first question?
19 A. There were two reports, one of a mortar that was positioned near
20 the airport. And there was one report of a tank which from the tunnel or
21 the fly-over was displaced across the city, it took firing position, and
22 did indeed fire away from the city. Those were the two reports I
23 experienced during my period. UNPROFOR's action was to try as quickly as
24 possible to get to both locations and to take on both these weapon
25 positions under UNPROFOR responsibility, and that did not succeed.
1 UNPROFOR arrived too late.
2 Q. Thank you, General.
3 Would you know more specifically, more concretely where did this
4 tank fire from and when?
5 A. I don't remember precisely. We would have to determine that
6 based on the reports compiled by the Bosnia-Herzegovina command on the
7 subject. The place was near the hospital, that concerns the tank. And
8 the mortar was close to the airport. I would have to verify the exact
9 time from the reports compiled by the Bosnia-Herzegovina command and I do
10 not have those report.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 General, when you say, "near the hospital," could you please be
13 more specific?
14 A. If I am not mistaken it was the Kosevo Hospital.
15 Q. General do you know if this tank could also reach another
16 hospital, the hospital which is usually referred to as the State
18 A. I cannot confirm that.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 General, the mortar that you speak about, do you know its
21 calibre? Was it 120 or 82?
22 A. It was a medium heavy mortar, so, basically a 120 millimetres.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 Because this is not contentious General, we have heard evidence
25 about some other mobile military targets such as, for instance, trucks
1 which have been modified and which had mortars mounted on them.
2 Did you have any knowledge, even if you did not see them
3 yourself, but were you aware of such mobile targets?
4 A. On the way to the hospital in the district near the airport, I
5 will think of the name in a moment, I saw a few military trucks. But I
6 never saw them together with heavy weaponry positioned on those truck.
7 Q. When you say, "military trucks," General, were they the ones that
8 transported troops?
9 A. Troops or supplies.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 And those were means of transportation which circulated through
12 the city of Sarajevo. Is that correct?
13 A. I saw them only in stationary positions, but they were certainly
14 suited for that.
15 Q. In Sarajevo, General?
16 A. Definitely.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think that in French, part of the answer has not
18 been translated, "but they were certainly suited for that."
19 Since you are listening to the French channel, Mr. Piletta-Zanin
20 I thought I had to interfere.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
22 Thank you very much, indeed. I am focussing on the questions, but thank
23 you very much, indeed.
24 Q. General --
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President my French is not as good and I am
1 still unclear as to what was left off the answer.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness has stated that he saw the trucks
3 in stationary positions, but that they were certainly suited to drive
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not want
6 to have a polemic here, but what is the point of an intervention, because
7 in any case, Mr. Ierace will not going to be intervening in French.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Ierace had some problems in
9 understanding where I added something. But since there was no problem
10 with the English, I think we could have done without. So, Mr. Ierace,
11 yellow paper for you as well.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Q. General, please.
14 A. The district I was referring to was Dobrinja.
15 Q. Thank you very much. That is what we thought, General.
16 General, my question -- my question was also to find out if at
17 the same time you did not see these targets that were modified, these
18 modified trucks. There was speak of it during your sojourn in Sarajevo in
19 your circles. Is that right?
20 A. Generally speaking, it is not extremely complex to assume that
21 mortars -- smaller mortars could be mounted on to a truck. This was one
22 of the subjects that arose following the investigation that took place,
23 the multiple investigations that took place, into the mortar attack on the
24 market square on 6 February. That investigation also took into
25 consideration that it was not a mortar fired from a static mortar, but a
1 mortar that could be placed on to a vehicle.
2 Technically speaking, this subject was known.
3 Q. So what you are saying is that at the time of the Markale
4 investigations, the possibility of round or a firing coming from a mobile
5 unit, which was modified for this purpose?
6 A. Yes, this was taken into consideration in the investigation.
7 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you.
8 We will come back to this issue of Markale, General, later on.
9 But now, I would like to focus on cars. Is it true, if this is the case,
10 General, that at the time when you were there in Sarajevo, gas or petrol
11 was not freely available for sale since the army had it under its control?
12 A. I had no insight into that.
13 Q. General, did you know whether at the time while you were in
14 Sarajevo there were gas stations, petrol stations which were open to
16 A. In the beginning when I arrived in Sarajevo in February, that was
17 hardly the case. As the regime of the total exclusion zone started to
18 take effect, the supply to the city improved and increasingly civilian
19 vehicles were driving around, which also obtained supplies at several
20 petrol stations.
21 Q. Thank you. Very well.
22 General, could you perhaps tell us about one gas station in
23 Sarajevo, that, in your opinion was open at the time?
24 A. I couldn't give you an immediate answer to that.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 General, I thought I understood that you did not know about what
2 legitimate mobile military targets were -- no. No, I did not express
3 myself well. Not "mobile targets" but legitimate military targets. You
4 did not know what they were?
5 A. In war, all military targets are legitimate targets. There is no
6 difference between mobile or stationary in that case.
7 Q. Very well, General. Thank you for this clarification. But what
8 I meant is what did you personally know about, firstly, about their
9 number, and secondly, about the locations of military targets,
10 stationary, not mobile targets?
11 A. UNPROFOR was relatively well and precisely aware the disposition
12 of both material and manpower on both sides including the headquarters of
13 the different military units in and outside the city.
14 Q. Very well.
15 General, I am going to ask you certain questions in a list in
16 order to gain time. As soon as you know where one of these facilities I
17 am going to quote you is, then please stop me and then we can talk about
19 Headquarters of the Kultin Ban headquarters of Sultan Fatih; HQ
20 of Kobra; location of what was called Pavle Goranin; location of what was
21 called Petar Dakic; location of Gras; location of Stela; location of
22 Silos; location of Borsalino; location of Caco's brigade; location of
23 Celo's brigade.
24 General so far there is no bells ringing for you here?
25 A. I have no idea. It is entirely unknown to me.
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 General, do you know, you personally and your services as well,
3 where was located the melting works of Sarajevo [as interpreted]?
4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, at least the way that is translated
5 into English it is in my respectful submission not sufficiently specific.
6 It is translated as where was located the melting works of Sarajevo.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Smeltering factory, interpreter apologises.
8 JUDGE ORIE: There is a great risk of confusion. Could you
9 please formulate it a bit more.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you,
11 Mr. President.
12 Q. General, did you know if there was in Sarajevo one or more than
13 one factories which were able and had the facility to remelt explosives
14 that were contained inside some weapons that had not exploded, in order
15 to manufacture new ones?
16 A. There were rumours that there was a workplace in Tito Barracks,
17 but I never personally received any confirmation to that effect.
18 Q. General do you know if there were workshops for this purpose in
19 part of town which was known as Alipasino Polje?
20 A. I have no idea.
21 Q. General, do you know if, for instance, there was a manufacturing
22 workshop of armaments, of weapons, in what we -- in what was known as
23 "the old brewery" or just "brewery"?
24 A. Unknown.
25 Q. General, the same question for the Electro-Technical factory?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Unknown.
2 Q. General, as far as you know in your professional work as a
3 military officer is it true that a location like a workshop for
4 manufacturing weapons, armaments and ammunitions is a legitimate target?
5 A. In a war situation definitely.
6 Q. General, the same question in relation to a factory making
8 A. I have serious doubts about that.
9 Q. Very well.
10 General did you know about a factory that was known as Zrak?
11 A. Unknown.
12 Q. Thank you very much.
13 General, I would now like to ask you some other questions. You
14 spoke of incidents in relation to trams in Sarajevo. We were on page 6,
15 line 18, for the transcript. Do you remember that?
16 A. I remember that we discussed this, but if you want to ask me a
17 question about that, I would like to see the precise text again.
18 Q. Yes. It is coming. Could you please remind us of the date of
19 the incident that you told us earlier? The incident that we spoke of
21 A. Earlier in this session? 3 August 1994.
22 Q. Very well.
23 General, since you spoke of several incidents, could you tell us
24 if you know of the dates of those incidents, please.
25 A. I don't have them at my fingertips. Again I would need to see
1 the file of all reports of the Sarajevo Sector. I assume the Court has
2 them and the Defence has them as well. Another important moment was on 14
3 August when a child was mortally injured which ultimately led to the
4 signature of the anti-sniper agreement between both the Serb and the
5 Muslim authorities.
6 Q. Very well.
7 General, could you tell us of the two dates that you just gave
8 us, that is these dates in August of 1994, were there -- were there
9 exchanges of fire? Was that combat ongoing at the time?
10 A. No, there was no combat in progress.
11 Q. Very well.
12 General, could you tell us if this is true, I think that there is
13 a lot of evidence that we have had in this instance that there were many
14 civilians who were dressing themselves as soldiers partially or
15 completely and they were wearing what we call, "parts of camouflage"
16 uniforms. Is that true?
17 A. In my period, I saw a lot of military troops in the city of
18 Sarajevo itself and they weren't always in full military uniform.
19 Q. Very well.
20 General, but my question was the other way around. Is it true
21 that civilians dressed as soldiers, completely or partially, that is,
22 just like we have had testimonies to this effect, they would either be
23 wearing top or bottom in camouflage uniform? Did you know about that?
24 A. I did not observe that, nor did I receive any such reports that
25 it was indeed determined.
1 Q. Very well.
2 General --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will look for a photograph
4 during the break, Mr. President. But this photograph is probably --
5 should be shown in closed session. We will do that after the start after
6 the break. I will come back to that.
