1 Tuesday, 28 January 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in the courtroom and those
6 assisting us just outside the courtroom. I'm informed, Mr. Stamp, that
7 you'd like to address the Chamber.
8 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, first I have to ask the registrar to call
10 the case, because otherwise your words might be lost.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case Number
12 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. Not only for calling the
14 case, but also for reminding me that had to be done.
15 Mr. Stamp.
16 MR. STAMP: May it please you, Mr. President, Your Honours. May I
17 just raise two issues briefly. The Prosecution has received from the
18 Defence its letter dated the 24th of January, 2003. And subsequently, a
19 letter dated the 26th of January, 2003. The letter of the 24th of January
20 sets out the order of the witnesses ending with the witness Sinisa Krsman
21 on Friday, the 31st of January, 2003. Apparently that is the last fact
22 witness. And the letter of the 26th of January continues with the
23 witnesses, these now being the experts, and sets out the order of the
24 expert witnesses beginning with Professor Dr. Kosta Cavoski, I think, on
25 the 3rd of February, 2003. This issue really is a question which we seek
1 to raise through the Court, and it is whether or not the Prosecution
2 should interpret this order of witnesses to mean that the accused will not
3 be called to testify, and this question is raised in light of the oral
4 order of the Court on the 22nd of January that he should be made available
5 to testify before proceeding with the evidence of the experts. That is
6 the first issue which we would seek some clarification of.
7 The next issue arises only in respect of the letter of the 26th of
8 January in which the Defence has allocated or proposed certain time
9 periods for the examination-in-chief of the expert witnesses. Normally,
10 the examination-in-chief of expert witnesses is a formality to just
11 introduce the expert and his report, except if the report is not admitted
12 into evidence, and the expert really is put up for cross-examination.
13 There is, it is submitted, excessive time proposed in respect to these
14 experts, particularly in respect to Dr. Janko Vilicic, for whom seven
15 hours in chief has been proposed, the real danger being that new matters
16 outside of any report prepared for which the Prosecution would not be able
17 to adequately prepare might be raised in these circumstances. Those, may
18 it please, Mr. President, Your Honours, are the matters I'd like to bring
19 to your attention.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps we first deal with the first part. You
21 asked how to interpret --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: First question was on how to interpret the, if I may
24 say so, the procedural behaviour of the Defence. Perhaps the best way of
25 finding out is just to ask the Defence. I take it the Defence is aware of
1 the interpretive problems the Prosecution has raised. Perhaps we deal
2 first with that matter, and then go into the time allocated for experts.
3 Ms. Pilipovic or Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's always difficult to know
7 how to interpret things, but I think General Galic's position is clear,
8 and he rephrased it here. With all due respect, as the matter stands, he
9 cannot take a decision.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence, therefore, says that it will not
11 indicate whether General Galic will be called as a witness. Is that a
12 correct understanding?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But we should add that if we
14 don't call him, it's because we won't be able to, not because of a lack of
15 will on our part.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Chamber has made it quite clear that if
17 you would keep open the opportunity to call General Galic as a witness,
18 you should provide the information necessary for the Prosecution to
19 prepare for cross-examination. At the same time, the Chamber has clearly
20 indicated that if finally you would decide not to call General Galic as a
21 witness, that you could say that up to the last moment.
22 I think it's a matter of practical -- it's a practical matter that
23 you give some indication as whether you want to keep that opportunity open
24 and reserve time for that. If the Defence still intends to call
25 General Galic with, as the Chamber has decided before, the right up to the
1 last moment to decide not to call him, it should be clear that it does.
2 Therefore, you provided some information for the Prosecution to prepare
3 for cross-examination which suggests that you want to keep open the
4 opportunity to call General Galic as a witness. The Chamber also has
5 instructed the Defence, since the order of appearance of witnesses is
6 under the control of the Chamber, that if General Galic would be called,
7 it should be done before expert witnesses are heard. And I do understand
8 the Prosecution to raise the issue that not reserving time on the one hand
9 side, and at the same time providing material for the preparation of
10 cross-examination, seems to be a bit contradictory. So therefore, I would
11 like to know, at least I think the Prosecution is entitled to know, how to
12 interpret what seems to be a contradiction.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. You're
14 quite right, when you say "what seems to be a contradiction" because when
15 we examine the case in its entirety, and we are told that we have formed a
16 request with regard to this decision, the things remain as they are. For
17 the 23rd, we asked for permission from your Chamber to appeal against this
21 or not, once we have heard the testimony of expert witnesses, this is our
22 position. So I don't think we're playing a game of cat and mouse. We are
23 very clear. We think that the testimony, if it should be given, should be
24 given under certain conditions.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, may I ask for a redaction of page 4,
1 lines 19 and 20. Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Did I say something?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you read it, you know what is the
4 confidential part of it.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise. I'm very
6 sorry. Thank you. Thank you Judge Nieto-Navia for having seen the
8 Our position is clear. As long as we don't know how things are as
9 far as these elements are concerned then the position is delicate, so it
10 doesn't seem useful for us, if we say at the end, that given the
11 procedure, we accept and we only -- we don't think the hearing can be
12 held. This will have to do with the decisions that the Defence will take
13 with regard to the procedural matters.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MR. STAMP: The issue is not raised just simply as a procedural
16 matter which should be ironed out. There are enormous practical
17 considerations for the Prosecution in respect of this. We would expect
18 that if the accused is to testify soon or next week, that we would be in
19 possession of a list of exhibits and a proposed time that the testimony
20 will take in chief. And it is exceedingly difficult to do anything
21 without those practical considerations being taken care of.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if I can add
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We've tried to respect your
1 order as much as possible especially with regard to the information.
2 We've provided information about the possible contents, which seems
3 extremely detailed. It didn't just mention shelling and sniping. We
4 provided an entire list of very detailed questions, and I think that the
5 Prosecution is perfectly capable of starting its work if it thinks it's
6 necessary and useful. All the more so, in that it knows that these
7 documents are ones that it is aware of in general. So it's not as if the
8 Prosecution is totally ignorant and would be surprised by the timetable.
9 The Prosecution has the time to prepare itself, the documents themselves
10 are not of a central importance at this moment in time. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the matter over the first
12 break, and then we'll come back to it.
13 The second issue, the time to be spent on the examination-in-chief
14 of expert witnesses, I think that a decision has been filed yesterday in
15 which the Chamber has, in respect of certain expert witnesses, granted
16 less time than requested and left it open for other expert witnesses. I
17 think especially the background witnesses, I think altogether for three
18 witnesses, a total amount of three hours was granted to be allocated as
19 the Defence seems fit.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is the
21 reason for which I don't understand the Defence's attitude, simply because
22 it ignores the existence of the decision I have in front of me, now things
23 are more clear to me. We are talking about something that has already
24 been decided. With regard to this matter, Mr. President, if the Defence
25 should appeal against your decision, I would be glad if we could get a
1 decision very rapidly, because we think that it is necessary to have more
2 time than the three hours which should be used for all the witnesses
3 concerned. Naturally, this is for practical reasons. For practical
4 reasons, we ought to know about this quite soon because I think that the
5 end of the case is approaching. And in the case of Dr. Radovan Radinovic,
6 we need to have information as soon as possible because if we had to ask
7 for more, I don't see how in practical terms we would be in a position to
8 make this function. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Take as a guideline, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that
10 where expert witnesses have expressed themselves in long statements that
11 could be easily read without further explanation, that there's less time
12 needed to examine these expert witnesses in chief. For example, the
13 Prosecution has taken only very little time to examine in chief Mr. Donia.
14 But I see that you're asking us that if the Defence should appeal against
15 your decision, I would be glad if we could get a decision very rapidly.
16 It's not quite clear to me what decision exactly you're asking for here.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I
18 didn't -- see in the transcript. I said if we had to request an appeal
19 against your decision that we are discussing at the moment, dated the 27th
20 of January, 2003, in that case, we would be grateful if the case should
21 be -- could be treated quite rapidly. Yesterday, you stated that no one
22 was perfect. This is the case for the Defence. I can confirm that
23 because for some of these expert reports, there are certain mathematic
24 formulas which consist of four or five lines. But if we manage to
25 understand them, I would congratulate you. But the Defence can't
1 understand them. And it will be necessary to explain this at length. We
2 have never had a situation before. Introducing mathematics or physics in
3 this case is something that requires time in order for these matters to be
5 JUDGE ORIE: That's exactly the reason why you'll find not yet a
6 time limit on the experts in respect of mathematics. I think it's not the
7 first time we hear such evidence but the mathematics become more and more
8 complicated. The Chamber is aware of that, and that needs time. How much
9 exactly also depends on how we proceed. But there are no clear time
10 limits set for these, I would say, forensic scientists. So therefore, I
11 don't know -- still, it's not clear to me what kind of decision you're
12 expecting here. As I said, that the Chamber has not said it was not at
13 the outset the issue. The issue was admissibility rather than the time,
14 but we included the decision on the time to be spent in
15 examination-in-chief, but not on the forensic scientist.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, but we're speaking about
17 the expert Radinovic. We're going to re-examine your decision. But what
18 we would like, Mr. President, there are two possibilities: Either your
19 Chamber will reconsider its decision, maybe it has already done so, and
20 then will grant us more hours. Or your Chamber will authorise an
21 immediate appeal or won't. If it did authorise such an immediate appeal,
22 we would like your decision to be made as soon as possible so that if the
23 experts come, the expert reports don't have to be divided, cut up, because
24 there's nothing worse than having bits and pieces of testimony when we're
25 dealing with expert witnesses. We would like to be in a position to
1 follow the line of reasoning of these expert witnesses. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. You are drawing your attention to
3 two possible developments, the first one being that we reconsider our
4 decision; the second one, that we grant an immediate appeal. There is a
5 third possibility that we do not reconsider our position and we would not
6 grant a certificate. So we will let you know as soon as possible which of
7 the three scenarios will be the one followed by this Chamber.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We should say that we're going
11 to re-examine your decision, and we will very briefly give you a brief
12 summary of the reasons for which we think that this is not sufficient.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll come back to the matter in due course.
16 Then, is the Defence ready to resume examination. I think I said
17 yesterday there was approximately one-half hour left.
18 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 WITNESS: MILORAD BUKVA [Resumed]
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Bukva. May I remind you you are
23 still bound by the solemn declaration you had given at the beginning of
24 your testimony. Examination-in-chief will now be resumed. Please
25 proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 Examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin: [Continued]
3 Q. Witness, could we very rapidly, with the assistance of the usher,
4 could we place the two documents that we are interested in on your table.
5 And could you very quickly tell us whether you recognise this type of
6 document, and do the contents seem to be correct to you? But do so very
8 I think the numbers concerned are 936 and 1025, but this should be
9 verified because I no longer have these documents in front of me.
