1 Thursday, 6 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.23 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Perhaps while the usher escorts the witness into the courtroom, I
10 could give a few decisions on issues raised the day before yesterday.
11 In respect of the decision of the Chamber when the accused should
12 be called to testify, if the Defence would like to call him, the Rules,
13 Mr. Ierace, do not provide for any basis for the Prosecution to request
14 the Defence to express itself as you suggested. Therefore, your request
15 is denied.
16 Then in respect of documents, especially documents that are
17 provided by the Defence in relation to the testimony of the military
18 expert --
19 [The witness entered court]
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I first say good afternoon to you. I'm just
21 finishing a procedural issue and then we'll come back to you, Dr. Kuljic.
22 In respect of the documents provided to the Defence in relation to
23 the testimony of the military expert Radinovic, the parties may refer to
24 such documents even if no questions have been put to the witness in
25 respect of these documents. The Chamber makes a distinction between
1 witness statements, witnesses that have not been cross-examined by the
2 other parties, and documents, especially if these are documents of which
3 the authenticity is not contested by the other party.
4 I hope, Mr. Ierace, that that clarifies the question you've
6 Then I think there was still 15 minutes left for
7 cross-examination. Please proceed.
8 MR. IERACE: Good afternoon, Dr. Kuljic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I first, Dr. Kuljic, remind you that you're still
10 bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
12 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
13 WITNESS: BLAGOJE KULJIC [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examined by Mr. Ierace: [Continued]
16 Q. Please take out Dr. Turner's report and your report, if you will.
17 While you're doing that, I remind you that in your evidence yesterday you
18 said this in relation to the topic of suicide: "In Turner's report it is
19 mentioned that in one of the statements of one of his witnesses, what was
20 said, that he had heard there was talk in the hospital that there was an
21 increased number of suicides. The comment of Dr. Turner's was that he did
22 not find an increased number of suicides but that if we consider chronic
23 stress during this period, this could be expected. So this was his
25 I take you to paragraph 36 of Dr. Turner's report.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Kuljic.
3 THE WITNESS: I haven't translation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You haven't translation.
5 THE WITNESS: No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Is the same true for you, General Galic? Do you
7 receive translation?
8 Oh, it's perhaps on the wrong channel.
9 THE WITNESS: Now it's okay. [Interpretation] It's all right now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want Mr. Ierace to repeat what he said, or did
11 you listen to it in English or French or ...?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I started to listen, but then I was
13 confused because of the English, so I would like to have the question
14 again. And could I please have the reference to the page so I can find my
15 bearings, please.
16 MR. IERACE: Perhaps the 15 minutes can start again.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what I had in mind.
18 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
19 Q. Paragraph 36. And I remind you of your evidence yesterday. You
20 said: "In Turner's report it is mentioned that in one of the statements
21 of one of his witnesses, what was said, that he had heard that there was
22 talk in the hospital that there was an increased number of suicides. The
23 comment of Dr. Turner's was that he did not find an increased number of
24 suicides but that if we consider chronic stress during this period, this
25 could be expected. So this was his expectation."
1 I suggest to you that you have misunderstood Dr. Turner's report
2 in this regard, and I take you in that respect to paragraph 36. About
3 halfway through that paragraph, do you see that Dr. Turner refers firstly
4 to "In Kosevo Hospital, a study being set up of the psychosocial aspects
5 of war." He then refers to some --
6 A. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're still talking about paragraph 36,
7 because you said paragraph 36. Are we reading -- it's the middle of the
8 page. Can you tell me -- is that by Professor Logac or is this below or
9 above Professor Logac.
10 Q. Please wait.
11 A. Yes. I've found it. "There is evidence in the Kosevo Hospital,"
13 Q. Some of the -- I'm now reading from that paragraph. "Some of the
14 preliminary results reported by Professor Logac showed an early fall in
15 admission and suicide rates. This is not surprising, as it has been
16 demonstrated that the social cohesion induced in the early stages of war
17 against a common enemy may be associated with reduced suicide rates, as in
18 the UK during the Second World War. However, in the face of persisting
19 and malicious civilian assault, this state would be unlikely to continue.
20 It is likely that it would break down either with an increase in suicide
21 rate or with apathetic risk-taking. Indeed, she reports that since
22 February 1994 the admission rates have increased again for all conditions,
23 especially for reactive psychoses and stress-related disorders."
24 You see, Dr. Kuljic, you have, I suggest to you, misunderstood
25 both the opinion of Dr. Turner in relation to suicide rates and the
1 material that he referred to, that is, the preliminary results by
2 Professor Logac. Instead of reporting -- instead of Dr. Turner saying
3 that he would expect an increase in suicide rates, he in fact said that he
4 was not surprised by a reduction in suicide rates in the initial stages
5 and an increase in admissions for various psychological conditions at a
6 much later stage. Do you agree with that?
7 A. Here I would just need a moment. Here in the sentence that you're
8 mentioning, it says "it is true that in February 1994 there was an
9 increase admissions rate for all conditions especially for reactive
10 psychoses and stress-related disorders." I don't see here any mention of
11 suicide. Indeed, she reports, the author reports, that since February
12 1994 the admission rates had increased again for all conditions,
13 especially for reactive psychosis and stress-related disorders. What I
14 wanted to say is that I do not see a mention of suicide here. I do not
15 see the suicide rate mentioned here.
16 Q. Do you see the reference to the name Professor Logac. Earlier you
17 said you did. Yes or no, do you see that name in the paragraph?
18 A. Yes. Yes, I can see the name.
19 Q. Does it appear in this sentence: "Some of the preliminary results
20 reported by Professor Logac showed an early fall in admission and suicide
21 rates," followed by these words "this is not surprising." Do you see
22 those words?
23 A. Yes, I can. Yes, we read those earlier.
24 Q. Yesterday you said that Dr. Turner in his report - excuse
25 me - said that he did not find an increased number of suicides but if we
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 consider chronic stress during this period, this could be expected. That
2 is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Turner says in his report on this
3 subject, isn't it?
4 A. You are quoting my words from yesterday? You're quoting them
5 exactly? Or are you asking me again about the meaning?
6 Q. No, no. I'm pointing out to you that what you said about
7 Dr. Turner's report is not borne out by the words in the report. Do you
8 agree with that, or do you disagree?
9 A. I cannot agree with that because it wasn't decisively said that
10 there was an increased rate of suicides. It said here that there was an
11 increased number of disorders, of conditions. Whether these were also
12 suicides, I have no data in relation to this, and the essence of my
13 comment yesterday about this part was about the expectations and about
14 what exists as a fact, which I demonstrated on one example yesterday.