7 Q. General, how could you be so sure, if you are, speaking of the
8 tram that there was not a single soldier on that tram, travelling in
9 that tram?
10 A. I have no reason to assume that there were no soldiers using the
11 tram. So I did not say or I am not saying that in the tram where the
12 11-year-old girl was killed on 14 August, that there couldn't have been
13 any soldiers in the tram either.
14 Q. General, when you were in Sarajevo did you see personally
15 yourself soldiers using the tram as a means of transport to go from A
16 point to B point in small groups?
17 JUDGE ORIE: General Van Baal, may I just intervene. I see that
18 you have something in front of you which appears to have some text in it.
19 Usually, if you want to consult whatever text, I don't know what it is,
20 it is not done unless one of the parties has invited you to take a
21 certain text in front of you. So may I ask you to close it.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 Q. General, may I ask you please to answer the question that I asked
1 A. [Interpretation] Yes. Did also people in uniform including
2 soldiers use the trams, also UNPROFOR soldiers use the trams as well.
3 Q. Very well. My question was more about, more precisely about the
4 BH forces, as we call them here, that is, does your, "yes" mean or is
5 valid for BH forces, equally?
6 A. No. They are individuals that use the trams. And I never
7 observed, in the many times that I was in the city and saw the trams
8 running, that armed military troops were using the trams. They were
9 people in uniforms using the trams.
10 Q. When you say, "that they were people in uniform using the tram,"
11 do you mean then that included UNPROFOR people?
12 A. Now and then UNPROFOR soldiers used the trams.
13 Q. General, I would like to come back now to the question of what we
14 technically called the "TEZ," total exclusion zone. In your opinion, Serb
15 forces, did they respect this agreement? What I mean is, on the principle
16 there may have been some violations, but as a principle, did they respect
17 this agreement?
18 A. Yes. Generally, it was observed very correctly.
19 Q. General, I thought that I saw in your statement earlier that 89
20 per cent of the Serb weapons were in the total exclusion zone and that
21 they were under the control of the UNPROFOR forces. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct. Nor am I aware that I said, "89 per cent." It
23 reads "89 per cent" here.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it has been the translation mistake.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I
2 wasn't reading the transcript.
3 Q. So you confirm, General, 99 per cent, that is easier to say that,
4 that is what you said, right?
5 A. Virtually completely.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 General, could we conclude from this that if during this period
8 of time of the total exclusion zone there were accidents that happened,
9 but did it not happen from the heavy weapons of the VRS because they were
10 under the control of the UN?
11 A. That wasn't the case in all circumstances. In 1994 in the course
12 of the summer, several attempts were made by the Serb units, not only to
13 maintain the weapons and use them for training purposes, but also to
14 displace them from one weapon collection point to another site, including
15 to a tank war place near Hadzici.
16 Q. General, I am sorry I am going to interrupt you. When I said,
17 "accidents" what I meant was firing incidents. If there was firing during
18 this period, it wasn't necessarily from the weapons that were under the
19 control of the UN. Do we agree on that?
20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object to the question and in view
21 of what my friend has just said, the previous question -- the previous
22 question referred to "accidents." My friend says he is now referring to
23 firing incidents. He should clarify exactly what it is he is referring
24 to. Is he, in fact, referring to allegations that artillery on the Serb
25 army side deliberately or indiscriminately fired at civilians? If that is
1 what he is referring to, allegations of that, then he should say it.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that
3 we understand that accident and incident are used here as interchangeable.
4 Q. If there is an accident which is actually an incident implies that
5 there was fire that was opened, is it true or can we consider, General,
6 that this was not, consequently, did not happen from the weapons that were
7 placed under the control of UNPROFOR?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the point is this: An accident
10 implies no culpability, that there was nothing deliberate about it. One
11 struggles to understand how a piece of artillery can fire accidentally, but
12 the point is the use of the word, "accident" needs to be further explained
13 in the question. Is my friend suggesting a non-culpable accidental firing
14 or not?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am talking about any kind
17 of opening of firing, although clarifying that any accidental opening of
18 fire, of course, would imply responsibility. So, I am sorry, but this is
19 a deviation, now, Mr. President
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... question in such
21 a way, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that since 99 per cent of the heavy weaponry
22 was under the control of the UN, how it could happen or whether it
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. My first question was
25 first of all to have the confirmation, if these rounds were not -- did not
1 fired from those weapons which 99 per cent were placed under the UN
2 control. That was the question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let's see whether the witness can give an answer to
4 that question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 99 per cent of the heavy weaponry
6 was under UNPROFOR control. The weapons under UNPROFOR control were never
7 deployed. Several weapons systems were removed without UNPROFOR
8 permission and those weapons were deployed, and those weapons were used
9 for firing.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps would your next question...
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Therefore, General, we are here talking about a 1 per cent, the
13 leftover of 1 per cent?
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: In order to avoid whatever misunderstanding, your
16 last answer was that "99 per cent of the heavy weaponry was under UNPROFOR
17 control and that the weapons under UNPROFOR control were never deployed,
18 but that several weapon systems were removed without UNPROFOR permission.
19 Do you count them among the 1 remaining per cent or temporarily not
20 belonging to the 99 per cent?
21 THE WITNESS: Your last reasoning was correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: In answer to your last question. The last question
23 was: "General, we are here talking about a 1 per cent, the leftover of 1
24 per cent and you answered that with "yes".
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Was incorrect.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Was not the answer you intended to give. I would
2 normally say Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed, but we are at the time
3 of the break. So if there are one or two questions --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No I would have preferred to
5 have the break just before, but it is perfect now.
6 JUDGE ORIE: We will have a break until 20 minutes past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
10 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, would it be convenient at the end of
11 the General's evidence to return to any issue in respect of Mr. Kovac,
12 since he is the witness to start tomorrow morning.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I could tell you but without going into any
14 further detail, the Chamber has seen no reason until now to ask you to
15 make special arrangement -- practical arrangement for the time we expect
16 Dr. Kovac will testify in this court. That, of course, the Chamber always
17 has the right, just as every party has the right to test on whether a
18 witness both and what he is and what he is supposed to do qualifies as an
19 expert and whether his evidence is admissible. You have noticed that
20 especially in respect of two witnesses, we have made an observation that
21 we might feel the need and a similar observation is not made in respect of
22 Dr. Kovac.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, could we perhaps return to that issue
24 at the end of this witness's evidence?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We can. I thought that Dr. Kovac it might be
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 important for you to know as soon as possible. That is why I answered
2 already that part of your question.
3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
5 would like to resume.
6 JUDGE ORIE: In closed session, you told us.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not right now, Mr. President.
8 Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... indicate that we
10 should turn into closed session.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I would like now in the
12 meantime to ask Madam Registrar to find an exhibit. It refers to one of
13 the tram incidents. Now, unfortunately, I do not have -- I do not know
14 its number by heart. So you cannot do it? Well, never mind then. Never
15 mind. Never mind.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Do you have the witness's name?
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well not right now, but I can
18 find it. I think that it could have been Jusic.
19 THE REGISTRAR: I will look for it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Witness, to go back to what we were talking about just before the
23 break, before the interval, would you please confirm that the shots on
24 the city during the period of time when there was the total exclusion zone
25 for heavy weapons, that these shots became rather rare?
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
3 MR. IERACE: At least as translated it refers only to shots. I
4 assume that there is artillery or mortar shots, but perhaps my friend
5 could clarify whether it is small-arms fire or whatever.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This is a perfect question
7 for a later answer, I say "shots" which means "shots."
8 JUDGE ORIE: But you asked the witness to confirm something he
9 said before and it should be clear what he has said. Were you referring
10 to go back to what we were talking about just before the break, before
11 the interval, would you please confirm that the shots on the city. So
12 you have something particular in mind.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I did not
14 ask him to confirm what he told us. I was asking you to confirm the fact
15 which I have presented to him.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If it is clear enough for the witness, he can answer
17 the question. If it is not clear, he will ask for further clarification,
18 I take it.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The conclusion is correct as far as
20 heavy weaponry is concerned.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you very much.
23 And, therefore, possible violations of what you have told us
24 would be of a strictly accidental nature?
25 A. They were not accidental. It happened from time to time.
1 Q. All right. Very well.
2 Can you -- ask you, General, to be more precise with regard to
3 those "from time to time." Does it mean a daily rhythm, a monthly rhythm
4 and so on and so forth?
5 A. It did not happen with a certain regularity. The actual reports
6 indicate precisely when heavy weaponry was actually used.
7 Q. Very well.
8 But, General, was it frequent; yes or no?
9 A. It was certainly not frequent.
10 Q. Thank you very much.
11 General, I would like also to go back now to the tram incident
12 that we spoke about a moment ago. Do you know if after the first
13 incident that was indicated, if you formally protested with General
14 Galic? Did you lodge a formal protest with General Galic?
15 A. Every incident that could be attributed to a sniper was picked up
16 by the Sarajevo Sector and they were the first ones responsible for
17 getting in touch with the Romanija Corps and to object to it. I myself
18 have in a number of situations, talked to my counterpart Mr. Milovanovic,
19 about the acts of the snipers as I also confirmed at the previous meeting.
20 Q. Thank you very much.
21 General, my question was slightly different. I am referring to
22 this incident. Do you know, yes or no, if an official protest was
23 communicated to General Galic, specifically?