10 A. That's correct. It's a document dated the 6th of August, 1993.
11 That's Document 936. The allegations in item 1 are correct, The action of
12 the enemy with an 82-millimetre mortar directed at the Kula area. Kula is
13 a prison, civilian prison. And on that occasion, one mortar shell fell on
14 the grounds of the prison while the prisoners were walking around in the
16 Q. Witness, I'm going to interrupt you because we're running out of
17 time. Can you just confirm whether according to what you can remember,
18 this is correct, and then we'll move on to other matters.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Let's have a look at the other document, please.
21 Could you read out the number of the document.
22 A. It's dated the 3rd of September, 1993. And it is number D1035.
23 Q. Thank you. Do you recognise this type of document?
24 A. Yes, absolutely.
25 Q. Thank you. Could you have a look at the same items we are
1 interested in, the ones that have to do with hostile activity, and tell us
2 whether as far as you can remember the information is correct or not.
3 A. In the area of the 1st Romanija-- yes, that's correct. On that
4 day in my diary, it says that the Muslims again tried to cut off the
5 Pale/Lukavica Road.
6 Q. Thank you. But as far as you can remember, is this correct or
7 not? Yes or no.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of the
11 usher, [In English]... To distribute that.
12 We'll provide you with Document Number 864. Could you please have
13 a look at it as in the previous cases.
14 And then 748.
15 Q. Witness, do you recognise this type of document? Very well. As
16 far as you can remember, the contents are correct?
17 Witness, could you speak out aloud. Witness?
18 A. Just a moment, please.
19 Q. Please, take your time.
20 A. I can confirm that there was action from the Hladnjaca direction
21 because at the time, that was the end of June, I was in Rajlovac Brigade.
22 And this has to do with action taken against its positions.
23 Q. Very well. Thank you. Which document do you have in front of
24 you, please?
25 A. Document 864 dated the 22nd of July, 1994.
1 Q. Very well. And a minute ago, which document were you talking
3 A. Yes. A minute ago it was 748.
4 Q. Thank you. So you have confirmed these two documents? Yes or no.
5 A. Characteristic event that was recorded for the first time was the
6 use of certain cluster bombs. I remember that very well. And this is
7 mentioned. So this event is an event that happened.
8 Q. Thank you. With the assistance of the usher, another document,
9 861. It's dated the 17th of July, 1994. And we'll provide you with
10 Document 748 dated 19th of June, 1994.
11 And once more, Witness, on each occasion tell us whether you can
12 recognise the type of document and then we'll be interested in item 1 and
13 your confirmation.
14 MR. STAMP: Could it just be indicated --
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And the fighting that is
17 I cannot do it. I have to ask the question.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. You asked about Document 861,
19 yes, and you're rushing through at such a speed that the usher and
20 registrar were not even able to provide 861. If you would have provided
21 it just prior, before the start of the hearing of today, it would have
22 been no problem. But you can't put five questions. I also wonder how
23 much time the witness has to read what he seems to confirm.
24 So I do understand your time problems, but at the same time, we
25 should not rush in such a way that it becomes incomprehensible.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, with pleasure. Thank
2 you, Mr. President. Very well.
3 Q. Witness, you have before you two documents. Let us take them in
4 order. First, 741. And for the 741, I have two questions. They are
5 always the same questions. First of all, do you recognise this type of
6 the document? And secondly, the authenticity of item 1.
7 A. The document is consistent with the usual form of this type of
8 document. And events from item 1 are of such nature that I cannot
9 remember them with certainty because these were usual events, nothing
10 specific, characteristic, reminds me, takes me back to these events except
11 for the sniping activity in the area of the Vrbanja mosque, which is the
12 Ljubljanska Street. I can confirm that.
13 Q. Very well. The following document, 861.
14 A. Document 861 dated 17th of July, 1994, is consistent with the
15 form. Enemy activity on the area of responsibility of the 1st Sarajevo
16 Motorised Brigade in the area of the Jewish cemetery is characteristic.
17 And I think that this was in relation to one of the attempts to cut off
18 the road between Sarajevo, Lukavica/Pale. So there was activity in the
19 defence area of the Jewish cemetery. That is, there was firing in that
21 Q. Thank you very much.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of
23 Mr. Usher, we will need his assistance on another two occasions. Here are
24 two documents, if you can please distribute them with the same proviso.
25 Q. And Witness, can you please start with the document bearing the
1 number of 735, please, followed by Document 1111.
2 First document, 13th of June, 1994, Document Number 735. Witness,
3 what can you tell us about its type?
4 A. The document is authentic, and the events in the area of
5 responsibility of the Ilidza Brigade, when the enemy forces fired on the
6 Caritas convoy in the Cekrcici area is true. And the rest of item 1 is in
7 relation to engineer fortifications done by the enemy of their positions.
8 And what was in force, there was a cease-fire in force, and their activity
9 was in a position to the cease-fire, so this is all true.
10 Q. Thank you very much. Now, the same question for Document 1111,
11 that is the document dated 7th of October, 1993, about its form. What can
12 you tell us about its type?
13 A. The document is authentic. In item 1, there is talk of activity
14 in the area of Mojmilo hill. For the most part, this time there was an
15 attack on Muslim forces in the area of Djukica Potok which is mentioned
16 here, and all the other operations were to do with this attack. The
17 firing on Grbavica with the sniper from Debelo Brdo and so on. Everything
18 was in relation to the activities previously mentioned. And this is a
19 truthful event, this really happened, and it's all to do with the attack
20 on Djukica Potok.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
22 Mr. Usher -- Witness, with the assistance of Mr. Usher, could we please
23 have the distribution of three documents this time.
24 Q. And now, Witness, I'm going to ask you the same questions again.
25 Document 543, in relation to 13th of March, 1994.
1 A. 13th of March, 1994, Document 543?
2 Q. That's correct.
3 A. Yes, the document is authentic in any case. This date reminds me
4 of intensive sniper activity carried out by the enemy in the direction of
5 Novakovica Kuca. This event related here is true. And there was
6 small-arms fire towards Novakovica Kuca and Kaponiri. That's what I can
8 Q. Thank you. Witness, can you please have a look at the document
9 dated 7th of September, 1993 bearing the number 1.039.
10 A. This document is authentic, and the events reported here in
11 paragraph number 2, and -- here we have talk that enemy opened fire
12 throughout the day, sniping fire in the direction of Lukavica, and this is
13 correct. This took place on the 7th of September, 1993. I recall that
14 within the compound of the barracks near the command, a civilian was
15 wounded on this date - I do recall that - from Muslim positions at Mojmilo
16 hill. That day, there was an intense infantry attack on the position of
17 the 1st Romanija Brigade, and I recall that according to the report that I
18 received from my subordinate, this attack was very brief. In fact, it was
19 an unsuccessful attempt without any serious consequence except one
21 Q. Witness, can you please keep that document. Thank you. And I
22 have a following question: What about item 1?
23 Do you confirm the item 1?
24 A. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, where the witness referred to
1 paragraph 2, did you not refer to the second linear of paragraph 1? The
2 witness, as far as I understand, has only testified on the translated
3 part. Please proceed.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, Mr. President. I just
5 wanted to make things clear so there's no confusion in the record. Now
6 everything is crystal clear.
7 Q. Now, Witness, document dated 3rd of October, 1993. What can you
8 tell us about the type of the document and the contents of item 1?
9 MR. STAMP: Could we clarify this date, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that we're looking
11 at Document 1108.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, there is a problem with
13 the date. It's not the 3rd of October. It is the 4th of October, and the
14 number that I gave was 1108. Perhaps I'm going too fast. I'm going to
15 slow down a little since everyone has been asking me to slow down. I
17 Q. Same question, Witness.
18 A. The document is authentic. And the content in item 1 is fully
19 authentic. This is one of the more peaceful days which was occasionally
20 interrupted by sniping activity from enemy positions on Mojmilo hill on
21 our positions in Lukavica. I do recall that.
22 Q. Thank you very much. You can set them aside, these two documents.
23 And with the assistance of Mr. Usher, these documents can be handed back.
24 I will leave this aspect now. As far as the documents are
25 concerned, I'm going to ask you some general questions, and these general
1 questions are to do with instructions. Witness, what can you tell us,
2 very briefly, regarding the humanitarian-related instructions that were
3 transmitted to you or not transmitted by the military hierarchy, military
4 chain of command, towards the troops? Clearly, were there any
5 instructions, any orders to the troops, in relation to the respect of
6 civilians in times of combat, and if there were any instructions, can you
7 tell us what they were?
8 A. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a professional soldier, and I am well
9 aware of the principles and provisions of the Geneva Conventions in
10 relation to the respect of the laws of war. And I am aware that the
11 command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps worked on this plan that the main
12 elements of the aforementioned conventions be taught, instructed, to the
13 front-line soldiers. I had an occasion to stop by a trench on Trebevic
14 next to the road. And in that very same trench, I saw some excerpts from
15 the Geneva Conventions that regulate the matters. So I can responsibly
16 claim that the troops, even soldiers, were aware of them, knew them.
17 Q. Thank you very much. We're going to go on to another subject --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I noticed that elements of your question just put to
19 the witness were not translated because you included the necessity of such
20 instructions when asking the question to the witness, so it was not as
21 neutral as it is written in the English language. I remember you saying
22 "necessaire, instruction necessaire." Perhaps just for the transcript,
23 and since the Prosecution will not have understood it if they listen to
24 the English translation and when they looked at the English transcript,
25 that it is clear, at least, what the question exactly was.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Indeed, I wasn't keeping an eye on the transcript. Thank you.
4 Q. Witness, we're going to change the subject, and we are going to
5 look at the aspect of respecting of Conventions. That is, the aspect of
6 provisions for punishment if such Conventions were not respected. As far
7 as this is concerned, does the name of an officer called Mr. Dunjic, does
8 this name say anything to you?
9 A. Yes. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us, tell the Chamber, what
11 happened in the Dunjic case, very briefly, please, if you know this, of
13 A. Yes, yes, I know everything in relation to this case. Dunjic was
14 the commander of the Igman Infantry Brigade, and very frequently, if you
15 can say that, which is -- I mean, frequently being a relative term -- he
16 behaved, one could say, as a paramilitary in a sense that he behaved in a
17 superficial, inappropriate manner, and he did not fully follow the orders
18 of the superior. He behaved in an appropriate way of his own will and was
19 not fulfilling the standards of subordination. That is the reason why my
20 commander replaced this brigade commander.
21 Q. When you say "my commander," who do you mean?
22 A. General Galic, of course.
23 Q. Thank you very much. We are still within the same subject, but do
24 you know any other examples that may have happened to some officers or
25 perhaps soldiers of inferior rank? Or, for instance, that brigade
1 commanders may have taken decisions in relation to platoon commanders or
2 company commanders? Do you know of any such examples? If you do not
3 recall at this moment, please tell us.
4 A. Well, I don't recall that. These problems that were successfully
5 handled by brigade commanders at their level, and most of the time, they
6 didn't come to us.