15 Q. Dr. Kuljic, we only have a few minutes. Yesterday you told us
16 that Dr. Turner in his report referred to one of his witnesses saying that
17 he had heard, there was talk in the hospital that there was an increased
18 number of suicides. And I think that might refer to a part of
19 Dr. Turner's report where we see a passage of evidence by Mr. Ashton. You
20 go on to say: "The comment of Dr. Turner's was that he did not find an
21 increased number of suicides but that if we consider chronic stress during
22 this period, this could be expected." In fact, what Dr. Turner said was
23 that one would expect an initial fall in suicide rates but then as the war
24 dragged on, one would expect an increase. And he referred to World War
25 II, I think the British experience, as another example of that. Do you
1 understand what I'm saying?
2 A. I do understand what you're saying, but I think you don't
3 understand what I'm saying.
4 Q. All right. We'll leave it at that. We don't have much time to
5 pursue it.
6 Now, did you look at the report by Robin and Chester that was left
7 with you overnight?
8 A. I looked at both reports that you gave me, and in respect of your
9 observation yesterday that this was about -- this was a study where only
10 ten men had been exposed to stress and that this was a very small number
11 in order to draw any conclusions, I would say that this corresponds fully
12 in terms of what I said about a small number of people questioned on the
13 basis of which Dr. Turner drew his conclusions.
14 Q. I see. So you say that it was a small number but then again
15 Dr. Turner relied on the evidence of a small number of people. Is that
16 your response? Is that your explanation?
17 A. My explanation is that in medical literature you can frequently
18 find studies that range from small, targeted studies with a small number
19 of questioned persons up to very large-scale studies.
20 Q. Now, to be accurate on the figures, the copy I gave you yesterday
21 did not have the tables in it, did it, just the text of the report by
22 Robin and Chester? Is that correct? There were no tables in the report.
23 A. No, there was no tables. The only thing that was mentioned was
24 that ten men were exposed to stress. That was mentioned in the text.
25 Q. All right. I'd like you to look quickly at a version of the
1 report which has the tables. A copy has been provided to the Defence.
2 When you receive a copy, please turn to page 1586.
3 A. What I'd like to do now is to address the Chamber, please.
4 Q. No, please wait. Please wait.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You've been provided with a report, and some
6 questions will be put to you. If there's any procedural issue you'd like
7 to address, you may do so, but -- so could you please tell us what you'd
8 like to address the Chamber with.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a procedural issue, and this is
10 to do with the following: If I have been giving my reports to the
11 Prosecution earlier so they had a whole day to prepare, how come that now
12 the Prosecution is handing me one copy which I received yesterday and now
13 I have a different copy?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yesterday we dealt with the preparation of the
15 parties for cross-examination, examination-in-chief. You are not a party
16 in these proceedings. You are now confronted with a study. So if you
17 need more time, then we'll look at that. But it's not the same issue.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
19 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Please turn to page 1586.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. There's
23 just one question: Because procedural issues are going to be raised by
24 the Defence. I know that the Prosecution wishes to have a very rapid
25 handing-over of documents. I was just given this document now and I would
1 like to find out when was it the Prosecution had in full so that the
2 Defence can prepare properly for it.
3 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, Mr. Piletta-Zanin asked me that
4 question before you came in and I've told him I've had it now for a matter
5 of minutes. He repeats the question. I'll now say it formally
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is it true that you asked
7 Mr. Ierace that question and that you've now got an answer?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It is true, Mr. President.
9 But that was not the question I wanted to ask. I was wanting to ask a
10 question about the Serb translation.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter. You asked the same
12 question now in court, a question on which you had already an answer. You
13 should have proper reasons for not believing what Mr. Ierace told you in
14 order to repeat this issue in court. Now come to your next question then,
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The question that I asked was
17 whether there was a Serb translation so that we could prepare. And if I
18 understood the answer of Mr. Ierace, was that there was no time to have it
19 done because he recently received this document. Now, what I wish to say
20 is that what do we mean by "recently"? If it was yesterday, and they I
21 could have had it sent yesterday. And it was now, this minute, then I
22 would understand. The question that was asked of Mr. Ierace whether there
23 was a Serb translation of this document. That's true. And Mr. Ierace
24 told me that he received it recently. But what does it mean by
25 "recently"? Because sometimes we worry about these things.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace told you that he did not just receive it
2 recently but a couple of minutes ago.
3 MR. IERACE: Precisely.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is that true, Mr. Piletta-Zanin? Did he tell
5 you that he received it a couple of minutes ago when he answered your
6 question out of court?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't recall exactly what
8 the words were used, but I believe that was the meaning.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you should have refrained from raising
10 this issue again and wasting time.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Ierace.
12 MR. IERACE:
13 Q. Are you at page 1586?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. According to the table, there were 11 men who had experienced
16 combat; is that correct? Is that what the table indicates?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. On the same page we see that ten developed post-traumatic stress
19 disorder; is that correct?
20 A. Do you mean in the same table?
21 Q. Both in the table and in the text, in the bottom right-hand
23 A. Can you just give me some time to check.
24 Q. Well, you can just follow the same line across, under "men combat"
25 to the second-last column. "Subjects with lifetime PTSD, 10."
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. You mean the last paragraph, "combat was the most powerful predict
2 tore of PTSD in men"?
3 Q. Yes. I think the next sentence will give you the same
4 information, that ten combat veterans who developed PTSD participated
5 in -- and then it goes on to set out the wars - is that correct - which
6 particular wars?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Might that be returned.
9 Dr. Kuljic, did you also check your figures in your report taken
10 from the article by Kessler and associates overnight? Could you please
11 answer with a yes or no.
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 Q. Do you agree with the figures that I put to you yesterday as being
14 the correct figures according to the report; yes or no?
15 A. These figures are mentioned, except that the mistake didn't
16 influence the importance. It's not on the basis of that that I drew some
17 conclusions but --
18 Q. I'm not asking you about the effect of the mistake. Do you admit
19 that you got the figures wrong as to the lifetime prevalence in the
20 general population for men and women of PTSD and also for the lifetime
21 prevalence for exposure to traumatic experience for men and women? Do you
22 agree the figures were wrong?