24 A. I cannot remember that.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 General, will you tell us about the case or confirm that the
2 trajectory of firing at Sarajevo -- on Sarajevo, was parallel with the
3 lines of conflict, the confrontation line?
4 A. It was perpendicular to the confrontation line.
5 Q. Very well. I don't know but I am sure if you understood, but I
6 am speaking about the trajectory of the tram tracks -- of the tram tracks
7 in Sarajevo, did the tram tracks run parallel with the confrontation line;
8 would that be correct?
9 MR. IERACE: I understand that the system has frozen,
10 Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] We will then have to wait until it
12 runs again. If there are any new developments as far as the English
13 transcript is concerned...
14 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the system is back in order. Could you please
15 repeat your question for the transcript.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I shall be happy to do that.
17 Thank you very much.
18 Q. So, General, it is correct to say that in Sarajevo, the tram
19 tracks ran parallel or run parallel with the confrontation lines?
20 A. That applies to a very large extent.
21 Q. Thank you very much.
22 And that would include that which is usually called or referred
23 to as, "Sniper Alley"?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 Q. Thank you. General, General, would it be possible that there was
2 the crossfire or cross-shots between soldiers on one side of the
3 confrontation line, that is those towards the south and the forces of
4 those who open fire inside Sarajevo? And that there would be any change
5 of fire between them?
6 A. There have been exchanges of fire between both parties on both
7 sides of the confrontation line.
8 Q. Very well.
9 General, could it be that this crossfire also included the
10 tramline, the tram tracks?
11 A. I cannot answer that concretely from all positions of Sniper
12 Alley. From a technical point of view one ought to suppose that from the
13 Serb positions as well as from the Muslim positions, it was possible to
14 shoot at each other across the tram track of Sniper Alley using heavy
16 Q. Thank you.
17 In principle and in case of such exchanges of fire, could --
18 would it be conceivable that some collateral damage would ensue? That is
19 some stray bullets, perhaps?
20 A. Collateral damage where.
21 Q. Doesn't matter. Does not matter where. But during these
22 exchanges of fire.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I object to the question. The
24 question comes in a line of questions to do with the shooting of trams.
25 If my friend is suggesting that shots on trams were collateral damage
1 that is collateral to exchanges of fire between forces, then he should put
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please come to your point,
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well that is exactly that.
6 Q. Is it possible General, in principle, that there was an exchange
7 of fire between the Muslim and the Serb positions which then produced
8 collateral damage during such an exchange?
9 A. I can't exclude it, but, looking at the development at the
10 confrontation line and the disposal of the regular units, I cannot
11 imagine that collateral damage would occur using small arms in the
12 environment of -- in the neighbourhood of Sniper Alley. In a
13 confrontation between snipers among each other, these snipers are able
14 firing at each other. And just as well as they are able of hitting any
15 target within that line. But on both sides, a sniper requires a certain
16 altitude and a fire fight between two snipers takes place at a certain
17 altitude and therefore will not lead to collateral damage in the sense of
18 hitting a tram which happens to be passing accidentally.
19 Q. General, therefore, I can exclude the possibility of what is
20 technically called "ricochet"?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. And why is that so?
23 A. Because the distance is -- to specific target is determining for
24 the occurrence of a ricochet and a low angle is all important there.
25 Q. Very well.
1 General, I would now like us to go to some other subjects, do you
2 know -- did you know about an incident which happened on the 25th of May
3 1994 which involved two women in the area of Nikola Beronja Street and the
4 Branilaca Dobinja [phoen] Boulevard.
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it's appropriate for my submission
6 that the question includes something as to the nature of the incident.
7 Was someone shot, was someone shelled, et cetera?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Of course. It seems that it
9 involved wounding by bullets.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember this offhand.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Same then applying to another incident which took place on the
13 13th of June 1994, a woman of 44 on Ivo Anric Street?
14 A. That too, I can't recall offhand. I would really have to check
15 whether I made any notes of this or whether I have inspected these
17 Q. Very well.
18 General, to save time I will give you four dates: 19th of June,
19 26th of June, 17th of July, and the 22nd of July. Would your answer be
20 the same?
21 A. I would really have to check whether I have any information on
22 this. I wouldn't dare to tell you offhand.
23 Q. General, but did you ever see in Sarajevo an incident involving
24 two or more snipers, that is, the results apart? I am talking about an
25 incident taking place. Have you -- did you ever see in Sarajevo such
1 a case, such an incident?
2 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question makes no sense to me at
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think Mr. Piletta-Zanin wants to know
5 whether the knowledge of General Van Baal about sniping incidents is
6 direct or indirect. So I think that -- had he ever experienced such an
7 incident himself or that he was only receiving reports from such
9 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is that what I understand your question to be?
11 Would you please answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never witnessed an incident
13 myself. That is, once I was fired at in a gymnastic stadium when I was
14 jogging and there was a shot fired and it ended up in the tartan track
15 and that was the end of my jogging period. I was never able to establish
16 where that shot came from.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Let us come back to that. But I believe that you never saw a
19 sniping incident during your tour of duty in Sarajevo, am I correct in
20 saying that?
21 A. You are drawing the right conclusions.
22 Q. Thank you. General.
23 Did you yourself participate in some of the investigations
24 relative to incidents, that I have told you a moment ago?
25 A. The sniper incidents, and I presume that you mentioned dates of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 sniper incidents, the investigations were made by the Sector Sarajevo.
2 They were not my responsibility. So I did not take part in those
4 Q. Right General. Am I therefore right to conclude that you never
5 not only ever seen -- an incident, but that you also never took part in
6 any investigation of such an incident?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. Thank you, General.
9 General, we shall now move on to another topic, but before
10 that -- before that while we are still on this subject, do you know,
11 General, who -- in the UNPROFOR, who was interested with such
13 A. Generally speaking, there were two organisations doing such
14 investigations in Sarajevo. It was the Commandant of the Sarajevo
15 Sector. In my time this was Mr. Soubirou who ordered such investigations
16 to be done. And from Zagreb this type of investigation was performed
17 under the responsibility of the chief UNMO. And they were commissioned
18 to the UNMO sector in Sarajevo. The responsible General was General
20 Q. Very well. So according to you, General, who was informed about
21 the results of these investigations -- in the Serbian army?
22 A. At two levels. First of all, General Soubirou was in touch about
23 this with the Romanija Corps and at various meetings, General Rose, as
24 well as myself, discussed this issue in Pale with the General Milovanovic
25 and Tolimir and Gvero as well as with General Mladic.
1 Q. Thank you very much.
2 General, these notifications and information, did they happen in
3 written form or differently?
4 A. In principle every report made was transmitted orally as fast as
5 possible, but then also it was established in writing as well.
6 Q. Very well.
7 You said earlier, General, that it occurred sometimes on
8 occasions Serbs were able to fire at the city and that this could happen
9 in response -- as a response to Muslim fire? Do you remember that?
10 A. You are making a -- you are giving a rendering of my words. I
11 am not aware that I used these words.
12 Q. Yes, it may be interpretation, a question of interpretation.
13 MR. IERACE: [Previous translation continues] ... I understand
14 there's a further technical problem, which requires a temporary cessation
15 of evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, do we have any clue as to what causes this
17 problem to happen.
18 MR. IERACE: My suspicion is that it has to do with the laptop
19 that the transcriber has rather than the system as a whole. I'm told
20 that's correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is that if we would have a break now,
22 that we would have -- that we would need a second break as well. I would
23 rather see whether we can fix the problem at this moment well. It seems
24 that -- for the time being, the problem has been resolved. So I would
25 give it a try to continue, but when it happens again, we have to
1 reconsider whether this was a wise decision or not.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 Q. I am going to try to ask a different question, Mr. President, to
4 see whether this will influence technical aspect in any way.
5 You said, General, that in relation to the snipers, you would not
6 use artillery against the sniper. Do you remember what you said?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 You just explained the technical side of the matter on the height
10 of the firing. Do you remember that, the necessary height of the firing?
11 Do you remember that?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Very well, General, now if you do not want to fire at one sniper,
14 but if you would like to destroy a whole sniper's nest, at that moment,
15 would using the largest calibre firing would that then be justifiable?
16 A. Quite apart from the hypothesis that snipers in my view never
17 operate in nests or in groups. It is in my view, not right to use
18 artillery in order to eliminate one or two snipers.
19 Q. General, I wasn't talking about one or two snipers, lone snipers,
20 I was talking about a nest of sniper, that is, a position from which it
21 was possible to have soldiers in order to fire, possibly, at civilians.
22 Would the destruction of a nest -- a sniper's nest would then it be
23 legitimate, logical, acceptable?
24 A. I stick to my earlier point of view that such a location cannot
25 necessarily be eliminated using artilleries. There are other
1 possibilities as well. You are asking my opinion and this is my opinion
2 on this issue.
3 Q. Thank you General. What would be other possibilities to destroy
4 a sniper's nest, to eliminate them?
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my friend commenced this line of
6 questioning by referring back to the earlier testimony of the witness.
7 That earlier testimony was in the context of snipers being in a civilian
8 area. I would be grateful if my friend could make clear if that still
9 applies to these hypotheses. In other words, is the proposition that
10 there are a number of snipers operating from an apartment building in
11 which there are civilians or in an empty apartment building, as an
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as a rule,
15 when there are snipers anywhere, there are no more civilians. If these
16 snipers are acting as part of the army, it is the duty of the army to
17 evacuate them -- to evacuate the civilians. Therefore --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Your question is about sniper nests --
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In general terms.