7 Q. Thank you very much. We are going to another question. Witness,
8 were you in Sarajevo on the 24th of December, 1992, and then the 6th or
9 the 7th or the 6th and the 7th January 1993? And I'm specifying this
10 during the night, the night of the 24th and 25th December 1992 and the
11 night of the 6th and the 7th January 1993?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. Thank you. Have you ever heard that there was on one of these two
14 dates, these two time periods, either during the Orthodox Christmas or
15 during the Catholic/Protestant Christmas, formally speaking, that there
16 was barrage fire which would have lasted for at least 20 minutes, and
17 during which all weapons around Sarajevo would have opened fire on to the
19 A. No.
20 Q. Thank you. You stand by that, you're categoric in that answer?
21 A. Absolutely. Yes, absolutely.
22 Q. Thank you very much. I'm going to change the subject, but we
23 don't have much time. So now, cultural monuments or facilities, have you
24 ever seen an order during your service that would have been aimed at
25 targeting any kind of cultural facility or monument in the area of
1 Sarajevo remained under the control of the BH army? And when I mean
2 "cultural" -- when I say "cultural," I mean museum, mosque, any important
3 cultural document, historical monument, et cetera?
4 A. No, I have never seen such an order. And as far as I know, none
5 of these facilities in the part of Sarajevo under Muslim control were ever
7 Q. Thank you very much. Could you please tell us if
8 destruction - and when I say "destruction," I don't mean occasional, but
9 significant destruction that happened on the Serb side as well occurred?
10 A. Well, I can confirm, for instance, that following the liberation
11 of Trnovo, we found the church, Orthodox church, in a ruinous state. It
12 had been burned, it had no roof, et cetera. As far as other instances are
13 concerned, I couldn't remember.
14 Q. Thank you very much. Could we now please move on to specific
15 things. Could you confirm -- no, I'm going to rephrase. Names: Jug,
16 Operation Koverta mean anything to you, Koverat? K-O-V-E-R-A-T.
17 A. Yes, absolutely. Operations Jug, Koverat 1, Koverat 2, knees were
18 both Muslims offence both outside rings of Sarajevo, and they were both
19 offensive with a view to lifting the blockade of Sarajevo. And I repeat,
20 this is what these offences were called by them.
21 Q. Can you tell us about the intensity of these offensives?
22 A. They tried to prepare themselves well and prepare the offensives
23 well, and in that sense they engaged a large number of troops. At this
24 very moment specifically, I cannot recall, but in any case, these were
25 much, much stronger forces than the Sarajevo Romanija Corps forces. I
1 could -- although we don't have time, I could speak about one of the last
2 offensives that when they attempted to --
3 Q. Thank you. Please continue.
4 A. When they attempted to break through in the area of Kokoska, it's
5 an elevation point in the area of responsibility of the Igman Infantry
6 Brigade. According to our data, during this offensive, some 8.000 troops
7 took part because they had a significant number of people killed during
8 this offensive.
9 Q. Thank you very much. Does the name of St. George mean anything to
10 you in terms of offensive?
11 A. Yes. This was a paramilitary unit that we demilitarised as part
12 of an operation that we carried out with the objective of eliminating
13 those kind of units.
14 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us about any other troops or units that
15 may have suffered the same fate, that the corps would have placed under
16 its command or that they would have been eliminated, removed?
17 A. Well, this unit, this group, St. George, they ended up in prison
18 because of murder of a Serbian person and because of the criminal offences
19 on the ground. This is one of the more drastic examples.
20 Q. Can you tell us which criminal offences on the ground, apart from
21 this murder?
22 A. Well, it is -- this was about systematic looting of property.
23 Mostly they were stealing cars, of property generally speaking.
24 Q. Do you mean of both, so they were stealing property belonging to
25 both ethnic groups?
1 A. Yes, absolutely.
2 Q. Witness, can we continue with the same line of questioning --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, may I remind you that you are
4 close to the time I indicated to you. As a matter of fact, you are there
5 already. So would you please try to conclude.
6 MR. STAMP: And may I just indicate for the record the last
7 question was extremely leading.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll take note of both
9 observations. I have been asked to slow down, I have done so. And I
10 think that we could ask for a little additional time to conclude. We
11 won't be much longer. I'll try and be as efficient as possible. Thank
12 you very much.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues]... Please
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. Witness, with regard to the opposition which were intrinsic to the
17 BH army --
18 A. I don't have the B/C/S translation.
19 Q. I'll repeat that. With regard to -- I'll rephrase this because I
20 can see where the problem is. With regard to any possible problems of
21 opposition that the BH army may have had within its structure, what can
22 you tell us about such clashes, about such -- that should be translated by
23 opposition, shock, clash, et cetera.
24 A. Well, clashes within the BH army itself were quite frequent as far
25 as we knew. My department was particularly interested in such events that
1 occurred in the BH army. And in our opinion, we heard reliable
2 information about all such conflicts. This happened very rapidly, or
3 rather I mentioned Sarajevo criminals such as Juka, Celo Bajramovic, and
4 then there was Caco, Musan Topalovic, Caco. When these local strongmen
5 became stronger, became a serious threat, not just to the military
6 hierarchy but also the political hierarchy, then the first conflicts
7 within the BH army occurred.
8 Q. Please continue.
9 A. And the Party of Democratic Action, those who were in power, but
10 the Party of Democratic Action above all, attempted to eliminate such
11 people. And it is a well-known fact that they killed Musa Topalovic,
13 Q. Thank you. Did this conflict cause an exchange of fire between
14 rival factions as far as you know?
15 MR. STAMP: Objection, leading.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll rephrase
18 Q. How far did this opposition go?
19 A. As I've already said in my previous answer, fire was opened, there
20 was shooting in those conflicts as a result of those conflicts because
21 Caco was killed. There were armed conflicts.
22 Q. Thank you. Witness, Borsalino, Silos, Sunce, did these names mean
23 anything to you? And if so, what do they mean? Very briefly.
24 A. Absolutely. Everyone knows about these names, especially the
25 Serbs who were imprisoned in those prisons.
1 Q. What are we talking about?
2 A. Well, these notorious prisons in which Serbs were held.
3 Q. Thank you. Are there any other places that you could mention?
4 A. There was an entire series of such prisons in Sarajevo according
5 to our information. And it wasn't possible to verify this for certain.
6 There were about 40 prisons, but it wasn't possible to verify all this
7 information because there were private and even secret prisons.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the number of
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Witness, I want to ask you something us. You mentioned Maljutka
12 yesterday. Could you tell us what a Maljutka is?
13 MR. STAMP: Before we get to the Maljutka, could the witness just
14 repeat the number of prisons he mentioned.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The interpreters have asked you to repeat that
16 part of the answer. It means that how many prisons there were.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to our information, about
18 40 prisons. I would just like to add, Hepok in the basement of that
19 building on Malta. There was a prison in the basement of that building.
20 There was the Viktor Bubanj barracks. That was a big prison for Serbs.
21 And as I said, there are quite a lot of private prisons. It was difficult
22 to record them all, but I think that up until the end of the war, there
23 were some prisons which even the International Red Cross was not able to
24 list, to record.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Witness, with regard to the series of questions concerning
2 cooperation, what can you tell us about international commissions or joint
3 commissions that the army would have liked to establish in order to
4 examine various issues, various problems, protests, et cetera?
5 A. I remember the event at Markale when the main staff ordered the
6 formation of a mixed commission whose task would be to look into the
7 circumstances of that event. I know that the commander drafted his own
8 order on the basis of an order from his superior and appointed commission
9 members on our side. And I know that that commission, or rather our
10 members didn't participate in the work of that commission because UNPROFOR
11 could not guarantee their safety, the safety of our people.
12 Q. Thank you. Witness, do you know whether there were any other
13 examples of the desire to cooperate at the level of the establishment of
14 these joint or common commissions?
15 A. Absolutely. I know that my commander encouraged any initiative
16 taken in order to establish and reinforce a truce, or rather peace in that
18 Q. Thank you. Your commander, that is to say?
19 A. General Galic.
20 Q. Thank you. Could you now answer two or three questions that have
21 to do with Alipasino Polje, and we will come to a conclusion very soon.
22 Do you know whether in the Alipasino Polje area, although you've
23 already answered this with reference to the map, do you know whether in
24 Alipasino Polje, in the area of Alipasino Polje, there was an target of
25 any kind that your -- your intelligence service might have been interested
2 MR. STAMP: The leading element is already in. The witness was
3 asked earlier to mark certain things on a map as far as I recall, and he
4 did. Now contained in the question is a leading element, and the question
5 could have been asked without leading.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The leading element in the
7 question is not such that the question is inadmissible.
8 Please proceed. So the question, therefore, was whether there was
9 any specific target of any kind that your service might have been
10 interested in. I take it, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, that you were asking whether
11 there was any target in which the intelligence service was interested in.
12 Yes. Could you please answer that question.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the Alipasino Polje area, as far
14 as I can remember -- I can't remember.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Were there any factories in that area?
17 MR. STAMP: Just for the record, although the leading
18 element -- that again is leading to the extent of dragging. The witness
19 said he can't recall, and now he has been pulled into something.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to ask whether
21 there were any factories, it's something I don't know, and I'm not leading
22 if I ask the witness whether there were any factories there. The witness
23 is free to say whether there was or not.
24 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be some misunderstanding, Mr.
25 Piletta-Zanin. The mere fact that the witness is free to answer whatever
1 question does not exclude that the question is leading. On the other
2 hand, it's clear that from its own recollection, the witness does not come
3 up with anything that if there would be any specific interest for the
4 Defence to know about factories, is there any special factory you would
5 like to draw attention to in Alipasino Polje?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, now it's a matter of locating
7 the part of town that has to do with Alipasino Polje. But perhaps the
8 Zica factory is part of the Alipasino Polje zone, and there was a weapons
9 and ammunition workshop there. We pointed it out on the map yesterday.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. Witness, you mentioned the
12 El Fatah group yesterday. Does the name Kulin Ban evoke anything?
13 A. Yes, that was a brigade, a Croatian brigade. It was a brigade of
14 the HVO, the Croatian Defence Council in the Kiseljak military district.
15 Q. Thank you. We're approaching the end of your examination. I
16 would like you to later on speak about the personality of General Galic.
17 But first of all, the question has to do with a Maljutka. What is a
19 A. My military occupational specialty is that of a communications
20 officer, but this has to do with an anti-armour device. Its designation
21 is Polk 9K-11. It is an anti-armour missile which is launched and its
22 purpose is to destroy armoured vehicles.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you've already indicated what else
25 you had to ask about. I said not more 10 minutes, it is now approximately
1 15 minutes, so you really have to conclude. So one or two questions,
2 fine, but that's it.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And just to be clear, one question and then the very
5 last. Two questions, not more.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Q. My first question, Witness, what can you tell us about the -- in
8 humanitarian terms, about the personality of General Galic?
9 A. Apart from the fact that he is an exceptional officer, I think
10 that General Galic is a great humanist, a great humanitarian. Whenever
11 the international forces would carry out humanitarian actions, whether it
12 was the Red Cross or UNPROFOR, General Galic never obstructed such actions
13 or put them into question. And on occasion, I think he even did far more
14 than anyone else would have done. I would like to remind you that we are
15 from Sarajevo and that after the Muslim powers let convoys of Slovenians
16 and Jews and Macedonians and Romas pass through, and this was probably
17 under the pressure of the international community, I have to remind you
18 that not a single convoy of Serbs left Sarajevo. That I have to emphasise
19 that I think that General Galic is a great humanitarian.