23 A. Yes. I've done a permutation of numbers. It's a technical error.
24 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I think that's my 15 minutes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. IERACE: I could go on, but I don't seek to obviously traverse
2 the ruling knowingly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there any need to re-examine
6 the witness, or Ms. Pilipovic?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, but I'd
8 also like to remind you of the situation we might be authorised to refer
9 to the Rosner articles. Do you remember that?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do remember, Rosner.
11 Yes. As I told you yesterday, a few questions would be allowed.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I suggest
13 to do is to start with Rosner and then to continue with the issues that
14 have arisen from the cross-examination, with your leave obviously.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so. But as I told you, limit it as
16 far as Rosner is concerned.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly.
18 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Doctor.
20 A. Good day.
21 Q. With regard to the report of Rosner and his associates, what can
22 you tell us about the comparison made with regard to the rate of
23 post-traumatic stress in two groups of population which were mentioned,
24 the UNPROFOR soldiers and the civilians in Sarajevo?
25 A. Rosner's study is about examining the rate of PTSD three years
1 after the war, among the population of Sarajevo, the people who were
2 living in Sarajevo. And it was determined that when you examine a
3 sample - not a sample in hospitals, as is mentioned here but a residential
4 sample - there's 18.6 per cent -- the PTSD is 18.6 per cent. And given
5 other investigations --
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, the question by Mr. Piletta-Zanin
7 refers to two groups of population being mentioned, the UNPROFOR soldiers
8 and the civilians in Sarajevo. I'd be grateful if he could point out
9 where we find the reference to UNPROFOR soldiers in the abstract that was
10 provided to us.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did understand the question to be whether the
12 results of the Rosner study could be compared with other studies giving
13 data on post-traumatic stress disorder in other studies.
14 But perhaps, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, it would have been clearer if we
15 had exactly the sources, what would be compared with what. But did I
16 understand the question in the way you intended it? Yes.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Well, Doctor, I'll put the following question to you: In the
19 scientific literature, did you find - and perhaps in Rosner - any useful
20 indications for comparing the rate of PTSD, of residual PTSD with regard
21 to two types of population, the civilian population on the one hand and
22 the military population on the other hand. What would you tell us about
24 A. I came across some information that had to do with research into
25 British UNPROFOR soldiers --
1 MR. IERACE: Having regard to the question asked by
2 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, it can be fairly deduced that Mr. Piletta-Zanin had in
3 mind in putting that question some particular study or studies. It would
4 be appropriate for that study or those studies or perhaps reference in the
5 witness's report to be indicated so that I can be assured that this has
6 been disclosed to us.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Kuljic, when you said "I came across some
8 information that had to do with research into British UNPROFOR soldiers,"
9 what source were you referring to?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I have here in front of me a
11 bundle that wasn't copied last time. I have the report here. It's by
12 Baggaley, which discusses this study of PTSD among British soldiers, the
13 British soldiers who were in Bosnia.
14 MR. IERACE: Mr. President --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. IERACE: -- There's an obvious question here: Why wasn't that
17 handed over last time? How was it that Mr. Piletta-Zanin knew that the
18 witness had that report and hasn't disclosed it, if indeed it hasn't been
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you please -- it seems that
21 you had a -- some study in mind of the prevalence of PTSD among British
22 soldiers, UNPROFOR soldiers. Were you aware of the source just mentioned
23 by Dr. Kuljic?
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Dr. Kuljic spoke to me
25 about it. He spoke to me about a number of studies. And I think I
1 remember that among the names in question there was also the name of
2 Dr. Rosner. And Dr. Kuljic also told me that he was able to find
3 comparisons in the recent literature. And it is in this sense that I
4 allow myself to put this question to the witness.
5 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
7 MR. IERACE: I hesitate to become overdramatic, but this is surely
8 breathtaking that after the events of the last few days we discover that
9 there is yet another report that Mr. Piletta-Zanin was aware of, that he
10 intended to question the witness about, and did not disclose.
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you, Dr. Kuljic: When did you -- you're
12 referring now to a -- to a study on British soldiers and PTSD. When did
13 you discuss this with Mr. Piletta-Zanin or Ms. Pilipovic?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke to them about this study
15 before this hearing commenced, since we discussed certain matters, I also
16 mentioned that piece of information.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Did you say that it was about British soldiers or did
18 you say UNPROFOR soldiers or -- what did you tell? Because I hear that
19 the study is about British military men; is that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'll tell you now. The
21 British infantry battalion 36 months after --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, would you please listen to my question.
23 My question was whether you told Mr. Piletta-Zanin that it was UNPROFOR or
24 British soldiers.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can understand, on the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 basis of this -- well, I took them to be British UNPROFOR soldiers who
2 were in Kosovo. I think the foreign soldiers were all members of UNPROFOR
3 that's how I understood this matter. I'm not a military expert, but that
4 was my opinion.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking you how you understood it but I'm
6 asking you what you said to Mr. Piletta-Zanin, or did you give it to him
7 to read so that he decided for himself what it was or -- what was your
8 discussion? Was it about British UNPROFOR, or didn't you even discuss
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said British UNPROFOR.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Did you give him a copy of the abstract you have
12 or -- I don't know whether it's an abstract, but did you give him a copy
13 of the document you read?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The copy that is here -- are you
15 referring to the one with regard to the British soldiers? I'm not sure
16 whether he saw it. I printed it out over there, so ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you discussed that article with
18 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I discussed it.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. You're not allowed to
22 ask questions in respect of that article.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President.
24 Q. This has nothing to do with the article. Witness, I'll withdraw
25 that and I'll rephrase the question.
1 Witness, some questions were put to you yesterday about the word
2 "strah," fear.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of the
4 usher, Mr. President, I would like to place a document on the ELMO. It's
5 just a page from the dictionary. I've already had copies made of it.
6 Everyone should have one. I would like the witness to read out what it
7 says under the word "terror," under the word "strah."
8 Q. Witness, can you read what we can see if we have a look at the
9 word "strah," fear.
10 A. I have to read it from here because I can't see it on the ELMO.
11 Q. Please go ahead.
12 A. "Terror: Horror, fear."
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for the
14 transcript, it's important for the word "strah" to be entered into the
16 Q. Witness, I'm going to read out now something, and I would
17 appreciate it if the English booth could be very careful because it will
18 be a little different for the B/C/S booth. It might be a little bit more
19 difficult to translate. I'll read out what we have here, what the
20 definition of the word "strah" is in French. I can find the following
21 words: "Fear, anxiety, anxiousness, horror, trance" --
22 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation].