20 JUDGE ORIE: With the absence of civilians. You can't say, Mr.
21 Piletta-Zanin, that on the one hand you expect everyone to remove all
22 civilians, because you would not be allowed, which is a normative issue,
23 and at the same time, say I am asking in general. I mean, either you ask
24 a normative question, then you have to make clear what are the data on
25 which you would apply the norm, or you ask about facts and then of course
1 we are talking about facts. So come to your point.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 Q. Yes. Article 14 and 15, 4th convention, is it true that the
4 civilian population have to be removed, have to be evacuated?
5 A. In principle in a zone where a war is going on, one will try to
6 bring protection to the civilian population, and when it is necessary,
7 possibly evacuate them, of course it is not always possible.
8 Q. Very well. General, if an army decides to have snipers in a
9 tower, does this army have to have the obligation which is Article 14 and
10 15 of the 4th convention to evacuate the citizens or inhabitants who
11 reside in that building? In that apartment.
12 A. When military personnel want to have the availability of a
13 building for any purpose whatsoever, then it is not allowed to let the
14 civilian activities continue at the same time as military assignments are
15 being carried out from that building.
16 Q. Very well. Consequently and following your logic, if there is
17 anywhere a sniper's nest officially established sniper's nest, the other
18 side should it consider logically that the civilians must have been
19 evacuated, removed, from that area where snipers are active? From the
20 sniper's nest, itself.
21 A. At the point in time when such a sniper nest is used then it is
22 deemed that no civilians are present. The reasoning the other way
23 around, snipers should not do their work from a civilian environment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: General, the question was whether the other party
25 could consider the civilians to be absent due to the obligation of the
1 other party to remove them?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Generally speaking, that is
3 what one may presume unless one may be convinced or may suspect that
4 these -- that the people have not been given the opportunity to go away.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Very well.
7 General, now having asked these four questions now, if you wish
8 to destroy such a sniper's nest, let's consider what you just said. How
9 would you go about it?
10 A. Using snipers.
11 Q. I mean -- don't mean men, I am talking about the room itself, the
12 location itself.
13 A. Such a location can only be changed by bombing it. But I said at
14 an earlier stage the use of artillery against a sniper's nest in an
15 inhabited area is not justifiable in my view.
16 Q. Very well.
17 General there was a team that was established under UNPROFOR
18 called "anti-sniper team" and this team, was it use also against BH
20 A. I don't know [Realtime transcript read in error "no"].
21 Q. Thank you.
22 General, do you know if Sarajevo forces or otherwise known as
23 government forces, had at their disposal, snipers, yes or no?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just in order to avoid whatever confusion, the
25 question was whether the anti-sniper team was also used against BH
1 snipers. It is my recollection that your answer was "I don't know." The
2 answer that appears in this transcript appears "no" and there is a
3 considerable difference. Please proceed.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
5 Mr. President. The General was intervening. As soon as the
6 interpretation was given to him was "no" as soon as the answer was that he
7 didn't know -- that the witness didn't know, and after your intervention
8 it is now being cleared up.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
11 Q. Do you know General if during the periods that I am going to
12 give you, or rather the dates that I am going to list you, were there
13 incidents that occurred, sniper incidents, against the Serb civilian
14 population and I am going to give you generally speaking a month, we are
15 talking about May 1994.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: Mr. President a question of relevance as to the
18 relevance of giving details to the witness of incidents where Serbian
19 civilians were sniped and by relevance I mean, what is the relevance of
20 that to Defence case. In other words, to be even more specific, is this a
21 quid pro quo argument or does it have some other basis.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please respond to that,
23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin. And I have got perhaps one additional question to you.
24 You earlier asked the witness about certain dates. You said the 16th of
25 July. I don't know exactly. The witness has said in answer to all the
1 previous questions that he might have notes on that. So that it would be
2 possible that it could provide information, but not merely by being
3 confronted with a date and the age of someone who was wounded. So I then
4 was wondering what you were -- what were you establishing to -- what you
5 seek to establish that the witness's memory is not such that just on a
6 date and gender and age he could identify a certain incident or that
7 his -- or that you seek to find information about these incidents or what
8 reports had been made or whatever. Because, as soon as the witness said
9 "I don't know" there were no further questions on that. So I wonder what
10 you are seeking because the Chamber is --
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, if you are
12 asking me a question and if you authorise me to answer, I will. But if we
13 encounter in these proceedings, if we manage to demonstrate that there
14 were sniping incidents that caused a lot of victims, a lot of casualties
15 on the Serb side, and I would just like to finish --
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the first part
17 is the objection of Mr. Ierace, you say it is important to establish and
18 the specific question of Mr. Ierace is, what is the relevance, is it the
19 quid pro quo or is it anything else? Okay. If you please --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, not at all, Mr. President.
21 What may happen, what may be, I will answer before the General, before the
22 witness, in order to gain time. It is not at all a quid pro quo, it is
23 not at all a reprisal this is just established facts. And Mr. President
24 if we are establishing that there were many -- there was much sniping on
25 the Bosnian side and provoking victims among the Serbs and that seemingly,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 as far as I know, not a single soldier in Sarajevo was ever accused of any
2 campaign of terror against a Serb citizen, then of course, the logical
3 conclusion would impose itself on your Chamber. Now if we cannot
4 demonstrate the contrary again, we will have our hands tied.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, when one analyses that answer, there
7 is no rational proper basis for asking the question. My friend says he
8 wants to "establish the facts." Is just establish facts. The question
9 then becomes, what is the relevance of establishing the extent of the
10 incidents involving Serbian civilians. My friend proposes to put dates
11 to this witness. One assumes from that that in due course, in the
12 Defence case, should we get that far, he will lead evidence as to what
13 happened on those dates. The question is: What is the relevance in terms
14 of the case against this accused? That is what is before the Trial
15 Chamber, not a history for the sake of history of what happened.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I thought that Mr. Ierace
18 would never finish, but I am -- stand by what I said. If people don't
19 want me to ask this question I will not ask it. Never mind.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You were asked to indicate what the relevance was.
21 And you -- first of all, you were saying that it was not necessarily
22 about reprisals. And then you told the Chamber that if there would have
23 been frequent sniping by the Bosnian side, that you are not aware of any
24 Prosecution of someone not even being accused of any campaign of terror.
25 This is of course a different matter. The matter is not --
1 although it may be a very important question -- not necessarily the first
2 question to be answered by this Chamber, whether similar charges could
3 have brought against other individuals. So, therefore, that is not quite
4 clearly indicating a -- the relevance of the question. But if there is
5 any other point of relevance, as you know, to a limited extent, this
6 Chamber has always accepted to get a better view on what happened in
7 Sarajevo and this would I would say, also include, as you may have
8 noticed before, the existence of sniping activities from the other side.
9 On the other hand, giving a lot of dates and then say to the
10 witness more or less that if you don't know about these dates then I am
11 not interested to know about it any more, what the relevance of that is,
12 is not clear to the Chamber.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if the General
14 could leave the courtroom for 30 seconds, this time I am going to have to
15 ask him to leave and then I will tell you my answer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... the General to
17 leave the courtroom for a short while.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I will be glad to. I
21 have had a number of incidents that happened in May and there were
22 civilian victims as a result of these incidents. Now, my question is to
23 find out not so much if there was reprisals that happened, that is quid
24 pro quo is not what I want to speak of, but what I would like to know is
25 if the General tells me, yes, we knew about this, yes we did know that
1 there were many incidents like this. Now the following question would be
2 the one that I am going to tell you about. Do you know, yes or no, as
3 we believe to know that these incidents happened in such a way in order
4 to provoke a violation of a ceasefire de facto, that is all.
5 Now, Mr. President, if I am told this is establishing a fact,
6 which is an important fact that the Serbs who we already heard else where
7 wanted peace no matter what the reasons were but in this period they
8 wanted peace. They certainly did not want war, did not want a shelling
9 campaign nor a bombing campaign. Therefore, if -- then that is what I
10 would like to find out.
11 The interpreter is unable to interpret the counsel's word.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreter cannot translate these last words.
13 THE INTERPRETER: That I want the shells to fall from your eyes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I said is that we remove
15 the blinkers so that we can see what is in front of us, more or less.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So what you want to establish, as a matter of
17 fact, is that sniper fire from the other side took place, and you want to
18 know whether this could have caused any -- whether it was used as a
19 provocation or could be considered to be a provocation.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In order to provoke a
21 violation or a cessation of a ceasefire and to continue the violence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. If you would then ask the witness what
23 you seek, I am referring again to your earlier questions about the dates,
24 but you seem to be not at all interested to find out whether any
25 information could be provided, but you left the witness with a few clues
1 that were not sufficient for him and then you left the issue, which was
2 to some extent a waste of time.
3 Could you please escort the witness into the courtroom again.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. General, do you know if in the period of May 1994 precisely,
8 there were sniping incidents that occurred involving BH forces against
9 Serb civilians. Did they occur, yes or no, and did you know that? I can
10 tell you that this is in the area of --
11 A. I don't remember. I do remember -- excuse me. I do remember.
12 Q. Very well.
13 You remember these incidents, General. I am going to give you
14 just a few dates to see if this was as frequent as you remember it to be.