20 Q. Thank you. Since I only have one more question, I'm interested in
21 the issue of crossing the runways at the Sarajevo airport before the
22 famous tunnel was opened. My question is as follows: What can you tell
23 us about the effective control that the BH army may have had over the two
24 sides of the runway, on the Butmir side and on the Dobrinja side?
25 A. The Muslim forces had total control over any movement over the
1 runway. I mean, into the city and out of the city. And that's for the
2 simple reason that they held positions there. And very often, we heard
3 conversations through the channels of communications between local
4 commanders from Butmir and Dobrinja. And from these conversations, it was
5 quite clear that only soldiers were crossing the runway. That's quite
6 clear, although after a political decision had been taken, we handed the
7 airport over to UNPROFOR forces. In that document it said it can only be
8 used for humanitarian reasons. But we have quite enough information to be
9 able to claim that the airport runway was used for military purposes by
10 the Muslims, mostly in order for the forces to regroup, to supply military
11 equipment, ammunition, and other things that the forces in the town
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
14 Mr. President, I have concluded.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, is the Prosecution ready to cross-examine
16 the witness?
17 MR. STAMP: Indeed. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Stamp:
20 Q. You were shown some documents, purportedly combat reports from the
21 Sarajevo Romanija Corps to the main staff. Am I understanding your
22 evidence to be that these documents are consistent in form?
23 A. Could you please rephrase the question. "Consistent," what do you
24 mean by "consistent"?
25 Q. You said, I believe, that the form of the documents which you saw
1 was consistent with the reports that were normally sent to the main staff.
2 A. Yes, the form of the documents is absolutely identical to the
3 usual form these documents had.
4 Q. And these documents referred to the enemy and events which you
5 found were characteristic of the circumstances that you experienced while
6 you were in Sarajevo at that time?
7 A. Yes, first of all --
8 Q. Thanks. Thanks.
9 Could you have a look, with the assistance of usher, could you be
10 shown Document 936.
11 Do you see the first paragraph beginning with the number 1?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Do you see the second paragraph just below that first paragraph?
14 A. You mean the second paragraph?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What's the first word of that second paragraph?
18 A. "With a machine-gun..."
19 Q. Do you see the third paragraph?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. What is the first word of that third paragraph?
22 A. "Turncoats".
23 Q. Is that word a pejorative word or derogatory word for Bosnian
25 A. Well, now we would have to discuss history in order to answer this
2 Q. It's a simple question. Would any Bosnian Muslim you know
3 consider that word being used to address him as derogatory or pejorative?
4 Yes or no.
5 A. Yes. They probably would. The question is simple, but it's a
6 little more complicated to give an answer. It would be necessary to
7 examine history.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think the
9 witness should be allowed to continue to the extent that this is possible.
10 He had something to say and the Prosecution interrupted him. He could
11 tell us why.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I would invite Mr. Stamp perhaps
13 to ask a short question about that. But I take it that Mr. Stamp is
14 mainly interested in whether these type of expressions were used of which
15 he asked the witness whether these are pejorative denominations, and not
16 primarily what historic reason would explain the choice of exactly this
17 term and whether there have been good reasons in the past. But -- and
18 also, Mr. Stamp is allowed to use his time as he wishes.
19 But Mr. Stamp, could you ask the witness to indicate very, very
20 briefly where the word comes from so that the Chamber is also in a better
21 position to understand what would be the meaning of "turncoats" in this
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Could you briefly tell us in one sentence, two at the most, where
25 the word comes from?
1 A. I'll try and be brief. While the Bosnia and Herzegovina was under
2 the Turks, part of the local inhabitants, and they were mostly Serbian and
3 Croatian, converted to Islam. So the origin of the Muslims in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina is such. And this is why you can often hear this expression,
5 "potorica" [phoen], which means turncoat or convert to Islam. It means
6 someone who has changed his religion, who has converted to Islam.
7 Q. Very well. These reports refer in paragraph 1 in some detail,
8 you'll agree with me, to activities by the BH army?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do these reports refer in similar details to activity on these
11 days by the Sarajevo Romanija Corps?
12 A. If you pay attention to item 2, it mentions the action taken by
13 our forces.
14 Q. And am I to understand from your answer that paragraph 2
15 is -- would be a detailed reference to the activities of the Sarajevo
16 Romanija Corps on the relevant dates of these documents?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Were there UNMOs and UNPROFOR personnel in some areas controlled
19 by the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and also within the city in the areas
20 controlled by the BH army?
21 A. Yes, there were military observers there, but I don't know the
22 exact number, nor do I know where they were positioned, where they were
24 MR. STAMP: Would that be a convenient time, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're guessing what is in my mind.
1 We'll adjourn until 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, we would like to start in private
5 session. Could we turn into private session.
6 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE ORIE: The Defence has filed a request for a certificate for
20 appeal on the decision of the Chamber in respect of the eventual testimony
21 of the accused. The Chamber will not grant the certificate. A written
22 decision will follow.
23 Then I've got two very practical matters: Tomorrow, Wednesday,
24 the Chamber is requested to sit in the afternoon rather than in the
25 morning. As I understand, the parties have been informed that the Chamber
1 intended to follow that request. And I was also informed that there were
2 no objections that would not allow us to meet that request. So therefore,
3 we'll sit tomorrow, Wednesday, in the afternoon, usual time, starting at a
4 quarter past 2.00, same courtroom.
5 Then for the 7th of February, where we were supposed to sit in the
6 afternoon, a change of the court schedule is in preparation as well. I'd
7 like to know from the parties whether there would a major problem if we
8 would sit in the morning rather than in the afternoon of the 7th of
10 MR. STAMP: We have no problems with that, Mr. President.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, before we give
12 our answer, we have to know which day is that?
13 JUDGE ORIE: 7th of February, I think it's a -- it's a Friday, I
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, I accept, yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the parties should -- it's not final yet,
17 and especially it's not final yet at what time we would start in the
18 morning. But it would be 9.00 or whether it would be 9.30 or even 9.45 or
19 even 10.00. I take it from your nodding, General Galic, that when we
20 discussed the 7th of February, there would be no major objections from
21 your side as well.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, that's fine. If it was the 5th,
23 then it wouldn't be good because I have physiotherapy. But it's the 7th,
24 so it's fine. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, General Galic. Then we could resume the
1 cross-examination unless there are any questions from the parties.
2 MR. STAMP: No questions, just a proposition if it would be
3 acceptable to the Court. Having regard to the text of the
4 examination-in-chief, there are some matters which arise which I would
5 like to make inquiries into before the cross-examination is completed. I
6 am told I will have some time over four hours. It would be much more
7 economical in time and perhaps I might not even need to use that four
8 hours if perhaps I could be allowed to go on tomorrow, if the
9 cross-examination be broken up in two and another witness be taken.
10 JUDGE ORIE: How much time you think you would fill, so as to say,
11 today? When would be the point that you would say whether or not to
12 continue would depend on --
13 MR. STAMP: At the end of this session.
14 JUDGE ORIE: At the end of this session. Of course, we first have
15 to ask whether the -- apart from that, looking at the clock, you started
16 cross-examining the witness at 20 minutes past 10.00. The Defence took
17 four hours and 15 minutes in chief. So I take it that the Defence and the
18 witness will be prepared to continue the cross-examination by tomorrow.
19 Would the Defence be ready to call its next witness if the Prosecution
20 would seek further inquiries so in order to -- not to waste any time, but
21 to see whether they can examine as efficiently as possible.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, thank you.
23 First of all, as far as the practicalities are concerned, it seems that
24 the Prosecution has lost an audiotape, and in order so that we can
25 prepare, it would be good -- I understand that the case manager is on to
1 it, so that we can have the original so that we can work this. And I
2 understand the Prosecution is working with this. And the second point,
3 Mr. President, we do not see why we would need to have a new rule which
4 would authorise the Prosecution to cut up its cross-examination based on
5 their needs. We are already, the Defence, and the Prosecution should be
6 as well, to continue with the proceedings. Why can't the Prosecution just
7 cross-examine, and we'll see what happens?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible that the inquiries you intend to
9 make would result in taking less time in cross-examination than you would
10 do without these inquiries?
11 MR. STAMP: Indeed. Indeed, it probably would obviate the need to
12 go into a variety of areas.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We will consider the matter. Since you say it would
14 be approximately the end of this session -- please indicate the moment
15 where you would like to stop. And then the Chamber will consider the
16 matter and take a decision on your request.
17 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President. I'm grateful.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'd like to say
19 the following: I believe that I will also have to examine in chief in
20 part Major Indjic. Obviously, I'm following everything that's happening
21 in the language which is not mine, and I am trying to focus as much as I
22 can on a witness by witness basis, and I am trying to find my bearings
23 among all the technical elements. If we are cutting things up in this
24 way, this is adding another aspect and creating more problems. And I
25 think that I'm not doing my job as being counsel in the Defence of
1 General Galic. And I don't think that we need to complicate matters
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to continue the
4 cross-examination at this moment.
5 MR. STAMP: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you then escort the witness into the
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Interpretation] Mr. Piletta-Zanin, did you
9 mention mnemo-technical elements?
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry?
11 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Interpretation] Did you mention
12 mnemo-technical elements?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Indeed, did I do that wrongly?
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Interpretation], no, but the transcript --
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Has the transcript forgotten
17 JUDGE ORIE: I was listening to French, so I wasn't looking at the
19 [In English] Mr. Stamp, please proceed.
20 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. I think you said that the paragraph 2 of these purported regular
22 reports would give a detailed representation of the activities of the SRK
23 on the relevant dates. Is it, therefore, possible that on any of these
24 dates, the Serb -- the Sarajevo Romanija Corps could have fired off, say,
25 3.000 artillery rounds and it not be reported?
1 A. No, that's impossible.
2 Q. Is it possible, for example, that the -- on any of these dates or
3 any of these reports, the Sarajevo Romanija Corps could have fired
4 artillery into Hrasnica to harass refugees and it not be reported?
5 A. I don't understand. Harassing refugees in Hrasnica, is that what
6 you said?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. In Hrasnica, there were no refugees.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have a
10 question which is referring to one of the dates, but -- no, I withdraw.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. I take it that by saying in Hrasnica, there were no refugees, you
14 are saying that it is not possible for the SRK to have been firing rounds
15 in an area in Hrasnica where there were refugees and it not be reported in
16 these purported combat reports. Your answer is no?
17 A. Just a moment, please. You cannot speak about opening artillery
18 fire on refugees. That is not something we can talk about simply because
19 this didn't happen. Artillery fire was open, if it was ever opened,
20 exclusively on military targets and targets that were useful for such fire
21 to be opened. And this fire was under complete control of brigade
22 commanders. So if fire was opened, then in the report, the subordinate
23 would have to say how he opened, with how many projectiles, and what the
24 effect was of such fire that was opened. And any possibility can be ruled
25 out that such fire was opened at refugees.