24 Q. And further on it says "i trepet" in B/C/S, which would be in
25 French "terror."
1 MR. IERACE: We have on the ELMO what appears to be a page from a
2 Serbian dictionary. Mr. Piletta-Zanin appears to be reading from a
3 Serbian-French dictionary, which isn't on the ELMO.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me -- I didn't look at the ELMO, as a matter of
5 fact, but let me -- yes. There is -- at least there's something different
6 on the ELMO than I read at this moment. Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this page was
8 handed out, was given to Mr. Ierace a minute ago, and I'm surprised to see
9 him making such an objection and to see that no one says anything about
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I gave him the page from the
13 French dictionary. I gave it to Mr. Ierace and to Madam Registrar a
14 minute ago so that everyone could take cognisance of it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please compare the copy you just gave to us
16 with the copy on the ELMO and see whether ...
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there are two
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] One was handed out yesterday.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing Mr. Ierace asked is he said it's now
22 supposed to be read from the ELMO a document, and you provided us with
23 another document. So that needs some explanation, instead of surprise
24 that Mr. Ierace raises the issue.
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there's a second issue as well.
1 Perhaps we might --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Can we first deal with the first one.
3 MR. IERACE: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Unless it's so related that we can't deal with this.
5 Could I perhaps receive my copy back of the -- yes.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have additional copies,
7 Mr. President, if they are needed, of the Serbian text. It was handed out
8 yesterday. But I only have one copy of the French text. But the
9 Prosecution has both of the documents.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Chamber would like to be able to follow as
11 well, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. May I
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
15 MR. IERACE: The second --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now the second issue, Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: According to the transcript, the -- when the witness
18 was asked to read from what appears to be the Serbian dictionary, the
19 definition for "strah," these words appear "terror, horror, fear."
20 Mr. President, that appears to not accurately reflect what we saw on the
21 ELMO. We see, I think in Cyrillic, the word "strah" and then immediately
22 afterwards in brackets the letter "N" or perhaps a different letter in
23 Cyrillic, followed by -- as best as I can tell on my poor-quality
24 photocopy, the English word "terror" and brackets. Now, I don't know
25 about Serbian dictionaries, but in English dictionaries when a word
1 appears in brackets immediately after the word to be defined, some meaning
2 attaches to those brackets and perhaps to the -- the letter followed by
3 the full stop.
4 Mr. President, rather than derail this part of the re-examination,
5 my concerns could be covered if we were to tender into evidence this piece
6 of paper so that it is clear that "terror" does not appear in the same
7 sense as "horror" or "fear," that is, as a Serbian word without brackets
8 and without that letter and initial, and I could make inquiries later as
9 to what that might indicate.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 What the Chamber would like to hear, as a matter of fact --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Will you hear what I have to
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it's -- what it is, and again we are
17 by -- there's a lot of confusion because there's no clarity in what's
18 done. If you want to draw our attention to translations of certain words
19 in another language, which would support your view and would undermine, as
20 far as I understand the Prosecution's argument that "strah" is not the
21 same as "terror," then what the Chamber would like to hear is the
22 translation in both directions. And I see we have copies in front of us,
23 so if it would be possible to have presented to the Chamber the way in
24 which the word "strah" is translated into French - and that's what you
25 started with - and then as far as I understand from the document that was
1 on the ELMO but not on our desk, to see what the translation is of the
2 word "terror" to the extent that that exists in the -- this language.
3 So would you -- unless there's something else you'd like to tell
4 us, would you please be clear in what you are presenting to us.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] If one had listened to the
8 French channel carefully - and some do so - I think we will see that I was
9 very clear. First of all, I asked the doctor to read the words on the
10 screen. He did so, and he read out the first two words and then I stopped
11 him there.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The French
13 channel. I was confronted with the fact that what I had on my desk was
14 something different from what was on the screen. That was the problem.
15 And please do -- don't -- I mean, we are not debating on -- the question
16 in French -- the question in French was perfectly clear. The problem was
17 that we had not that part of the dictionary on our screen. So please do
18 it in a clear way. I didn't -- I didn't make any comment on the question.
19 I did make a comment on the confusion that was created.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
22 Q. So what I said again, and I'll reread the French text that we all
23 have in front of us --
24 JUDGE ORIE: No. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I don't want any further
25 explanations, as that we now all have it. Of course the matter has been
1 clarified now.
2 Dr. Kuljic -- no. No, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] In such conditions -- well, no
4 further questions, in that case. The rights of the Defence have been
6 JUDGE ORIE: The word "strah," and I read it out loudly, is
7 translated into French into "peur, crainte, angoisse, anxiete, horreur,
8 transe". And then there are some other, I would say, translations for the
9 word "strah" in combination with other words. Is there any of them,
10 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, you would like to draw our attention to, then I'll ask
11 the -- someone who can read the Serbian words and see what the translation
12 is. Is there any of them that you think of relevance, then please
13 indicate so.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, in that expression that I
15 read out, the one that is followed by "i trepet," so that would be "strah
16 i trepet," it's followed by the word "terreur" in French. May I continue?
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes. If
18 you'd like to draw our attention to the other dictionary, please do it
19 without any comment on whether it's on our desk or not. I mean, you
20 created the confusion. I don't need your comment on the confusion
21 afterwards taking even more time than necessary.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Doctor, in relation to the questions put to you at great length
25 yesterday, did you understand that the report of Dr. Turner's was
1 concerned with the question as to whether there was a climate of terror in
2 Sarajevo, and did he demonstrate any of its aspects?
3 MR. IERACE: I object.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Did you take his report to be speaking about terror?
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, it's leading, and I don't lightly make
7 that objection. I think it's quite inappropriately leading, having regard
8 to the issue that it goes to.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I would like to respond,
10 Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm obliged to
13 proceed in this manner for the simple reason that there was this long
14 dispute that was introduced by the Prosecution about the sense that should
15 be given to the word "terror" on the one hand and "fear" on the other.
16 That is to say, "teror" and "strah," in the documents translated by the
17 translation section, we can find the word "strah." I just want to clarify
18 this matter. I don't see I can put a question without using this term.