15 1st of May, 3rd of May, 14th of May, 15th of May, 18th of May, 21st of
16 May, 30th of May, and then 31st of May. I know that you cannot recall
17 each of these incidents, but this -- does this seem reasonable to you?
18 A. It sounds high to me. These reports from the Serbs were not
19 processed by the Sarajevo Sector as if victims fell in the city of
20 Sarajevo that -- to which there was free access. What I do remember very
21 clearly is that in May, June, and July, culminating in August, it happened
22 increasingly that there were sniper incidents and that it was necessary
23 to bring the two parties together to establish an anti-sniper agreement.
24 Q. Very well.
25 General, since you mentioned that there was an increase, did you
1 know if this could have occurred in order to provoke reactions, for
2 instance, violations of a de facto ceasefire?
3 A. I don't know what the intention was of the incidents.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If I may interfere.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Violation of the ceasefire that
6 means a violation. In Sarajevo, there was a regime of the total exclusion
7 zone. There was no general ceasefire with respect -- there was a clear
8 agreement with heavy weaponry and that was observed very well. But in
9 compliance with the total exclusion zone, the parties didn't manage to
10 achieve a de facto ceasefire between the combating parties with respect
11 to small weaponry, small arms.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Very well.
14 General, could we, however, consider that these incidents were
15 provocation, acts of provocation, as far as you know? Yes or no.
16 A. Once again, I find it difficult to determine the intention of the
17 actions. We noted that it happened at both sides.
18 Q. Very well.
19 General, I would like us now to focus on Sarajevo. Could you
20 first confirm if this is the case, since we have -- had some testimony to
21 this effect, that the major destructions occurred in the area of the
22 demarcation line or the confrontation line?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 General technically speaking, if you have in a civilian area,
1 hypothetically speaking a command centre, a command centre, is this a
2 legitimate military target; yes or no?
3 A. A command centre is a legitimate target.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 General, if these command centres are inside the city and on the
6 ground floor or lower floors how could you then get to them?
7 A. By attacking the centre or by shooting at it with artillery.
8 Q. Very well.
9 When you tell us, "artillery" do you mean by that, direct or
10 indirect fire?
11 A. Artillery is by definition, indirect.
12 Q. General -- sorry, I understand that the use of mortar, do you
13 mean the use of mortars against such targets, and you say that this would
14 be legitimate?
15 A. For [indiscernible] at command centre the use of mortar and
16 artillery is legitimate.
17 Q. Thank you very much.
18 General, I also now like to ask you something. We shall come
19 back to Sarajevo. But now I would like to know something about some
20 other questions. Of two types of operations, the first one a secret
21 operation which was called Oxygen -- "Operation Oxygen"?
22 A. I am not aware of this operation.
23 Q. Were you aware of another operation allowing to take explosives
24 in oxygen containers from the hospitals?
25 A. I don't know about that. I am not aware of it.
1 Q. General, were you aware of an operation which was called,
2 "emergency" or "container" in which between on the 9th of April 1994, a
3 major element convoy with destination to Sarajevo was intercepted by Serb
4 forces? A convoy which was allegedly a humanitarian convoy.
5 A. I am not aware that this was an arms convoy.
6 Q. Do you know what that operation container was called?
7 A. No I don't know that.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 General, you spoke earlier about an incident with Serb troops on
10 the side of the Ilijas Brigade, do you remember that?
11 A. That was the operation Citluk with unauthorised weapons systems,
12 is that what you are referring to, yes I remember that.
13 Q. It falls in a situation where UNPROFOR men were blocked for a
15 A. After they had gotten the unauthorised weapons under control the
16 Ilijas Brigade did indeed put a -- cordon off the Canadian unit.
17 Q. Right. Can you confirm that this incident took place on the
18 extreme, on the outer limits of the exclusion zone?
19 A. The unauthorised weapon systems were within a range of 1200
20 metres of the border of the total exclusion zone.
21 Q. General, from where did one start calculating the exclusion zone,
22 do you remember that?
23 A. From the coordinate that the NATO counsel had established.
24 Q. Could you be more accurate, General? The 20 kilometre zone,
25 would it be a circle established from its centre such as the PTT office?
1 A. The NATO counsel was very precise and established a grid or a
2 coordinate that was the centre of a 20 kilometre circle. So in the
3 document that the NATO identified to define the total exclusion zone,
4 that is included, and has been provided to the Serb and Bosnian
6 Q. General, with regard to Sarajevo do you know if the so-called
7 Serb parts of Sarajevo during your tour of duty were subjected to the
8 shelling by the opposed side?
9 A. As I have noted previously in my statement, it happened a few
10 times that a Bosnian tank and a Bosnian mortar shot at Serb positions.
11 Q. Could you tell us precisely what was the target?
12 A. The precise target can no longer be established. At any rate, it
13 was a target on the other side of the confrontation line. In the reports
14 that we requested from Sector Sarajevo, we did not obtain the exact
15 location where the projectiles landed.
16 Q. Right.
17 General, to go back to what we would like to know, what do you
18 know about agreements concerning the airport area and the territory which
19 was a kind of demilitarised and which was near the airport?
20 A. In principle, the airport was allowed to be used for humanitarian
21 operations, and obviously for UNPROFOR as well. And the parties were to
22 comply with the agreement, not to consider the airport as a military
23 object of one party or the other. The responsibility for the airport was
24 with UNPROFOR.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Only one question,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. President, before the break and after that we will have another 5 or
2 perhaps 10 minutes more.
3 Q. General, do you know if the Muslim forces at times set out to use
4 it for military objectives, the factor of the demilitarisation of that
5 area near the airport?
6 A. At any rate, I discovered on several occasions that the section
7 around Butmir occupied by Bosnian Muslims used small arms fire to the
8 approaching planes and the departing planes. And as a consequence of
9 this, on several occasions the airport was closed for a certain period.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President --
11 JUDGE ORIE: We usually have the break. I am not quite sure. I
12 would rather continue the second part of this session to take until a
13 quarter to 6.00 so that you can finish the cross-examination and then
14 have a break until 5 minutes past 6.00. So just as in the morning, an
15 hour, another one hour and a half and then the last short hour. Since
16 you would have another 10 minutes approximately. So, please, first,
17 conclude your examination -- cross-examination.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could then Madam Registrar
19 please show me the photograph or photographs which she has. I don't
20 think it is the one that I meant. Thank you very much. Thank you very
21 much for your cooperation, but that is not what I need.
22 Q. General do you know an individual who I believe is your colleague,
23 Lieutenant General Lars-Eric Walhgren?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you think he is a man perfectly competent to perform his work?
1 A. Absolutely.
2 Q. General I will quote what General Walhgren said for the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. IERACE: I think the arrangement is that the Prosecution is
6 given a copy of the document from which the Defence puts a quote to the
7 witness. Perhaps my friend has a copy of the document?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that is why we
9 thought that there would be a break. I am sorry, but --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it is not that we have a break at the moment
11 you need to photocopy something, it is the other way around. You have to
12 photocopy things when there is a break. If that would really bother you
13 very much, please continue this very moment and we can also see but under
14 very strict conditions whether one or two questions after the break,
15 which will be possible and perhaps we will then have found the pictures
16 you are seeking as well.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I will
19 come back to what General Walhgren said in a minute.
20 Q. Let us go back to the question of agreements and especially to
21 the anti-sniping agreement. Did you meet General Galic on that occasion?
22 A. No, I did not meet Galic on -- General Galic on that occasion.
23 The ultimate anti-sniping agreement was established and to my knowledge
24 was not signed by General Galic but by the General Milosevic who was
25 acting at the time. That was in late August 1994.
1 Q. Do you nevertheless know whether General Galic cooperated in
2 bringing about that agreement called the anti-sniping agreement?
3 A. I am not sure of that. From 14 August 1994 Viktor Andrejev
4 attended the gatherings with both parties. I was not involved. So I
5 cannot -- I cannot answer your question in the affirmative. In the
6 preparatory discussions, General Galic was involved.
7 Q. During the negotiations proceeding it, General, was it your
8 impression that General Galic was cooperative?
9 A. I met General Galic only twice and that was at the beginning of
10 my period. Afterwards, I never sat at the same table with him or met him
11 in a different context. So I cannot answer your question in the
12 affirmative. My involvement with the anti-sniper agreement concerns the
13 conversations with General Milovanovic and Mr. Krajisnic.
14 Q. General, was it your impression, did you have an impression, and
15 I can tell you that we have already heard some evidence to this effect,
16 at what time did the Serbs want complete demilitarisation of Sarajevo and
17 not only an exclusion zone? Is that true, to your knowledge?
18 A. That is correct, at the end of March, General Mladic urged
19 repeatedly that a ceasefire be imposed throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and
20 that Sarajevo be demilitarised.
21 Q. Very well. And therefore, can one say that at that time and that
22 is the spring of 1994 and the following months for whatever could have
23 been the reason, the Serbs wanted peace?
24 A. That was easy to tell during the meetings chaired by General Rose
25 between the combating parties.
1 Q. General, does this mean, I mean, for the sake of form, does it
2 mean yes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. General, to go back to the latter agreement, we are talking
5 about the exclusion, do you know whether General Galic had a hand in this
7 MR. IERACE: What agreement, Mr. President? Ask the question to
8 specify the agreement.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The one that we are talking
10 about Mr. Ierace.