1 Q. Specifically, the reports which you were shown, all but one,
2 purport to be regular combat reports of the SRK to the main staff of the
3 VRS. Should those reports indicate how many artillery rounds were fired
4 by the SRK and the effect of the use of artillery?
5 A. No. That was not necessary. It was enough to write, to
6 include -- this is a daily, regular report. So it was enough just to put
7 in what kind of activity was going on.
8 Q. Very well. As an intelligence officer, were you
9 aware -- withdrawn. As an intelligence officer, did it come to your
10 attention that UNMO representatives were regularly prevented from carrying
11 out their monitoring duties in some areas controlled by the Sarajevo
12 Romanija Corps?
13 A. That was not necessary for carrying out of my tasks, and I was
14 never informed about this. It does not come within the remit of
15 intelligence work.
16 I'd just like to add that I personally believe that the military
17 observers on the Serb side were accommodated in every sense so that they
18 can get a realistic picture on the ground where they were deployed. And I
19 know that the local commanders were given such instructions by the command
20 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
21 Q. In September 1992, what rank were you?
22 A. Captain first class.
23 Q. And you were involved in intelligence gathering?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. Did you remain an officer involved in intelligence gathering for
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 18437 to 18445.
1 the next two years?
2 A. That's correct, yes.
3 Q. At any time did you -- were you posted to the Rajlovac Brigade in
4 those two years?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You indicated that the accused had morning meetings with his
7 staff. Were these daily morning meetings?
8 A. Yes, these were daily meetings. And I have already described more
9 or less their content and their purpose.
10 Q. And you said in the absence of your -- please look this way. You
11 said in your absence, in the absence of your chief, you would attend some
12 of these meetings.
13 A. Yes, that's what I said. Yes.
14 Q. You said you attended approximately 20 to 30 per cent of these
15 meetings. I can't recall. Approximately how many of these meetings did
16 you attend?
17 A. Yes, that's more or less that. 25 to 30 per cent, yes.
18 Q. So over a two-year period, you would have attended in excess of
19 100, 150 meetings with the accused?
20 A. That's not 30 per cent.
21 Q. Approximately?
22 A. Well, for instance, 80 to 90 meetings.
23 Q. And your responsibility would be to inform the accused and his
24 staff as to important areas or important information that you received as
25 a result of your duties?
1 A. That was not a daily responsibility, particularly at those kind of
2 meetings. I think that you are well aware that intelligence service is a
3 secret service. And all data gathered is gathered by the usual methods,
4 well known, and with such information, such data, this is forwarded to the
5 direct superior, to those within the service that need that information.
6 So for anyone else outside of the service or were not superiors, it was
7 not desirable for them to know the information.
8 Q. Very well. Who was your commander, your direct commander?
9 A. The corps commander, that is General Galic.
10 Q. When I say --
11 A. As part of that corps, and I think yesterday we elaborated, there
12 was a section for intelligence and security matters. And this section was
13 made up of two different departments. One was the department for
14 intelligence matters, and I was the chief of that. And the second
15 department was the security department. And the chief of the security
16 department was also the chief of the intelligence and security section.
17 Myself, as the chief of the intelligence department, speaking in terms of
18 expertise, I was subordinate to the chief of the section for security and
19 intelligence matters, and I was subordinated to the chief of staff, and I
20 had to forward my information to him and also to the person who was my
21 immediate superior. And that was the chief of the section for security
22 and intelligence matters.
23 Q. What's the name of that person?
24 A. Who do you mean?
25 Q. The chief of the section for security and intelligence matters.
1 A. At that time, it was Colonel Lugonja.
2 Q. At these regular meetings that you attended, would the accused
3 receive reports as to the situation on the front lines?
4 A. I've already explained this, but I will repeat it now. The
5 initial stage of the meeting, it was usual for the duty officer,
6 operations officer, to report on the situation in the units based on the
7 regular or interim combat reports that arrived to the operations centre of
8 the corps command. In this way, the corps commander was informed and
9 briefed on the situation on the ground and at the front line. So it was
10 on the basis of the reports forwarded by -- compiled and forwarded by
11 subordinate units.
12 Q. Would the corps commander be informed about the use of ammunition,
13 of heavy ammunition?
14 A. There is one thing that has not been clarified fully, and it's
15 related to --
16 Q. Just, would the commander, the corps commander, be informed about
17 the use of heavy ammunition?
18 A. Well, yes, he would be. He would be informed for the simple
19 reason that, and I have to clarify this point, that in regular or interim
20 daily combat reports, it was important -- it was necessary to put factual
21 situation because any false reporting would result in some sanctions that
22 were very strict according to the rules that were valid in the army.
23 Q. Let me interrupt you there. I'm trying to ask questions that are
24 pretty simple, and I ask for a simple reply. Can you just refrain,
25 generally speaking, from the additional comments. If we need to ask more,
1 we'll ask more. There is a time situation that we are trying to abide by.
2 There were other meetings with the commander, I think you said, by
3 specific departments of the corps. Is that correct?
4 A. With certain organs of the corps command, and I said contrary to
5 this, these were meetings of the corps command, core, C-O-R-E.
6 Q. Would there be meetings with the intelligence department and the
7 corps commander?
8 A. No. Subordination was such that the chief of the intelligence
9 department in disciplinary, that is to say in military terms, was
10 connected to the chief of staff. And it wasn't possible to bypass that
11 level, and it wasn't necessary. So the direct link between the commander
12 of the corps and the chief of the staff, well in such a case, we would
13 have bypassed two levels. And military principles do not allow this.
14 Q. Your department monitored the media in respect to the events that
15 were occurring in Sarajevo?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Would you tell us what media was this? Or if more than one, could
18 you tell us?
19 A. For objective reasons, we were able to monitor the Muslim
20 television and radio. There was no access to other media that was
22 Q. Did the Muslim television and radio carry news items from other
23 international media like CNN, BBC, Associated Press, of events that were
24 happening in Sarajevo?
25 A. To an extent, yes. Because the television and radio in a certain
1 sense relayed BBC and CNN programmes.
2 Q. Do you recall saying that the Sarajevo Romanija Corps was taken
3 advantage of in the media?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When you say "taken advantage of," do you include reports in the
6 media that members of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps shot at civilians or
7 shelled civilians?
8 A. The events in Sarajevo were commented on with bad intentions by
9 the big media companies, the big international media companies. And it
10 was clear to us that this sort of propaganda was planned. That's one of
11 the reasons for which I occasionally monitored such media. We very often
12 established that a certain event that had occurred in Sarajevo had
13 absolutely nothing to do with the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. But the media
14 carried news according to which this was the result of action taken by the
15 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, and this is how extensive propaganda was
16 conducted against the SRK.
17 Q. So therefore, I take it that you heard reports in the media that
18 you monitored that the Sarajevo Romanija Corps shot at civilians and
19 shelled civilians, but your position is that this was false?
20 A. That's false, absolutely false. It's false to say that that
21 happened. But I don't specifically remember seeing that in the media, but
22 there was such information. But such events did not exist.
23 Q. You indicated, am I right, that you thought it was your duty to
24 monitor these reports or to monitor the media. Did you bring to the
25 attention of the persons to whom you reported what the media was saying in
1 respect to the SRK shelling or shooting at civilians?
2 A. I apologise, but you have obviously not under me correctly. A
3 minute ago I said that I don't remember seeing such a report in the media.
4 Secondly, it wasn't my duty to monitor the media. Yesterday, I said that
5 that was one of the methods used to gather intelligence. However,
6 information gathered in that way is not very reliable. And it's not
7 possible to verify such information. And for this reason, they were not
8 of great operational value. This was considered to be information the
9 quality of which was not very high. But in order to avoid any confusion,
10 I don't remember seeing something like that. You shouldn't think that all
11 I did was watch television. This was something I did not do frequently.
12 Q. Were the members of staff aware that there were reports in the
13 media of the SRK shooting or shelling civilians?
14 A. I don't know about that. I can only speak about what I myself
15 know. The question was whether I had seen anything like that in the
16 media, and I don't remember that.
17 Q. Did the Sarajevo Romanija Corps have snipers? Do you know that?
18 Were snipers used by the corps?
19 A. The formation of the SRK, after the assembly decision on forming
20 the Army of Republika Srpska, this formation was carried out on the basis
21 of the organisational rules that had been adopted from the former JNA.
22 Q. So did they have snipers? That's a simple question. Did they
23 have snipers at all? Did they use them?
24 A. I don't have any information about that. And I can claim quite
25 categorically that I never saw this.
1 Q. So you don't know whether or not the SRK had or employed snipers?
2 A. No, no.
3 Q. Was it possible for the accused, General Galic, to contact and
4 give orders to his field commanders immediately should he feel the need to
5 do so? In other words, were there any means by which he could give
6 immediate commands and receive information from commanders in the field?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. The
8 witness is not necessarily a telecommunications specialists or
9 communications specialist. First of all, we should check to see what his
10 technical competence is.
11 MR. STAMP: I thought he said he was, but maybe I could ask him.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please, if you would lay a foundation for that.
13 MR. STAMP:
14 Q. Were you trained in communications?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was the general capable of giving orders and receiving information
17 from his commanders in the field should he so desire using means that
18 would transmit the orders immediately or receive the information
20 A. The communications system, the way it was organised, was not
21 something I was familiar with because I had other duties to perform, and
22 I'm not able to answer that question. I don't know.
23 Q. You spoke about the airport. Were you aware of any protests made
24 by UNPROFOR representatives to General Galic or his command staff in
25 respect to the airport?
1 A. It's a fairly general question, and I don't know what you are
2 thinking of specifically. But the question is a question that should be
3 put to someone from the department for liaising with UNPROFOR. I
4 personally was never in a position to see such a protest. So for me,
5 there were no such protests. But please, be more specific. Which protest
6 and with regard to what event at the airport?
7 Q. Generally to shooting at persons crossing. You never heard of any
8 protests from UNPROFOR in respect to that?
9 A. No.
10 Q. We saw a video yesterday, and maybe I could use the opportunity to
11 do something which I might have done earlier, to indicate -- to ask the
12 technical personnel if they could get the video that was shown yesterday
14 There was what you said was a soldiers' club shown in that video.
15 What is a soldiers' club?
16 A. That's a term that was used in the former JNA. It refers to the
17 building which has facilities for entertaining soldiers. A cinema, a
18 library, and I can't remember what else there was there. But this refers
19 to a building that has such facilities, and it was called a soldiers'
20 club. Various performances were organised there, plays on occasion, et
22 Q. Did the General attend there from time to time?
23 A. I don't know. I don't know. Perhaps he went to the library.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will
25 interrupt here. And now I am proceeding on a mnemo-technique basis. I
1 think the French translation spoke about a club yesterday. I don't know
2 if Mr. Stamp could be more specific. Is this what he's referring to?