19 And it might appear leading, but I don't see how one could proceed
21 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. You may put that question
22 to the witness even if there would be some leading element in it. It's
23 not impermissible. Please proceed.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Q. Doctor, have you understood the question? Could you answer it,
2 A. Well, I'll answer the question again. I think that I mentioned
3 this yesterday. On the basis of item 3 in Dr. Turner's report, I
4 understood that General Galic had been accused of terrorising the civilian
5 population. I won't read everything out, to save time. And then it says
6 that "An opinion report should be prepared about this, about how such
7 events have an influence on the appearance of fear." In psychiatric
8 terms, I don't see a problem because if we're discussing certain events
9 that might cause fear to appear --
10 Q. Witness, I'll stop you there. Thank you.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, what I would
12 like to tell you is that we have a purely etymological problem. The
13 witness used the word "strah," fear, when he was answering the question,
14 but it's not possible to know how he was answering the question, since
15 there are multiple meanings that are possible. So I'll ask the witness
16 this question.
17 Q. When you used this term "strah", Doctor, how are you using it,
18 since this is one of the questions put to you by the Prosecution? Does it
19 mean "fear" or does it mean "terror"?
20 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. IERACE: The witness gave clear evidence on the meaning of
23 "strah" and how the word "terror" is translated into Serbian, and there is
24 no apparent misunderstanding on the face of the witness's last answer
25 where he used the word "fear." That's entirely consistent with what he
1 explained yesterday, that is, he relied on the translation he was given of
2 that particular sentence from Dr. Turner.
3 JUDGE ORIE: The -- if you put a question to the witness,
4 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, would you please -- yesterday the witness testified on
5 several occasions that he understood terror to be extreme fear, whereas
6 "strah" would be "fear," and then he added a word. And so that is how he
7 explained to us yesterday his understanding of the words. But if you'd
8 like to ask the witness whether on the basis of a -- of multiple meanings
9 that he comes back from what he yesterday told us, you're allowed to do
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Yes. Could you please continue with your answer, develop your
13 answer, Doctor, please.
14 A. Yesterday there were certain things that I wanted to say, but I
15 was interrupted and I've just noticed that a problem has arisen here too
16 with regard to the understanding of the term "strah." And I wanted to say
17 that if we have a lorry which is full of sugar and on the other hand we've
18 got a lump of sugar, in both cases we're dealing with sugar, a large
19 amount of sugar and a small amount of sugar. If we're talking about fear,
20 the extreme form of fear includes this aspect, terror as an ultimate form
21 of fear, extreme fear. As a psychiatrist I can consider this sense and
22 not the legal or military aspect, so this is the only factor that a
23 psychiatrist can measure. One can measure fear, or if fear is extreme, if
24 it's at the end of the scale, then that's extreme fear, even though at the
25 other end of the scale there is no fear. That's what I wanted to draw
1 your attention to.
2 Q. Thank you very much. Doctor, in respect of your experience,
3 particularly what you've told us about yesterday, your professional
4 experience, your professional and scientific experience, can you give us
5 more precision on whether the circumstances of war itself would be likely
6 to cause as being the residual post-war syndromes.
7 A. Yes. Precisely war circumstances and many others --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace.
9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, that was an issue that I would have
10 liked to have gone into in cross-examination but I didn't have time.
11 There's no basis for my learned colleague to raise this issue in
12 re-examination. It wasn't dealt with in cross-examination. I'd be happy
13 to do it --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there is,
16 because the Prosecution just gave us a document on combat situations that
17 was about an American Indian population about women and men of that group
18 that had these type of syndromes in combat situations. Now, I was kindly
19 given this document on this basis, and the Prosecution did ask questions
20 of the witness, so I'm asking questions myself, whether war as such as
21 social activity is a factor that would cause syndromes of this nature.
22 I'm sorry, I have to ask because the Prosecution has questions themselves.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Prosecution asked questions about the
24 position in the way the expert witness has presented data from other
25 reports. That was the issue dealt with and not specifically the issue
1 you're now raising. It was, I would say, purely a matter of scientific
2 precision that was raised. Methodology, that was it. Not the presence of
3 post-traumatic stress disorders in relation to war. So that could not be
4 the basis. If there's any other basis, please tell us. And if not,
5 please proceed.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll do that. The
7 Prosecution, Mr. President, asked a number of questions on specifically
8 the fact that Dr. Turner was able to see the development of rates in
9 saying that in a situation of war these rates can go up or go down.
10 First, they will go down for suicide and then they'll go up as the war
12 Now, of course, with respect to trauma --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was also a matter raised in respect of
14 whether Dr. Kuljic represented the view of Dr. Turner in a correct way or
15 not. That was the issue.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Now, please move to your next subject.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Sorry?
19 JUDGE ORIE: I said please, then, move to your next subject.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I wish to have -- to
22 confer with my Defence counsel. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Q. Very well. Now, Doctor, since you were asked questions about
4 methods used, could you please tell us if the permutation errors that you
5 have done, whether they could have changed any of your conclusions,
6 particularly with respect to the problem of the PTSD in situation of war.
7 Do you recall the intervention of the Prosecution when they said that you
8 have done a permutation of figures?
9 A. Yes. I said earlier that this would not have influenced my
10 findings significantly because this was meant in a sense of a difference
11 existing between exposure to stress and of the occurrence of PTSD and
12 particularly in relation to the first war that was mentioned, combat, that
13 was mentioned in the Indian study, that there was a difference in sexes.
14 And on the basis of all that, my conclusion was that there should be a
15 research done how many people were exposed to stress and how many of these
16 people developed a consequence of that, a condition as a consequence,
17 because simply if somebody sees a spider, somebody will be afraid and some
18 other person will not. So we have to be able to measure something, and
19 the methodological question is to do with the need of having a
20 representative sample, which would include an adequate number of men,
21 women. Also, like we would be able to use questionnaires to find out
22 which of the events was particularly causing fear in a number of people or
23 perhaps using other types of questionnaires to find out how many of them
24 had psychological consequences of that, consideration that the example
25 yesterday to do with cars - I like that example very much - so I would
1 compare my methodological question in a way with saying that if I decided
2 that in Serbia I should sell a music CD of a famous Dutch musician, and
3 after six months I was asking about report on how the sales were going of
4 a very famous Dutch musician and what was the reception with the Serbian
5 public, there would be two reports. One report would bring me ten
6 listeners who liked it very much, and they would be saying, "We are having
7 a great sale of that CD," while the other group reporting would say, "I
8 went round the entire territory of Serbia to question people, a percentage
9 of people, and decided that it's -- that people listening to these CD,
10 that's how many there are of them." So that's what I'm saying. Again,
11 about certain issues, I want to have specific things, and it would be a
12 lot easier to discuss this if there was a specific processing of such
14 Q. In other terms, Professor - and this is my very last question - in
15 terms of methodology, you're concluding that the report of Dr. Turner's is
16 imperfect. And my question follows: Your conclusions, your own
17 conclusions, would they have been modified regardless of the meaning that
18 we can give to the words that you used and in which in Serbian mean
19 "fear," "strah"?