11 MR. IERACE: Mr. President the only agreement that has been
12 evidenced in the last dozen or so questions are the anti-sniping agreement
13 to which General Galic was not a signatory.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You meant the anti-sniping agreement?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I am talking about the
16 exclusion, the agreement on the exclusion.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, both agreements were both -- have been
18 mentioned. So it is now clear what your question is.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am sorry.
20 Q. I come back to what I asked you, General. In relation to the
21 agreement called "the TEZ" that is the total exclusion zone, did General
22 Galic have a hand in it?
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. IERACE: The General has given evidence that he met General
1 Galic twice. I think in those circumstances the question is
2 inappropriately worded. Because one assumes that the answer could only
3 be hearsay outside those two meetings.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Hearsay is not as such inadmissible in the
5 Tribunal as you well know.
6 MR. IERACE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It will soon become clear what kind of information
8 the witness can provide us with.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could we hear your answer, that is, what did you know about
12 possible General Galic's participation in this agreement?
13 A. General Rose told me that regarding the total exclusion zone
14 being in effect, when I joined on 24th February, it was clear that the
15 Romanija Corps was conducive to enforcing the total exclusion zone
16 regime. And to this end, he needed support both from General Mladic --
17 Milovanovic as from General Galic. That is what General Rose told me.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 Therefore, General, can I conclude from your answer -- can I
20 deduce from your answer, that General Galic supported this agreement
21 since he had already undertaken measures to put it into force, to put it
22 into effect. Would that be correct?
23 A. It contributed to implementing this.
24 Q. Very well.
25 General is it true that the implementation of such an agreement
1 does not happen like this or that it is not a matter a few hours, but it
2 requires preliminary effort and very thorough work? It doesn't happen
4 A. That's correct. That is why it took 10 days to declare that the
5 regime applied to ensure that all measures were taken to get -- to
6 control the heavy weaponry deployed around Sarajevo.
7 Q. Therefore --
8 JUDGE ORIE: May I just remind you. You said if we would have
9 the break at 5.30, you would need another 5 to 10 minutes. I know that
10 we meanwhile found some photographs you asked for. There is another
11 document which you still have to copy, and you took 40 minutes until now.
12 So it is up to you what you would like to do. But I am going to keep you
13 to the time limits.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I suggest that
15 we make copies during the break and then I shall have a couple of
16 questions to ask and that will be the end of it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... put questions to
18 the witness until a quarter to 6.00 and then after the break, just the
19 one document you would have to -- yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very
21 much. Madam Registrar, could we seek the usher's help to show the first
22 photograph, the first one that you have before you. Thank you very much.
23 Can we show this photograph to the witness. This is 3666. Thank you.
24 Can we just -- P36.
25 Q. General, and could we zoom in persons who are to the right of the
1 tram next to a red vehicle.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] A little bit more, perhaps.
3 Q. General, can you see next to this red vehicle, to the right of
4 the tram, thank you very much, two men? Do you see them?
5 A. Yes, I see them.
6 Q. Is it true that one seems to be wearing camouflage clothes and
7 that the other one has only the lower part of his clothes in camouflage
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 General, the second of these persons, who could that be? A
12 civilian person or could he be a military?
13 A. I can't say if either one, whether they are civilian or military.
14 I note that they are wearing parts of uniform.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr.
16 President. And now we have the document and it will be over. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until 5 minutes past 6.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.46 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.08 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I would like the
22 witness to be shown, with the assistance of Madam Usher, a document. In
23 fact this is the document that we are interested in is on page two.
24 This document should bear number 141.
25 But, Mr. President, before I ask my question, I would like to
1 underscore not only the fact that the booths already have this document,
2 but our own experts, our own military experts are in the Defence's
3 chamber, have been there for two hours. I am just mentioning this for
4 the continuation of the proceeding.
5 Q. Now, General, I am going to read you a sentence which is the one
6 that you have on page 35.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That is, Mr. Ierace --
8 MR. IERACE: I am not is sure what the document is, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The document is as far as I can see is -- oh, you
10 haven't received it.
11 MR. IERACE: Thank you. I now have it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
14 Q. On page 335, the final page, I am going to read the following
15 sentence which is the third sentence. [In English] "In Sarajevo there
16 were a large number of military installation and, therefore, it would have
17 been very difficult to have made it a demilitarised zone."
18 [interpretation] General, do you agree with this statement that a
19 large number of military installations were in place in Sarajevo, that is
20 the first part of my question?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 General, second part of my question, is it true that this large
24 number of military installations, what should be added would be a rather
25 considerable number of mobile targets like military trucks, cars that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 were used for military purposes, transport of troops?
2 A. That's correct.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions, Mr.
4 President. Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 Mr. Ierace, is there any need to re-examine the witness?
7 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.
8 Re-examined by Mr. Ierace:
9 Q. What do you understand by a "demilitarised zone"?
10 A. A demilitarised zone is an area where all military activities are
11 banned and where in principle, no military and/or their installations can
12 be present.
13 Q. All right.
14 You were asked this question, General: "How could you be so sure
15 if you are, speaking of the tram, that there was not a single soldier on
16 that tram travelling in that tram?" You explained that you did not assume
17 that there were no soldiers travelling on the tram. The context of that
18 question and answer was an incident where a civilian travelling on the
19 tram was shot.
20 Do you remember that?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Since the witness was
24 speaking about two tram incidents and since every time there were
25 wounded, could Mr. Ierace perhaps specify chronologically his question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. IERACE: The question --
3 JUDGE ORIE: General Van Baal, you remember from what incidents
4 you talked about, assuming -- at least, not assuming that there was no
5 military men on the tram?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. IERACE:
9 Q. All right.
10 Now let's assume that there was a soldier travelling on a tram
11 and that civilians on that tram were shot, not the soldier. Would you
12 have any comment to make about the appropriateness in those circumstances
13 of shooting at the tram? In other words, would the tram in that
14 circumstance have been a legitimate military target and would the civilian
15 casualties be acceptable?
16 A. A tram carrying civilians is never a legitimate target, even if a
17 soldier was travelling along -- or even several soldiers were travelling
18 on it. As I said before, I have never been able to find, and it was
19 never reported to me that armed soldiers used the trams.
20 Q. You were asked a number of questions about the significant drop
21 in incidents involving heavy artillery after the total exclusion zone
22 came into effect.
23 What date did you leave your position in Sarajevo?
24 A. August 28th, 1994.
25 Q. When did that drop in incidents involving heavy artillery
1 commence, approximately?
2 A. This happened in fact, immediately, after the total exclusion
3 zone had become effective.
4 Q. Do you recollect the month that that happened?
5 A. February.
6 Q. You told us earlier that you arrived in Sarajevo and took up your
7 position on the 24th of February. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. From what you learned as to the recent history of Sarajevo, did
10 the drop in use of heavy weaponry in fact date from the Markale market
11 incident in early February?
12 A. On the 7th of April or rather on the 7th of February, I arrived
13 in Sarajevo and I was updated on the situation, what happened on the
14 16th. And then I went to the staff at Kiseljak and on the 8th I returned
15 to The Netherlands and when on the 24th I took up my position, Brigadier
16 Ramsey, the acting Chief of Staff, updated me on the developments that
17 had taken place as of the 8th and that was yet unknown to me in the
18 Netherlands. I also checked the reports very carefully from the time of
19 that terrible incident until the time I actually took up my position in
21 Q. And as a result of your observations and those briefings, are you
22 able to say whether the drop in the use of heavy weaponry dates from the
23 date of the total exclusion zone or as early as the date of the Markale
24 market incident?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The witness just said that he
3 wasn't there at the time of the incident of the Markale market.
4 Therefore, he cannot say anything about that period because he wasn't
5 there. The question should be rephrased, put to him differently.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. IERACE: I am happy to rephrase it, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, rephrasing would be preferable.
9 MR. IERACE:
10 Q. Firstly, what was the date in February, if you remember it, that
11 the total exclusion zone took effect?
12 A. If I remember well, it was the February the 10th that NAC
13 [Realtime transcript read in error "enact"] decision was taken and as of
14 the 20th of February, it was to take effect actually, an actual fact.
15 Q. As a result of your briefing, do you understand that the ban on
16 the use of the weapons was effective only from the 20th of February or
17 the 10th of February or another date?
18 A. I am not certain what date I should mention here. In my
19 experience or rather in my recollection the shock of the incident on
20 the marketplace on the 6th had as a consequence that everyone realised
21 that heavy weaponry was to be banned, had to be banned. And to what
22 extent this had an immediate consequence for the stopping of the shooting,
23 the firing at Sarajevo, I do not know exactly. Was reported to me in The
24 Netherlands as well as when I arrived back in Sarajevo and Kiseljak is
25 that there was a fully functioning total exclusion zone regime present.
1 And from the point in time, the NAC had taken its decision.
2 Q. Now, you told us that you left --
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am sorry to
4 interrupt my learned colleague. I didn't quite get the word and I think
5 it is important. I think they may have said enact, but I am not sure.
6 It could have been another word.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] NATO counsel. NAC abbreviation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: NATO counsel.
9 MR. IERACE:
10 Q. You told us that you left on the 28th of August 1994. By then,
11 had the reduced level -- had the use of heavy weaponry remained uniform
12 since your arrival? In other words, was there as little use of it when
13 you left as when you arrived, or had there been a change?