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's not entirely clear to me. Wasn't the nub of the
4 question soldiers' club?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Mr. Piletta-Zanin
6 said "riding club."
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would like to determine what
8 Mr. Stamp's question was, but I think that yesterday a riding club was
9 mentioned. Matters are a little obscure to me now. Perhaps it's a matter
10 of interpretation problems. We'll see. That's all.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I don't remember a riding club, but I'll find it.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it was in the
13 French transcript which isn't on our screen.
14 JUDGE ORIE: He was talking about a soldiers' club and nothing
15 else. That's what appears in the English transcript.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll look for that
18 elsewhere. Thank you.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MR. STAMP: With the leave of the Court, if the video is ready,
21 could the video be played.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could the video be played, please.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. STAMP:
25 Q. This view as it goes now is taken from where?
1 A. I've already answered that question, but I'll repeat it. I'll
2 repeat my answer. From one of the windows of the commander's office. Or
3 it could also be from the window of my office, but it was from that
5 MR. STAMP: Could the video be rewound just a bit.
6 Could you go forward just a bit. I'm afraid I was on the wrong
7 channel. Could you stop there, please.
8 Q. Could you tell us which area of Sarajevo is beyond those trees.
9 Do you know?
10 A. Yes. As I've already said, part of Dobrinja is behind these
11 trees. And then behind the central part of these trees, there is Donji
12 Kotorac, Hrasnica, and Igman.
13 MR. STAMP: Could you please proceed with the tape.
14 [Videotape played]
15 MR. STAMP: Stop here, please.
16 Q. We have now moved on to a second part of the tape which is shot
17 from a different place. Is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And now we see a white, two-storey building.
20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. And it's the building that you said the accused's office was in as
22 well as your office.
23 A. That's right.
24 MR. STAMP: Could you proceed with the tape, please.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. STAMP: Could you stop here, please.
2 Q. On the picture, can you see a yellow structure, a yellow-looking
3 structure beside a house with a red top?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you say what that structure is?
6 A. Although the photograph is not very good, as far as I can
7 remember, this is not a building. The yellow surface in this photograph
8 is a -- is where a certain construction company keeps sand. What's it
9 called? It's not a building. It's a silo, a sand silo. Yes.
10 MR. STAMP: Could you please proceed with the tape, please.
11 [Videotape played]
12 MR. STAMP: Could you stop there, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. Could you freeze the
14 image. Could you rewind a bit. There is one important detail which is
15 very revealing. Could you just rewind it a bit.
16 MR. STAMP: Very well. I wasn't asking about that. But -- stop
17 there. Is that what you want?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Maybe a little earlier because
19 as this car passes by this yellow part, you can see that there is a
20 traffic sign. You can see that it's a traffic sign. I don't know if you
21 can see that. It's a traffic sign.
22 MR. STAMP: Very well. Could we move forward.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. STAMP: Could you stop there, please.
25 Could you move forward or backward just a tad. Perhaps we could
1 get a clearer picture. It's a little bit blurred. Very well. It's
2 getting no better. Could you stop there, please.
3 Q. Can you make out a tall grey/white structure between the trees in
4 the centre of this frame?
5 A. It's not very clear. But it's quite clear to me on the basis of
6 the contours of this building that it's the Orthodox church in Veljine.
7 Q. Where was this frame shot from? Can you say?
8 A. Yes, this was shot from -- it was probably shot from the corner of
9 the building where the commander and I had our offices. So it was from
10 the corner of the building, the corner on which side the commander and I
11 had offices and where we had windows.
12 Q. This Orthodox church in Veljine, is that the one which overlooks
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. STAMP: The tape may be stopped now. Could the witness be
17 shown Defence Exhibit 1858. That's a map. And I think we just want the
18 left hand part of the map, the western section of the map.
19 Could you move the map up a little bit more. Just a little bit
20 more, please. The other direction, please. Should I put it this way.
21 Could you move it so that more of the bottom section of the map is
22 showing. A little bit more in that direction. Thank you.
23 Could you leave it there, please.
24 Q. Can you make out where the church is on that map, the Orthodox
25 church in Veljine? You can look on the map to your right if that is more
1 convenient, if that is clearer.
2 A. It's this building here.
3 Q. Using a blue pen, I think it is, could you just put a circle
4 around that building. And that's a blue circle over the word "Dobrinja."
5 Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE ORIE: For the better understanding, Mr. Stamp, could you
7 please ask the witness also whether you can see on this map the point from
8 which the video was taken where you could see what the witness said was
9 the Orthodox church.
10 MR. STAMP: Yes. And perhaps, Mr. Usher, you could help somewhat
11 with that.
12 Q. Can you see on the map the point from which the video was shot.
13 A. Yes. It's this part here, this corner here.
14 Q. Could you -- you have put a dot there. Could you put something a
15 little bit more bold, perhaps an X there.
16 A. [Marks]
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom... Thank
20 you very much.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. Sir, could we move on.
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you put a new question to the witness, he might
24 answer it, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP: The map could be taken back now.
1 Q. Was your department involved in working with the corps artillery
2 and mortar units in identifying targets?
3 A. No. No, I don't see how. There's no logic in that.
4 Q. Would you, if I could put it this way, assist the artillery units
5 by giving them information as to where military targets were located?
6 A. Again, this is -- shows lack of understanding of military
7 subordination. I thought I was precise. When the intelligence work of my
8 service was mentioned, I remind you that all the intelligence information
9 that I received I forwarded to the chief of staff. And from that moment
10 on, I had no influence on what happened to that information whatsoever. I
11 did my job with the objective of giving as much intelligence support as
12 possible to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. But this data, information, was
13 then used as it happened in the chain of command. But from that moment
14 on, as I passed them on, I was no longer interested in the information.
15 There was no possibility of communication, say, with the chief -- between
16 the chief of the intelligence department and chiefs or heads of any
17 artillery sections.
18 Q. Am I to understand you to be saying that after you passed on
19 information to the chief of staff, you did not become aware of how this
20 information was used?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Am I to understand further from that that you were not aware of
23 how the commanders or the method used by the commanders to distinguish
24 between civilian and military targets when they were using information
25 that you gave to them?
1 A. The question seems to me is quite complex. Could you perhaps
2 simplify it, as there are several things that are unclear.
3 Q. When you gave information with respect to possible targets, would
4 you be aware of how or any method or means used by the commander or the
5 persons to whom you gave information to distinguish civilians from
6 military personnel?
7 A. I have to remind you that my service worked on gathering data on
8 the enemy about its military formations, and we were exclusively
9 interested in the enemy army, in the enemy troops. So -- which means that
10 we were not working on gathering data related to civilians. I don't know
11 why we would do that. So we gathered data on enemy, military facilities,
12 not on civilian facilities. And that's what I forwarded to my superior.
13 So there's no point in distinguishing between a civilian and a military.
14 So there would be only data, information, on military facilities, on
15 military equipment.
16 Q. Again, you might not be able to assist us by telling us, but did
17 your department have any responsibilities for reporting or gathering
18 intelligence on locations where artillery rounds impacted? To put it a
19 different way: Did your department have responsibility to gather
20 information on the effects of artillery fire in the city?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question is undoubtedly
24 very profound, but from which side are we talking about? Are we talking
25 on the Serb side or on the Muslim side.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I did understand in the city to be on the BiH side.
2 But if I'm wrong, that's a reference often used I think by both parties.
3 So the question is whether your service ever had any
4 responsibility to gather information on the effects of artillery fire that
5 landed and fell on the opposite part of the confrontation line.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that was not within the remit of
7 the intelligence service. That was quite superfluous.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'd like to say
9 this, but I was only interpreted at half. If we can watch this, and if we
10 can pay attention.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Perhaps the counsel could wait until
12 interpretation finishes. Thank you.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And for the Serb booth, I did
14 not say that it might not be unimportant.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's totally unclear what you're talking about
16 at this very moment, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. Could you please explain
17 yourself, because I do see that you said you were only interpreted at
18 half. Is that in the English interpretation or in any of the other
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. President,
21 in order not to waste time, perhaps the English booth can do the necessary
22 clarifications in the evening, and everything will be clear. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's the booth who works on it. But I do
24 understand that drew our attention to a linguistic problem.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. Can you say if any department had responsibility for monitoring
3 this; and if so, which?
4 A. You mean on our side?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Such a department did not exist. But I simply don't see a way,
7 even if it did exist, I don't see a way that such a department could carry
8 out such a task because, of course, it was about the other side that we're
9 talking about. But certainly such a department did not exist.
10 Q. But isn't that precisely what your department was about, to gather
11 information about the events occurring on the other side?
12 A. No, sir. Again, I have to clarify. For the umpteenth time, the
13 essence of the intelligence department and its purpose, all the data on
14 the enemy which points to the degree of our forces being at risk, this was
15 interesting for our -- for my section, for my department in a sense that
16 we were trying to prevent suffering a surprise at any kind of different
17 line. Everything else was unnecessary. It was superfluous, except the
18 data which was referring to the degree of risk that our forces were
19 exposed to. That was what my commanders were interested in. And other
20 data, information, is completely irrelevant. We were not interested in
21 the other information.
22 Q. You are saying that yourself and your commander are not interested
23 in the effects of artillery fire in a city with a substantial civilian
24 population? Yes or no.
25 A. No, no, no. Still, no, no, absolutely not. Because it was
1 strictly observed that the actual, real targets are hit. I believe that
2 you are trying here to twist my answer here. That doesn't mean --
3 Q. [Previous interpretation continues]... The question. I mean, you
4 are entitled to say yes or no.
5 A. So that does not stand as such, no.
6 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, it is now 10 minutes before the break.
7 And the matter that I would want to go into are matters which I would only
8 go depending on some inquiries. As I indicated to the Court, the time
9 that might be used would be quite substantially shortened if we were
10 allowed to proceed tomorrow.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Mr. President, perhaps we could go into private session and listen
14 to, if we can hear some of these measures and inquire as to what is to be
15 done and what could not be done beforehand. Perhaps we could be told the
16 reason why the Prosecution needs this extra time. We did not have very
17 accelerated rhythm, so I don't see why now the Prosecution has to be given
18 this extra time to take other measures and reposition its troops. We were
19 never allowed to do this, and we do not see why the Prosecution would be
20 given leave to do this.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, would you be willing to give further
22 explanation in private session.
23 MR. STAMP: I don't think it requires private session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be done in the presence of the witness or
25 should we first ask the witness to leave.
1 MR. STAMP: If the witness could be asked to leave, that would be
2 more convenient.
3 JUDGE ORIE: We are discussing at this moment whether we will
4 continue right away with your testimony or as the Prosecutor has asked we
5 would continue at a later moment. Is there as far as you are concerned,
6 is there any booking already made for your return, or is there any time
7 restraint as far as you are concerned? I do understand that you perhaps
8 would like to go back as quickly as possible.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. There are no limits, no
11 JUDGE ORIE: So I don't know whether we'll see you back today or
12 only tomorrow. May I nevertheless instruct you already in case we would
13 not see you back, that you would not discuss with anyone the testimony in
14 this Court. Thank you very much. Would you please follow, then,
15 Mr. Usher.
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp.