20 A. Speaking as a psychiatrist, I wouldn't change anything in the
21 meaning of my report.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. No
23 further questions.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.
1 Questioned by the Court:
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Could the witness be shown the Robin report, this one.
4 I know that you had not read this report entirely, but I need your
5 help for understanding the table on page 1586. It says "men," and in
6 brackets "N 117." I take it that "N" means "number."
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: But that number is not the same as the numbers
9 under three Ns that are in the following columns. Whey mean is that -- in
10 the first column, for example - I am talking only about men - is more than
11 117. Could I take it that 117 men had more than one experienced event
12 each? I don't know if I am ...
13 A. Here, if we are speaking about the first column with numbers, this
14 means that the number of men who had experienced such an event. And then
15 we have the number -- and I didn't check this, but if you say that this
16 number is higher than 117, that would mean that there are men who had
17 experienced more than one traumatic event.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. Thank you, because I had to understand
20 Now I would like to witness to be shown this copy of the
21 dictionary, the one in B/C/S. Could you please put that on the ELMO,
23 I will be very grateful if you can use the pointer and point to
24 the word "strah."
25 A. [Indicates]
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. And now we can see the word
2 "strah" and then in brackets, it says -- well, "N," or something like
3 that, "terror." Do you agree with that? The pointer -- the pointer. Use
4 the pointer, not the --
5 A. I took the pen because it was -- the pointer is very thick. You
6 mean this terror? Is it this terror? Is this what you mean? "Terror,
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Do you agree with me that in brackets it says
9 "N" or something like that, because I don't know, and "terror"? Do you
10 agree with me?
11 A. There is a letter which is very unclear whether that's an "N" or
12 an "L." I cannot tell you that.
13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Well, after the brackets, I would be very
14 grateful if you can point to each of the words and read it slowly so the
15 interpreters can translate it one by one, that one.
16 A. "Horror, fear, fear and terror, to govern by fear; terror, reign
17 of terror (particularly during the French revolution); political
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: After the word "strah," there is another word
20 related to "strah." Do you agree? The following word.
21 A. "Fear and terror." That is between the two commas.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Could you do the same exercise with that word.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Judge Nieto-Navia, the English booth wanted to
24 inform you about the "strah i trepet," the "fear and terror" is used for a
25 person that everyone fears.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, it's not necessary to do that, that
2 exercise in that case.
3 Okay. Now, I will read some of the words that we have in the
4 French dictionary, this one, French-B/C/S, and I would like you to
5 translate that to B/C/S. Okay?
6 A. From French, you mean?
7 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Well, the interpreters can do that.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President -- oh, I'm
10 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: It's because we have the word "strah" in
11 French, and it says -- the first one is "peur." How the interpreters
12 translate that to English, "peur."
13 THE INTERPRETER: Fear.
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: "Crainte.".
15 THE INTERPRETER: Also fear, I'm afraid.
16 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: "Angoisse"?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Anxiousness or anxiety.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: And I take it that -- and "anxiete,"
19 [Interpretation] it is the same thing?
21 THE INTERPRETER: Horror.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: "Transe".
23 THE INTERPRETER: Trance.
24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. I have no more questions. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Judge El Mahdi also has one or more questions for
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 [Interpretation] Now I'd like to ask Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I'd like
4 to find out which dictionary is this? And I'm speaking about the Serbian
5 dictionary, Serbian-French dictionary, and whether this is a dictionary
6 which is specialised. You're saying no? You're shaking your head. But
7 you know what the rule of the game is.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I know very poorly the rules
9 of the game, because my microphone is not working. The microphones do not
10 know the rules of the game.
11 Oh, it's perfect. Yes, thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
13 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am going to
15 in fact say no. I was shaking my head to say unfortunately this is not a
16 specialised dictionary in medical terms or psychiatric terms, neither.
17 But what I'm going to do is the following, is that the next occasion I
18 will give to the Chamber the front page of the -- each dictionary so that
19 we all have the references. This is something I should have done earlier,
20 and I apologise.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 Now, Doctor, yesterday you used after the word "strah" or "fear,"
23 I believe you used an adjective which means "extreme fear," because
24 "strah" or "fear," as you call it, is "fear." But extreme fear is -- this
25 is fear but then you used an expression. Could you please remind me of
1 what you said. What I mean is that yesterday you made a distinction
2 between fear and fear with another word that meant extreme, to denote
3 extreme fear. Am I mistaken, or did I understand you correctly?
4 A. So yesterday I said that extreme fear can be understood as an
5 extreme version, if we are looking at this range. And at the very end of
6 the range, that would be extreme fear.
7 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] No, no. I'm sorry. I apologise.
8 You used -- you used a term, a specific term. You used a concrete term, a
9 specific term.
10 A. "Extreme fear."
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. So you're making a
12 distinction between "strah," "fear" only, and what you've just said - I am
13 not very good in your language - but "strah" followed by a qualifier, so
14 to speak, and this qualifier changes in your professional field, it
15 changes the meaning of "fear," of "strah," that is that fear -- and there
16 is extreme fear. These are not two terms of symptoms that are identical.
17 A. The difference is in the quantity. So extreme fear, greatest
18 fear, quantitatively speaking we can say there was a little fear, great
20 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] But you as a professional, when
21 you're saying -- when you say "terror," you're using only fear or are you
22 using the term of extreme fear? I don't know whether you're following me.
23 But in my mind's eye, these are two different terms, in terms of
24 psychology, these are two notions, two terms that could be different.
25 A. If we say "terror," in this sense, it could be identified as being
1 "extreme fear."
2 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Extreme fear. Very well.