14 A. That was a slight increase.
15 Q. When was that? When did the slight increase happen?
16 A. It started after the 5th of August 1994.
17 Q. All right.
18 Now you were also asked whether or rather how should a commander
19 attack a command centre if it was inside a city and on the ground floor
20 or lower floors of a building. And I think you said that it could be
21 done by the use of mortar -- mortars and artillery, that that would be
23 In forming your opinion, did you make any presumptions as to the
24 presence of civilians, either in the building or in the vicinity of the
1 A. I presume that no civilians would be present in the building.
2 Q. In relation to the use of mortars, did you contemplate that
3 mortars would be used against the ground floor or lower floors of the
4 building itself or in the area of the building or both?
5 A. That would be a possibility.
6 Q. If the building was in an area where civilians passed by the
7 front, that is the immediate outside vicinity, and the mortar was fired
8 in such a way that it impacted on the ground level outside the building,
9 would you have any comment to make as to the appropriateness of the use
10 of mortars in those circumstance?
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question, again, is
14 highly hypothetical. For instance, if we are talking about a building
15 which is -- can be reached by a direct shot, then we know we are in a
16 different situation from if it wasn't in a direct range.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... I will allow
18 this question and then we are not going to change the size of the building
19 and the number of rooms of the headquarters and et cetera, et cetera. So
20 he may answer this question and then, Mr. Ierace, we reach the limit.
21 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it has been determined that the
23 command centre in the lower -- is located in the lower part of a building
24 and the decision has been made to eliminate this command centre, then,
25 artillery or mortars are for good possibilities. However, the point will
1 always be that one should prevent as much as possible that unintentional
2 ancillary damage should be caused, sometimes the interest of eliminating a
3 command centre may be so preponderant that such and so damage will happen
4 anyway. So it is a matter of contemplation depending on the situation
5 for which one cannot establish a general rule. Such contemplation will
6 have to take place every time again.
7 MR. IERACE:
8 Q. Now, on another matter, you were asked questions, indeed it was
9 put to you, that the and I think the word that was used was "the Serbs"
10 wanted peace. And you said that as much was apparent from certain
11 meetings that took place that were attended by General Sir Michael Rose.
12 You said at a different point around the same time that General Mladic
13 wanted a ceasefire throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 Was there any precondition on the desire for peace in terms of
15 the ceasefire throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. There were always conditions to which proposal and one of the
17 conditions that applied to it -- the ceasefire was the demilitarisation of
18 the safe areas including Sarajevo.
19 Q. All right. And finally, you were asked questions as to whether
20 General Galic, as you understood it, had been cooperative over the total
21 exclusion zone and you referred to something that General Rose had said
22 to you. Was there any other source of information that you used in
23 giving us your opinion or was it essentially or indeed only what General
24 Rose had told you had occurred?
25 A. During various contacts with General Soubirou, it appeared to me
1 that the implementation of the total exclusion zone had been successful
2 only because of the cooperation with the Serbs
3 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. That completes
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
6 Judge Nieto-Navia has a question for you.
7 Questioned by the Court
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 We have talked here about the total exclusion zone. But, in
10 fact, I don't know how was this exclusion zone -- could you describe for
11 us the zone, the length, the width, where was the exclusion zone, things
12 like that, just to understand.
13 A. The total exclusion zone was an area agreed to by the NATO
14 counsel in which it was not allowed to have heavy weaponry and the
15 objective was to prevent that Sarajevo could be bombed any longer. In
16 fact the distance was 20 kilometres. And this was intended so that
17 every heavy weapon that was more than 20 kilometres away from the centre
18 of the city could no longer attain the city. Because it was -- since it
19 was impossible that all heavy weaponry that had been deployed,
20 particularly by the Romanija Corps on the high hills surrounding
21 Sarajevo, and to move all of this weaponry out of the exclusion zone and
22 also considering the winter conditions that we were talking about, it was
23 winter time, it was decided that the weapon systems within the exclusion
24 zone should be brought under the responsibility of the UNPROFOR
25 commander. The responsibility for this was the commander of the BH
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Command General Rose, and in conjunction, particularly with the warring
2 parties, he indicated, he set a number of weapon collection points where
3 the parties could transfer their weaponry to UNPROFOR.
4 So the majority of the weapons systems of the Serbs were located
5 outside of the exclusion zone, but a non -- inconsiderable part of these
6 weapons had been set under the responsibility of UNPROFOR at the
7 so-called weapons collection points. And there were some minor weapon
8 collection points but also Lukavica Barracks with the weapons systems
9 they had and the Ilijas Barracks were also considered as weapon
10 collection, arms collection points.
11 So in fact the heavy weaponry could be used no longer by the
12 Serbs nor by the Muslims.
13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: General, do I understand well if I imagine
14 sort of a belt around the city of 20 kilometres with from the centre of
15 the city?
16 A. That is correct. And it was not permitted to have heavy weaponry
17 within that because of the winter conditions, it was decided that the
18 weapons that could not be moved away because of those conditions, to put
19 those under the control of UNPROFOR and thereby, towards, we had -- we
20 avoided that weapons could be brought into the city or that they might
21 take up location from where they could reach the city, to prevent that.
22 The second aim was to prevent the weapons within that 20 kilometre zone
23 could remain in the hands of the Serbs or of the Bosnian army, and could
24 be deployed to shoot at each other.
25 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Genera.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions to
3 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 [Interpretation] It is again in relation to the agreement on the
5 total exclusion zone. Firstly I would like to know about the
6 definition, your definition of "heavy weapons."
7 A. Heavy weapons were defined by means of the calibre of weapons
8 systems and all systems above 81 millimetres were considered to be heavy
9 weapons. So it has to do with the diameter of the shell or the rocket.
10 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So mortars of 120 millimetres
11 are considered to be heavy weapons?
12 A. That's correct.
13 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So we have had testimonies to
14 the effect that it was difficult to fire mortar shells from vehicles and
15 that in order to do this it was necessary to dismount the mortars, put
16 them on the ground and then again fire them and then again put them back
17 into the vehicle and then go with the car. If I understand you correctly,
18 there was a possibility to fire from vehicles themselves, from mortars
19 mounted on vehicles. Did I understand you correctly or what was done is
20 that they would actually dismount the mortars, fire them, and put
21 them back on to the vehicles and then vehicles would leave?
22 A. 120 millimetre mortar is in principle is pulled by a vehicle. I
23 have no technical -- I have not seen any technical possibility of
24 mounting a 120 millimetre mortar on a truck. I don't want to exclude
25 that it was possible, but I have not seen it. So generally speaking it
1 is correct when you say that 120 millimetre mortar is pulled behind a
2 vehicle or is put from a vehicle into a static position, stationary
3 position and then executes its firing assignments and then is moved again
4 from there.
5 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] So, in relation to placing under
6 control of heavy weapons under the UN control, you said that the Serb
7 side had delivered 99 per cent of these heavy weapons in the total
8 exclusion zone so that these weapons would be under the control of the UN
9 forces. And then you said that it happened that later on there were
10 attempts to fire, to actually fire from these weapons.
11 Do you think that those who were responsible for these attempts,
12 did they obey orders or were there just factions that were disobeying,
13 who were not under the control of the military hierarchy, strictly
15 A. During my period, all I experienced was that all that happened on
16 the Serb side was controlled from top down. Did that answer your
18 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you, sir.
19 JUDGE ORIE: General Van Baal, I have one question for you, that
20 is the following -- no, I have two questions. The first is: You
21 testified that the major destructions occurred in the area of the
22 demarcation line or the confrontation line. You answered in the
24 I am trying to understand your answer and also trying to
25 understand the question. There has been testimony in this court that the
1 confrontation line would be altogether some over 60 kilometres. How do
2 you compare a destruction at the line of 64 kilometres with other
3 surfaces or streets or number of building? Would you please explain a
4 bit more in detail what you meant by affirming this, what has been put to
5 you by Defence counsel.
6 A. Before I arrived in Sarajevo, most destruction had already been
7 caused by the years of bombing. There was a stalemate, a confrontation
8 line which was hardly changing, moreover the heavy weapons were hardly
9 being used. But in several parts of the city, among others near the
10 Jewish graveyard, the demarcation line still consisted mostly of
11 residential blocks where both parties wanted to obtain an advantage. And
12 all kinds of explosives were used, small antitank, arms, mines and other
13 explosives, in order to obtain a better position of departure by means of
14 destruction in order to obtain a strong position near the demarcation
15 line. And that is what I was referring to when I mentioned the
16 destruction caused near the demarcation line.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did your answer also include the destruction that
18 had already been taking place in the city before your arrival?
19 A. No that is not what my answer was about. I focused by answer on
20 the situation that I experienced in 1994 when because of the effectiveness
21 of the total exclusion zone no -- or hardly any heavy weapons were being
22 used on both sides. So the destruction was really linked to small scale
23 operations within the confrontation line and those operations continued
24 and no heavy weapons were used for those. However, explosives, mines, et
25 cetera and that kind of object was used.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from that, I would like to clarify one issue.
2 I am not quite sure that you fully understood question put to Defence
3 counsel -- by the Defence counsel to you. You were asked about the
4 operation, "oxygen" and then it was explained to you. And I don't know
5 whether you fully understood what was explained to you. It would have
6 been about transporting explosives in oxygen bottles to hospitals. So, to
7 kind of smuggle of explosives in medical equipment.
8 A. Yes. I understood that but I never was aware of that operation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You never heard about it?