18 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, we are trying to locate some documents,
19 the contents of which we would like to ask the witness about. And those
20 contents relate to certain matters which are involved in some of the
21 documents that were put to him.
22 Secondly, the witness made reference to --
23 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, is that documents put to him, you are
24 talking about these reports or?
25 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
2 MR. STAMP: Secondly, although we were given summaries, the
3 summaries were very general, and the witness did refer to certain matters
4 in very precise fashion, matters involving the airport, matters involving
5 a certain person who was said to have been disciplined, a brigade
6 commander. And although in a general sense, the summaries would have
7 covered some of these things, we would like to make some particular
8 inquiries before we put certain things to the witness. I could, if time
9 would permit to check the record, there were one or two others which
10 arose. As I indicated, perhaps upon inquiry, we might not even need to
11 ask him some of these questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you're talking about saving a considerable amount
13 of time, what is in your mind approximately, Mr. Stamp? Let's say in the
14 best-case scenario.
15 MR. STAMP: In the best-case scenario, saving an hour to an hour
16 and a half, a whole session.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp -- Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there anything
19 you'd like to raise?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you.
21 Mr. President, what I wanted to find in what the Prosecution said, the
22 smaller element whatsoever, but I just found a tiny portion of
23 information, but nothing more significant, and I believe that we
24 can -- have to call a spade a spade, and I believe the Prosecution is
25 asking for extra time. There's only one element that has been revealed,
1 and perhaps that would be surprising -- not surprising to the Prosecution,
2 because what it seems to come out from the transcript of the interview
3 which took place between the Prosecution representatives and the
4 Lieutenant-Colonel Indjic, perhaps it's something to do with the very
5 recent document, very recently communicated to us, and it's perhaps it's
6 to do with that that the Prosecution is worrying about surprising
8 Now, as to this witness, this is a soldier, a military officer.
9 We always said we would ask officers to testify. And it is obvious that
10 this is somebody who can testify on these matters. I don't think that the
11 Prosecution -- there's no reason why they should stop and then continue
12 the cross-examination later. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although some of the reference you made are not
14 familiar to me, at least, for example interviews. I'm not aware of that.
15 But apart from that, Mr. Stamp, the Chamber would prefer the
16 cross-examination to take place uninterruptedly. That means that until
17 now, since the Defence raised the issue that you're trying to find extra
18 time, the Chamber will not grant extra time. Up until now, the Defence
19 took four hours and 15 minutes. The Prosecution has taken up until now,
20 if my bookkeeping is correct, approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes. So
21 you'll not be granted more time as usual as the Defence. So therefore, we
22 would like you to continue the cross-examination after the break of this
23 witness, and you'll not get extra time.
24 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll adjourn until 5 minutes to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.32 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, you may proceed once the witness has been
4 brought in.
5 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Bukva, we are continuing at this very moment.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. Mr. Bukva, did you ever receive any information at any time that
10 civilians sometimes crossed the airport runway?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know if any of the members of the staff at Lukavica were in
13 receipt of any information of that nature, and that is that civilians
14 sometimes used the runway?
15 A. I'm sure that no one received such information, and I repeat, by a
16 political decision taken by the authorities of Republika Srpska, the
17 airport was handed over to the UN forces to be used only for humanitarian
18 purposes. The French Battalion that was located at the airport was
19 responsible for cases of abuse of the airport. But in any event, people
20 did cross over the runway, and this was illegal. But a minute ago, I
21 think that I explained that they were under the control -- it was under
22 the total control of BH army units. It was either accidental, it was
23 intentional, but the positions were by the airport runway itself. So no
24 one could have passed by the combat disposition of those units. They
25 couldn't have crossed over the runway without the local Muslim commanders
1 being aware of the fact.
2 Q. Is it because no one could have crossed the runway without the BH
3 commanders being aware of the fact why you have concluded that no
4 civilians crossed the runway?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This question has already been
8 answered when the witness answered about intercepted telecommunications of
9 the enemy army.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I think that would not exclude such a thing, but you
11 may answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to repeat what the
13 Defence has just reminded us of. By monitoring enemy communications,
14 their radio links above all, we knew what was at stake, what was happening
15 with regard to these -- the crossing of the runway. If there was a local
16 commander -- one local commander in Butmir and one in Dobrinja and they
17 were speaking to each other, and one of them said this evening I'll send
18 you a hundred parcels, we were well aware of the fact that this meant a
19 hundred soldiers. Why would local commanders discuss a hundred civilians
20 crossing the runway? What would they need civilians for? Isn't it
21 obvious that soldiers are concerned?
22 JUDGE ORIE: These are conclusions, Mr. Bukva. The question is
23 whether you know that civilians ever crossed, whether they were mentioned
24 in communications or not, whether it would be wise to do so, whether it
25 would be useful to do so. Did civilians ever cross according to your
1 knowledge? If you have no knowledge, tell us.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, civilians didn't cross the
3 runway. And our soldiers used cunning. For example, if they saw a large
4 group crossing the airport area, it was very easy for them to identify
5 them by firing a burst of fire into the air. Then usually they would
6 receive a reply. Fire would be returned. And this would immediately mean
7 that the people in question were soldiers. Have you understood me in have
8 I been clear enough?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So one way would be to open fire --
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. You said in that last answer that usually fire would be returned.
13 And I understand from that that there were occasions when fire was not
14 returned. In those situations, could you conclude that these were
15 civilians crossing the runway?
16 A. No, no. Look, just a minute, please. At times visibility was
17 poor, you understand. It's a well-known fact that there is often thick
18 fog in Sarajevo, and especially in the airport area. It's possible that
19 an observer at the front line noticed something happening. But that there
20 were no men, there were no groups. In case, there weren't any men either,
21 but that is to say the other side did not return fire. But that doesn't
22 mean that there were or there weren't any people there.
23 Q. I'm not sure I understand your answer. Could I just ask again,
24 you spoke of your soldiers using cunning, and that they would fire a
25 burst. And usually, there was return fire. And I think that you were
1 saying that from that, you could conclude that those persons were not
2 civilians. What I'm asking you is this: When those persons crossing the
3 airport did not return fire, could it be concluded that these persons
4 might be civilians?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object. I
6 object with regard to the scope of the last question -- the last answer
7 that the witness provided, and in particular with regard to the presence
8 of or lack of such presence of people there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I also have some difficulties, Mr. Stamp. Did
10 I understand your last answer to be that if you couldn't see because of
11 the fog that someone was crossing, that you sometimes would fire anyhow,
12 and that you could draw no conclusions if no fire was returned?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I was clear. If the
14 fighters at the front line, if they weren't sure that they had observed
15 people on the runway, in such cases, they wouldn't open fire in order to
16 "identify" people on the runway. When visibility was poor, this was
17 almost impossible. And under cover of the fog, the Muslim forces could
18 get large groups of soldiers in via the airport.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but it's still a bit unclear to me. Because
20 what you say, "if because of the fog you couldn't see whether there was
21 someone on the runway," that you would not open fire. Is that a correct
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But that does not explain why there sometimes was no
25 return fire, because you would expect return fire only if there was any
1 previous firing. So if you did not fire when there was fog, you couldn't
2 see it, the question then is what would explain the absence of returned
3 fire when that happened?
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, unless there's any technical issue like
5 translation --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it's perhaps a matter of
7 translation because I think that what the witness said --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You may indicate the page and the line where
9 you think there might have been a mistranslation.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I haven't spoken about
11 mistranslations yet, but I will verify that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I said where you think there might be -- yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, quite right.
14 Yes, Mr. President. I think I heard this more clearly in a
15 different language. But no, I won't say anything. But I think that the
16 position that the witness expressed can be negatively deducted, inferred,
17 from what he said at line --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I don't want you to comment, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. You
19 may refer to whatever page and line, and then we will ask the witness
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It's exactly what I am doing.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin. You said: "I think that the
23 position that the witness expressed can be..." I invited you to state the
24 page and line.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. It's page 63, line
1 9 and 10. And I won't think about anything any more. In particular, at
2 the end, the last four words.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I will read part of a previous answer, as it
4 has been translated to us in English. And I would like you to confirm or
5 to deny that it is what you said.
6 You said: "In case there weren't any men either, but that is to
7 say the other side did not return fire. But that doesn't mean that there
8 were or there weren't any people there." Is that what you said? I'm not
9 asking for further comment, but I'm just trying to find out whether this
10 is what you said.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then...
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: So you explained to us about the fog and the
15 difficulties of seeing whether there was anyone there or not on the
16 runway. And then I asked you that if you would not have opened fire
17 because of bad visibility, and perhaps not being sure that there was
18 anyone in the fog, that if you did not fire, what would under these
19 circumstances explain the absence of return fire?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If there is no return fire, that
21 doesn't mean that civilians are in question. Similarly, it doesn't mean
22 that there is someone on the runway. I think that's quite clear.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Might be no one. Might be civilian. Might be
24 military. Might be a grandmother. Might be a general. It could be -- so
25 do I understand your answer to be that if there was no return fire, which
1 is a bit of an odd expression, if there was no fire opened at all, that
2 you could not draw conclusions as to the absence of any fire whether
3 returned or at all? You wouldn't know whether there wasn't someone there;
4 neither would you know if there would have been someone there what kind of
5 person it would have been.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More or less, that's the case.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Stamp.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. You spoke to us of a commander of the Igman Brigade, one
10 Mr. Dunjic. Did you at any time become aware of a situation or an
11 allegation that this Commander Dunjic or this officer, Dunjic, assaulted
12 the accused general?
13 A. Assaulted in what sense?
14 Q. By physically striking a blow. And all I'm asking you simply is
15 whether you did or did not become aware of an allegation or a situation
16 that this occurred.
17 A. As far as I can remember, there was a conflictual situation, but
18 in relation to this event, I don't know about it. I couldn't comment on
20 Q. As an intelligence officer, did you ever get an opportunity to
21 have a look at that United Nations Monitoring Officer situation report?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Can you read or speak English?
24 A. No, I can't.
25 MR. STAMP: That is the cross-examination. May it please,
1 Mr. President, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, is there any need to re-examine the witness,
3 Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. First of
5 all, the Defence would like to have the audiocassette in the Serbian
6 language; and in particular, as far as page 63, line 9 and 10 in the
7 transcript is concerned. And this is the page that we have spoken about.
8 We would like to have this. There is a question that I would like to ask,
9 but that's on the basis of what I was able to hear and we might have a
10 technical problem in this case. I'm not sure if we can do this now or
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid not at this spot; the tape is still
13 running, isn't it? Usually during the break, if any access is needed, we
14 could try to locate it and you could ask questions to the witness about
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you in advance for your
17 help, Mr. President.
18 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, the apostacy that you mentioned to us,
20 was this a historical reality?