3 You told me that I understood you correctly and you
4 observed -- you made some observations on Dr. Turner's report. It seems
5 to me that what Dr. Turner wanted to say in his report was that he wanted
6 to prove that certain events produced certain effects and to give examples
7 to support what he said, he then referred to other papers written by
8 doctors in this field, and he then turned to some testimonies that were
9 heard during this trial. I understood that you were reproaching this
10 report. If I dare say, you were contesting the samples. You were saying
11 that the samples were not representative. And one of the issues that you
12 disagreed with was, well, how can we look at the whole of Sarajevo? Now,
13 my question is: The events in question, the past events that were
14 studied, they were the subject of psychological studies, couldn't they
15 have given the same results, more or less, elsewhere? For instance, I
16 will give you one lay example. For instance, a war, a bombing of London
17 in 1941 produced certain effects, and you more or less could conclude that
18 if the same events occur, they will cause more or less -- they will
19 produce more or less the same results. So this is why I think I
20 understood that Dr. Turner was trying to explain, starting from
21 experiences in Sarajevo and elsewhere, that certain events as such will
22 produce effects on the population that was subjected to such events. This
23 methodology, as such, is it shocking to you? Is it contrary to your
24 fundamental principles of your area of expertise?
25 A. Well, if we're making comparisons, I would say that we have to
1 take into account cultural factors. Various groups of population will
2 experience the same thing in a different manner. If I can provide you
3 with an example from the literature now - I don't have the reference here,
4 but it would just be a comment of mine - a study was carried out to
5 determine how the tragedy in New York, 9/11, influenced the situation in
6 which refugees in America were living, and it was observed that there were
7 differences that could be detected among them. Some, more than others,
8 relived traumas that they had already had. I think that had to do with
9 refugees from Bosnia, from Somalia, there were -- and other countries, I
10 can't remember which ones. That's one matter.
11 And the other thing that I can tell you about is that in the
12 course of my professional experience, I have noticed that the way in which
13 wartime experiences -- wartime events are experienced is different and it
14 depends on whether the person in question was a soldier or a civilian.
15 Soldiers would often say that there were no problems, that everything was
16 fine for them. And only after having had several interviews with them,
17 only after they had learnt to trust me, they would start talking about
18 real problems.
19 So there is always this issue. Psychiatry is a very complicated
20 discipline. There are too many factors that influence everything.
21 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] I understand all that.
22 Mr. President, shall we continue for another three minutes, or are
23 we going to have the break now?
24 JUDGE ORIE: We could, with the assistance of all those around us,
25 continue for three minutes and then have a half-an-hour break, but the
1 tape will end in approximately six, seven minutes, so -- ten minutes, I'm
2 informed. But if we could perhaps finish the testimony of --
3 Would there be any issue, Mr. Ierace?
4 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, there is another matter that I need to
5 attend to, and I had arranged it to occur during the break, and it is
6 something of some urgency.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll have the break now.
8 And I would have one more question for you as well.
9 We'll adjourn until 4.25.
10 --- Recess taken at 3.54 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.31 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: May the witness be brought into the courtroom again.
13 Dr. Kuljic, there will be another question from -- perhaps even
14 more from Judge Nieto-Navia for you -- no, Judge El Mahdi. I apologise,
15 but I seem to mix up names now and then.
16 JUDGE EL MAHDI: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 [Interpretation] Doctor, I'd like to rely on your memory. Today
18 the Defence put a question to you, and you started answering it by saying
19 the following, and I'll quote you in English. It's on page 24: [In
20 English] I quote: "In psychiatric terms, I don't see a problem because if
21 you are discussing certain events that might cause fear to appear."
22 [Interpretation] And then you weren't given the opportunity to develop
23 this answer. The context was that of commenting on Dr. Turner's report.
24 Do you remember this? What I'm interested in is you wanted to say what
25 the consequences of certain events would be. That's what I think I
1 understood when you started answering the question.
2 A. I apologise, but I can't remember what the previous question was.
3 I don't know whether it was today, yesterday, the day before yesterday. I
4 don't know what the exact question was. I've had a lot of things on my
5 mind today, after all.
6 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise. Just a
7 minute, please.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] The question was: [In English]
10 "Doctor, in relation to the question put to you at great length
11 yesterday, did you understand that the report of Dr. Turner's was
12 concerned with the question as to whether there was a climate of terror in
13 Sarajevo, and did he demonstrate any of its aspects?"
14 [Interpretation] Then there was an interruption, and you started
15 answering the question by saying that, and I quote you again, [In English]
16 "In psychiatric terms, I don't see a problem, because if you are
17 discussing certain events that might cause fear to appear."
18 [Interpretation] And then you didn't have the opportunity of finishing
19 your answer. I would like to hear what you have to say about this. Is it
20 clear, Doctor?
21 A. Yes, it's clear. Thank you for this question. I think it's
22 important. I'll explain it in the following way: I always say that apart
23 from the fact that we can observe a certain event, we have to observe the
24 sort of reaction a certain event causes. For example, if I show someone a
25 spider, if I show someone who is not afraid of spiders a spider, this can
1 be a totally insignificant event. But if I show a spider to someone for
2 whom I know that person is afraid of spiders, then I am intentionally
3 making that person afraid. But what is at issue is whether I was showing
4 this person the spider on purpose. And with regard to this entire matter,
5 I'm being asked how we are going to distinguish between wartime Sarajevo
6 and Sarajevo which is subject to terror, and this is why I said we would
7 have to develop, elaborate a methodological programme in order to make a
8 comparison with some other city where war was also being waged but a city
9 that hadn't been subjected to terror. So we should have to -- we would
10 have to attempt to see whether there were any differences and to determine
11 the level of fear. When researching, you establish two groups. You have
12 two groups, a group A and B, and the purpose of having these two groups is
13 to see whether there are any differences, whether the same phenomenon
14 appear in one group or in another and if not, why not, et cetera.
15 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Very well. And one last thing
16 that I'd like to qualify: Do you make a distinction between the
17 population as such and individuals; that is to say, isn't there a common
18 awareness, a certain shared sensation which could be diffused among the
19 population, or is it on the basis of individuals that you reach your
20 conclusions, your overall conclusions?
21 A. As far as that question is concerned, as to whether a given
22 population can react in an identical manner, I would say that as in the
23 case of political elections, some people will vote for one party, others
24 for another party, everyone comes out with their own programmes and
25 everyone perceives this in a different way. And similarly, what is
1 characteristic of fear -- one of the things that is characteristic of fear
2 is the fact that -- the way it is individually perceived is essential. I
3 can give you an example from the research I have carried out.
4 For example, people who were seriously injured were asked how
5 serious their injuries were. They said they were average or they were
6 light injuries, and the reverse was also the case. So the individual
7 factor has -- influences research to a large extent. In order to obtain
8 results about the entire population, we have to have recourse to a
9 representative sample in order to gather the various kinds of opinions
10 which can be different.
11 JUDGE EL MAHDI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Doctor.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, I have a question for you as well. You
13 said that in order to do research in the population, you would have a
14 sample of between 1 and 5 per cent, if I read your report well, or that
15 would be usually done.