10 A. Never heard about it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for your answer.
12 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before you
14 tell the witness that he has answered all the questions, I have one
15 question to ask with reference to one of the questions asked by Judge El
17 Further cross-examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
18 Q. [Interpretation] General, you were asked about the diameter of
19 the weapons that were covered by the agreement of the total exclusion
20 zone, that is, the calibre of weapons that could be used there and you
21 said it was as of 120 millimetres.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but this is a translation problem. The
23 translation just said 120 and the question was 82. So the answer is in
24 the affirmative, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, but the question is as
2 Q. The question is as follows, General, isn't it true that the
3 agreement that I have in front of me wanted to exclude all the weapons
4 including heavy machine-guns starting from the calibre of 12.7
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
7 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it is inappropriate for my friend in
8 his question to talk about what is in the document in front of him.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I have not seen the document. Or at least not
10 received any reference to a specific document.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am hiding it for the moment.
12 I withdraw this document that was in my question.
13 Q. But is it true, General, that the agreement also included to
14 exclude heavy machine-guns, starting as of starting with the calibre of
15 12.7 millimetres?
16 A. If I remember well, that is correct, with regard to heavy
17 machine-guns, yes.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
20 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, my friend has been very careful to
21 talk about the intention of the agreement. I for one am now left
22 perplexed as to whether my friend is saying, that was agreed to or
23 whether there was some prior intention to include that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand the question as the agreement to
25 include, so that is not about an intention. Of course, it would have
1 been preferable to present --
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed.
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... but is the
4 agreement on paper known to you, Mr. Ierace?
5 MR. IERACE: I would have to check it, Mr. President. But I
6 don't think -- I don't seek to ask any further questions of this witness,
7 if that assists.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, General Van Baal.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I add something? The total
10 exclusion zone is not an agreement. It was a unilateral decision
11 imposed by NATO which the parties complied with. But they have never, so
12 to speak, in their decision-making, for the total exclusion zone, they
13 have never been involved in the NATO dogma however. Execution agreements
14 have been entered into and there it says specifically in accordance with
15 the NATO document what calibre should be considered as not being
16 committed --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Since this gives further clarification to your
18 answer, and perhaps also to the question put to you, I would like to --
19 yes, Mr. Ierace. We have some difficulties in concluding today.
20 MR. IERACE: Yes. Excuse me, Mr. President. I withdraw that.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, then this finally concludes your examination in
23 this court, General Van Baal. I used to not only to thank the witnesses
24 for having come. For you this would be thanking you for having come twice
25 to the Tribunal. And that compensates that I cannot thank you for coming
1 such a far way as I usually do with other witnesses, but that doesn't
2 change anything at all. Thank you for something and answering questions
3 of both parties and of the Chamber. Thank you very much. May I thank you
4 as well for your assistance as an interpreter.
5 Madam Usher, can you please escort General Van Baal out of the
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that
9 we still have 10 minutes and I think there would be a Prosecution witness,
10 but before that, can I also look for -- go and look for our expert who is
11 waiting --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace asked a few moments to discuss procedural
13 issues. I have to make one or two announcements. So -- well, for three
14 or four minutes might not be worthwhile to call him. But let's see how
15 quickly we can proceed. And I as such would have no problems having him
16 in the courtroom when dealing with procedural issues.
17 May I make the first announcement, that is in the 26th of July in
18 your schedule you find court maintenance. We found, however, a courtroom
19 so that we will sit on the 26th, I think, it was in the afternoon. It
20 will be Courtroom I.
21 So unless other notice will be given to you, we will sit on the
22 26th of July in the afternoon. That is my announcement.
23 Then, Mr. Ierace.
24 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. Firstly, in relation to
25 Mr. Philipps, you may recall it takes a few moments to set up the laptop.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 It is quite a complex piece of evidence.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think it is better to keep that for tomorrow. I
3 apologise for your expert.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I think
5 that he -- I think he leaves tomorrow morning because --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think Mr. Philipps was planned for tomorrow as
8 MR. IERACE: No, Mr. President. Mr. Kovac tomorrow.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Kovac tomorrow, yes. But Mr. Philipps is nearby
10 so that -- but it is of course very unfortunate that on the other hand we
11 couldn't finish with him in the 10 minutes. That would be --
12 MR. IERACE: No, I don't suggest that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. Then the scheduling, of course, is
14 very unfortunate for your expert witness.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And especially for the
16 Defence, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But I am afraid we can't change this at this
18 very moment. Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
19 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President. The issue that I wanted to
20 raise is that which you raised at the outset this afternoon, Mr.
21 President, the concern that the Trial Chamber has as to the admissibility
22 of the evidence of Mr. Hinchliffe and in particular, Mr. Higgs. The
23 reason I say that is that the evidence of Mr. Higgs is intended by the
24 Prosecution to dove tail, that is to combine, with the evidence of certain
25 other witnesses in order to form the necessary basis for the conclusions
1 the Prosecution seeks to draw in respect of the first scheduled shelling
3 Since I don't know at this stage what the concerns are that you
4 have as to his expertise, I wonder if it would be helpful if you heard a
5 few words as to how the Prosecution constructs its case in relation to in
6 particular the source of fire for the first shelling incident. I can tell
7 you that it involves evidence from a number of sources, including amongst
8 them, Mr. Hamill, Mr. Higgs, and certain other witnesses. That could be
9 provided to you, if it would assist, in terms of understanding the
10 significance of Mr. Higgs within that pattern.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I think this is not the way that we could
12 discuss the evidence of Mr. Higgs and explain why it is important.
13 Mr. Higgs, and I specifically mentioned Mr. Higgs because by the report of
14 Mr. Higgs, two witness statements were introduced or at least are sought
15 to be introduced of which you could wonder whether they would be allowed
16 by the Chamber to be introduced under 92 bis without cross-examination.
17 I mean, experts are not the vehicle by which you introduce witness
18 statements. And I don't think that the Chamber, apart from whether this
19 is the moment to discuss these kind of issues, but I think the decision on
20 the expert witnesses Ewa Tabeau and Mr. Philipps, we have at least -- that
21 is what we think -- clearly set out what an expert is and what we expect
22 him to do. That is an expert witness is a person whom by virtue of some
23 specialised knowledge skill or training can assist the trier of fact to
24 understand or determine an issue in dispute. These are two elements.
25 First I would say the knowledge skill and the training and the second part
1 of this line is that this knowledge, skill or training could assist us in
2 understanding or determining it.
3 That doesn't mean that they take over the responsibility of the
4 Chamber. Certainly there are determinations that are fully to be made by
5 the Chamber. Then we added to that that this Chamber expects an expert
6 witness to give his or her expert opinion in full transparency of the
7 established or assumed facts that he or she rely upon. That is the first
8 part of the is story. And the second issue, the methods used when
9 applying his or her knowledge experience or skills to form his opinion.
10 So we have, I would say broadly, four very important elements, the first
11 one being knowledge, skill or training; the second one whether this
12 knowledge, skill or training can assist the Chamber in determining an
13 issue. For some determinations or for some understanding, the Chamber
14 might not be in need at all the assistance of an expert and that the
15 expert could not better assist then anyone else could do.
16 So that is the second issue. The third is, full transparency on
17 the factual basis on which he builds his expert opinion. And the fourth
18 is, full transparency of the methods used when skills, experience or
19 knowledge are applied, so that we can follow the methodology of the
20 witness that he can explain that, et cetera. So these are, I would say,
21 four important elements that might play a role when we have to decide
22 whether we could admit expert evidence.
23 And I think it would not be appropriate that to go any further
24 that the Chamber might feel a need to further test and rather in the
25 beginning of the appearance of the expert, whether the expert would meet
1 the standards, especially in these respects that should be applied. That
2 has got nothing to do with whether we finally reject an opinion of an
3 expert, or whether we would agree with the conclusions of an expert. That
4 is a different matter. Sometimes even if you would be willing to agree
5 with the outcome of what an expert report says, it does not mean that you
6 are assisted by him or that it is the methods used in achieving to that
7 conclusion would be transparent.
8 But on totally different grounds you might reach similar
9 conclusions. So this has got nothing to do with whether rejecting or
10 accept the conclusions. This is a matter of a test whether the expert is
11 qualified and can function on the basis of his report as an expert
12 according to the main standards I just have set out. That is the issue.
13 MR. IERACE: I understand that, Mr. President, and thank you for
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I merely wish to indicate -- I
17 thought Mr. Ierace was going to speak further. Can I have another 30
18 seconds at the end of the session. I don't know whether I can do that
20 JUDGE ORIE: Assisted you already a bit today.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I want
22 to do that to say that the testimony of the witness Philipps will be
23 considered as a witness for the Prosecution, that is how we take -- that
24 is how we shall --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I know that you do it for reasoning of time, but I
1 had difficulties of following the numbers.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will repeat them. I also
3 give you the page, the line and the text. 6 5, 94 to 92.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The documents I rather do that tomorrow. Madam
5 Registrar it is quite a number and I think it is better to save that for
7 Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, for the transcript, I
9 said 65, 94 and 92.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Next time f you do it a bit slower, especially
11 numbers are very difficult.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I will do that -- I
13 will do so next time, yes, I shall be happy to do so. Thank you very
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... afternoon. And
16 I think the parties are aware that on Wednesday we will be sitting on the
17 morning hours. That is the court schedule, therefore it is good that I
18 repeat that. Wednesday we will be sitting on the morning and we will not
19 be sitting on Thursday or Friday.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
21 7.03 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
22 the 9th day of July, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.