21 A. If we're to trust historical records, yes, it's true. If you want
22 me to provide a more detailed explanation --
23 Q. Thank you. To treat someone as an apostate?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
25 MR. STAMP: I withdrew the objection.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
2 Q. To treat someone as an apostate, as in the expression Julian the
3 Apostate, is that something that is negative to, describe someone in this
5 A. Well, listen. In this specific case, it's a historical fact.
6 What I said is a historical fact. So someone who has converted to the
7 Islam faith has more or less become a Turk.
8 Q. Yes, very well. But that wasn't my question. My question was if
9 one says that someone did something in historical terms, is this negative
10 in your opinion, yes or no?
11 A. I personally don't think so.
12 Q. Thank you. I would like to go back to the issue of Hrasnica. We
13 spoke to you about the shelling -- you were spoken to about the shelling
14 of refugees. You started answering the question, but you didn't carry on.
15 You said that there weren't refugees there. I would like you to say why
16 there were no refugees there.
17 A. Well, I think it's a well-known fact that part of the town called
18 Hrasnica, even before the war, was inhabited by Muslim people almost
19 exclusively. And I don't see a reason -- maybe someone has other
20 information here. But I don't see why refugees should be a term used in
21 relation to that geographical area. As far as I know, there were no
22 refugee camps there. Therefore, it is quite certain that it's part of the
23 town which even before the war was inhabited almost exclusively by
24 Muslims. I couldn't mention an exact percentage, but I'm very familiar
25 with the situation in Sarajevo. I have been there since 1981. And I can
1 claim this with certainty.
2 Q. Was the army present there?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that we
5 will need the assistance of a technician because unfortunately, the
6 computer didn't resist my manipulations, my manoeuvres. Thank you very
8 Could Madam Registrar perhaps aid me. Thank you.
9 Q. Witness, you spoke about a certain number of meetings that you
10 attended at the level of the main staff. Thank you. Could you just say
11 whether you also participated, attended these meetings, when the General
12 and if the General was not there?
13 A. Well, I think there were a few occasions when I did attend such
15 Q. Thank you. It was just a matter that I wanted to clarify. At
16 page 83 and afterwards, you spoke at length about the media in response to
17 questions from the Prosecution. And in particular, you spoke about
18 manipulations or rather about propaganda. Do you remember this?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Thank you. To the extent that you mentioned propaganda, could you
21 tell us what the purpose of this propaganda was?
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please.
23 Q. Please, could you tell us what the purpose of this propaganda was,
24 but before doing so, can you mention two or three cases are clear examples
25 of such propaganda if you are able to do so?
1 MR. STAMP: Objection. Although the expression propaganda was
2 used, in what was in fact not a responsive manner to the question I asked,
3 the area that Defence counsel is entering into does not arise in
4 re-examination. There was no issue as to the purposes of propaganda.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- your question was about taking advantage, your
6 question was"do you recall saying that the Sarajevo Romanija Corps was
7 taken advantage of in the media," which comes close to what I understand
8 because it was in answer to that question that the witness referred to.
9 Then you asked whether this would include reports in the media that
10 members of Sarajevo Romanija Corps shelled civilians and shot at
12 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President, but respectfully, I would submit
13 that that first question was really bringing the witness's mind to
14 something he had said something before in chief. Do you recall that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I would not --
16 MR. STAMP: Very well, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I would allow the Defence to ask this question.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Could you --
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues]... You first
21 asked for three examples which is a very factual question. So could you
22 please first give clear examples of what you meant that was propaganda.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with your
24 leave, my question was also to find out if the witness knew with which
25 purpose, with which objective, was this propaganda organised? Thank you.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's exactly the reason why I asked him first
2 to perhaps answer the second question, because you did put two questions
3 to him. Then we at least have the start with the facts, and then perhaps
4 the answer to your first question might become more clear.
5 Would you first tell us, give us some examples of propaganda.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As it happens, it was recently that
7 I had the opportunity to see on -- in the media the testimony of the
8 commander of the special sniper unit called Seve. This special sniper
9 unit and this commander said that a French soldier in the area of the
10 engineering school at Marin Dvor was killed by a sniper --
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I just interrupt you. Are you now referring to
12 television recording of a testimony in this Court? It's not quite clear
13 to me. You say I had the opportunity to see in the media the testimony of
14 the commander of the special sniper unit.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't express myself well. It's
16 not testimony before this Court. In relation to this incident that I'm
17 talking about, the Serb side was accused of committing in the media when
18 it happened. Furthermore before General Galic came, we had the incident
19 at Vasa Miskin Street for which, after a while, it turned was not caused
20 by the Serb side but the information, as it came out, went around the
21 world. Furthermore, on our side at least, it is stated vehemently that
22 the Markale incident was not caused by the Serb artillery or by the Serb
24 When expert analysis, this was confirmed by Colonel Demorenko who
25 was at the time chief of staff of UNPROFOR in Sarajevo as an expert for
1 artillery. But again, this event went around the world, and it had the
2 effect that it did have now. If you'll allow me, I can explain with what
3 purpose all this was done.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Please do.
6 A. So all of these activities were calculated with the objective of
7 showing that part of town under Muslim control to the attention of the
8 world as a victim. That is, being tortured, so to speak, by some
9 uncivilised people from around the mountains that are going down on to the
10 city and fighting the city.
11 Q. Thank you very much. I'm now referring to page 44, and the
12 following. The Prosecution asked you if you have ever found out or if you
13 learned that the shelling, the illicit shelling, had taken place on
14 civilians targets, whatever they were. And you started to answer and said
15 that was never the case. You were interrupted by the Prosecution, which
16 is their right. But now, I would like you to elaborate on this. Why,
17 when shells may have landed in the city of Sarajevo, why are you stating
18 that this was never the case? Why are you saying that never have the Serb
19 forces shelled, or at least not voluntarily, willingly, why have the Serb
20 forces never shelled civilian targets? Could you answer that question.
21 MR. STAMP: Before we -- may I just be -- the Court's kind
22 indulgence, could the passage which is referred to be read to the witness.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is your computer ready again or
24 not? Otherwise, I would be --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my paragraph is
1 perhaps not the correct one. But it is somewhere on page 44 where the
2 witness said, and I quote the end of his sentence: "... Events did not
3 exist." And then we have a cabalistic sign where it says that the
4 testimony has not been revealed to the public. I don't know whether my
5 learned colleague Stamp has managed to find the paragraph I'm referring
6 to. And I'm referring to line 12.
7 This is coming after a Prosecution question referring to shelling.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I will read the part you are referring to.
9 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, your line you just quoted, "but such events did not
10 exist" is page 44, line 12.
11 Would that be -- I would like you to be relatively precise,
12 because at least I did not hear, but I might be wrong in my recollection,
13 that on page 73, you introduced on line 4 a few words that in my
14 recollection was rather an interpretation of the testimony than a
15 reflection of the testimony itself. So therefore I would invite you to
16 quote as precisely as possible the testimony you're referring to.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please. Microphone,
18 counsel, please.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. Mr. President, do
20 you want me to quote the entire answer given by the witness?
21 The witness answered the following to a question that was in
22 reference to shelling of civilian: "That's false, absolutely false to say
23 that that happened, but I don't specifically remember saying or seeing
24 that in the media that there was such information, but such events did not
1 And then there is the sign that I mentioned earlier. Should I
2 quote on?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Whenever it's needed for putting it to the witness,
4 please do so.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 Q. Witness, to a question of the Prosecution in reference to the
7 shelling of civilians, and the way that was broadcast in the media, you
8 said that this was false, and that these events never took place. Now,
9 first of all, what do you mean by "these events"? What do you mean by
10 that? Do you mean about the broadcasting or do you mean the shelling,
11 just to be perfectly clear?
12 A. My claim is, first of all, in relation to what was said to the
13 declaration that civilians had been shelled. This did not happen. But I
14 also said that I do not recall that I had seen such an information in the
16 Q. Now that you explain that you told me that such shellings by your
17 army had never taken place, that the city under the control of the BH army
18 was not shelled, can you please give me some more information regarding
20 A. Could you please repeat your question. I believe that there is
21 something wrong with it.
22 Q. Since you say that this is false, since the Serb army never
23 shelled part of the city that remained under the control of the BH army,
24 could you please elaborate on this.
25 A. Well, I'm stating, I'm saying, that there was no shelling of
1 civilians as this could be heard here. But that the artillery fire was
2 opened exclusively on military targets. And we have spoken a great deal
3 about those.
4 Q. Thank you very much.
5 Witness, now I'd like us to go back to the videotape in memory.
6 Do you still have those images in your mind?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you remember that you identified the contours, silhouette of a
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. Thank you. My question is the following: To the extent that
12 this -- the way that this was filmed, this was filmed on ground level, do
13 you have the same view from the top floors of your office and from the
14 windows of the office of General Galic?
15 A. Well, it's logical that the view would not be the same. The
16 ground-level view, filming, was done from the immediate vicinity, or
17 perhaps from the area of the line of trees. Naturally, from that area,
18 the view is much clearer than from the windows of my office or of the
19 commander, of General Galic. And then another thing - I don't remember
20 whether we've mentioned it or not - in the area located between the area
21 of the soldiers' club and the corps command, somewhere halfway, because of
22 the enemy Browning activity from the area of Dobrinja and Donja Kotorac,
23 in order to protect the commander and his offices, we erected steel slabs
24 which completely obstructed the view because they protected from the
1 Q. Just to say, I presume that these slabs were just added
2 temporarily because you could not see them on the tape.
3 A. Of course, they could not be seen on the tape. The filming was
4 done after the war, in the post-war period, and there's no reason for them
5 to be there.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
7 finish with this witness so he doesn't have to come back. But I don't
8 know whether the Chamber has other questions. Perhaps I'll have three or
9 four questions yet to go for tomorrow. It's just a question of
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Bench will have some questions for the witness.
12 So perhaps it will be then better to -- then if this is a suitable moment
13 for you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to adjourn, how much time would you
14 approximately need tomorrow morning?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll have three or four
16 questions, Mr. President. So very few things.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll adjourn until tomorrow- I wanted to say in
18 the morning, but it's in the afternoon as you all know by now. I would
19 like to -- let me just confirm. One second.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The parties should be aware that it's not for the
22 full hundred per cent sure that we'll be in the same courtroom, but we'll
23 be sitting on from quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon. We'll adjourn
24 until then.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is just
1 one observation to make.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel put his microphone on, please.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Thank you very much. I am just being reminded
4 that the following witness will be DP2, and I believe that there are just
5 measures, protective measures, in his case for the new people who are
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then I've got another question for you,
8 Mr. Piletta-Zanin: You asked for the tape, the audiotape. Could you
9 indicate what audiotape you'd like to have, the live tape or the B/C/S
10 tape or -- I don't know whether you want to check the original language or
11 the translation?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I will need the B/C/S, that
13 is, the Serbian language, so that I can check what has exactly been said,
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I did write that down. And through the registry,
18 I'll inform you how you can get knowledge of the tape.
19 We'll adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00 in this courtroom
20 or Courtroom I.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
23 at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
24 the 29th day of January, 2003,
25 at 2.15 p.m.