16 A. I said that there were certain mathematical formulas, statistical
17 formulas, which determine that number, but I mentioned that percentage in
18 relation to discussions with a professor of statistics who would say that
19 the World Health Organization when carrying out studies in Yugoslavia
20 would usually use that percentage. So I said this wasn't a general rule,
21 but I mentioned this as an example.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What sample would you need to -- I mean, you
23 criticised Dr. Turner for not having the right sample. What sample would
24 he have needed if he would have done the research you think would have
25 been the proper one, as far as the population of Sarajevo is concerned?
1 A. In order to carry out such a study, I think that it would be
2 necessary to take a team of experts, not just one expert but a team of
3 experts, and the psychiatrist should also be included.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I was asking about a sample, not about how
5 many -- not a sample of psychiatrists but how big the sample would have to
6 be, because one of the issues you said is that the sample was not large
7 enough and you would need large samples. That's what I asked you. So
8 what sample -- a sample of what size would you need for Sarajevo?
9 A. That's something that should be calculated on the basis of those
10 formulas. And I said if we followed the analogy, which I heard, that
11 would be between 1 and 5 per cent. So I wouldn't accept to do something
12 that wasn't in accordance with proposals made by -- suggestions made by
13 statisticians. Above all -- I'm a psychiatrist above all, and in my
14 report I tried to present certain basic findings. We all write, but we're
15 not all literary authors, but nevertheless we have the right to write.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you say I'm a psychiatrist, but isn't a
17 major part of your criticism to Dr. Turner of statistics rather than
18 methodology -- methodology and statistics rather than interpretation of
20 A. As a psychiatrist and someone who graduated in medicine at the
21 university, there is also the subject of statistics, and methodology and
22 statistics is something that is studied as part of my masters course. And
23 in the course of my specialisation, there are also certain elements that
24 provided me with knowledge that, let's say, is fundamental. But I'd been
25 asked to discuss the subject of stress here because I have my Ph.D. in
1 that field, so in such a case I would ask for the possibility of
2 consultation, of consulting someone, because I'm not a specialist in this
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you say I couldn't give you the approximate
5 size you would need for a research project as I had in mind in respect of
6 Sarajevo. It's no problem for me if you don't have it, but -- you would
7 not be able to use such a formula so that you could say, well, it would be
8 1 per cent or 0.8 or 2 or 3 or ...?
9 A. A minute ago I said that there was a formula and that I heard
10 about the 1 to 5 per cent that the World Health Organization used. If you
11 give me some information, I'll be glad to check it. I think the same
12 question was put to Dr. Turner and that he answered in a similar way. So
13 I didn't think that I'd have to look for the exact number now.
14 JUDGE ORIE: My next question would be: If you're talking about
15 traumatic events, what is the - in your experience - the number of
16 traumatic events a human being experiences during his lifetime, at the
17 average? Of course I do understand that some people might not or hardly
18 ever experience a traumatic event, where others often do. What would be
19 the average of traumatic events human beings -- and let me just say, for
20 example, in the country where you come from?
21 A. In the country I come from, a traumatic experience would include
22 ten years of war in the vicinity, sanctions, bombing, shelling, plus
23 individual traumas, for example, the death of a relative, if someone had a
24 car accident, someone got divorced. For example, with regard to divorces,
25 also cultural factors that must be taken into account. How is this
1 experienced in various countries? For example, problems with regard to
2 divorce are sometimes given greater weight than problems that concern
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just ask you: Could you please repeat what I
5 asked you. I'm wondering whether you're aware of what I asked you.
6 A. You asked me about the traumatic experiences of people from the
7 country that I come from. You asked me about the traumatic experience
8 that people there might have had.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But did I ask for the character of such experiences,
10 or did I ask for the number on average?
11 A. I can't give you the average number because I haven't come across
12 such a piece of information, so I started telling you what kind of traumas
13 might be involved.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Of course that becomes quite clear from your
15 opinion. Now, so you can't give an approximate average number.
16 That was my last question to you.
17 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is there any --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Two series of questions that
21 arise -- well, the first one from a question you -- that Judge El Mahdi
23 Further examination by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, I'm referring to page 39, line 9 on my
25 computer, but I think that applies to others too. You said that in
1 methodological terms it would have been necessary to compare Sarajevo in
2 wartime and Sarajevo which was subjected to terror, and it would have been
3 necessary to make comparison with other cities where war was also waged
4 but where there was no terror, apparently. Do you remember answering this
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. My question is as follows: With regard to the terms that you
8 used, and in particular with regard to the term "wartime" and everything
9 that might include, in terms of frustration, stress, psychological
10 pressure, et cetera, whatever the nature of these sentiments might be, I
11 would like you to expand on that answer, that is to say, to expand on the
12 subject of normal conditions in wartime from the psychological point of
13 view and with relation to a comparison made with another city.
14 MR. IERACE: I object, Mr. President. Inviting the witness to
15 expand on a topic raised by the Bench is not an appropriate question in
16 response to questions asked by the Bench. In making that objection, I
17 note that this again opens the door to a large and so far untrammeled area
18 of evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the witness
21 himself answered this question when it was put to him by your Trial
22 Chamber. I must say that I didn't quite seize all the details because I'm
23 not an expert [Realtime transcript read in error "extent"], which is
24 apparently not the case for some others. I did not quite understand what
25 he meant when he answered this question. So I think it would be useful if
1 it were -- if it was clear or if it was clear for me, because I have to
2 admit that it wasn't clear for me. If it's clear for Mr. Ierace, I'm
3 quite happy, but it wasn't clear for me.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: The issue of comparative studies appears already in
6 the report, the necessity of that. But since Mr. Piletta-Zanin would like
7 to have a clarification. You said that you'd need to compare a war
8 situation with, as far as I understood, the situation in Sarajevo. You
9 spoke about conditions of wartime that hadn't been subjected to terror,
10 people in wartime that had not been subjected to terror. Could you please
11 briefly explain what you exactly understand to be the difference between
12 the two.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I should say that the
14 difference should be one from a psychological point of view. A
15 psychiatrist should try to see whether there was a difference in the fear
16 that was felt in a city which was said to be subject to terror and in
17 another city where although a war was being waged, it wasn't subjected to
18 terror. And having examined these two cities, one should attempt to
19 determine whether there was any difference in the fear and by analysing
20 the stressful events, one should try to see what is the cause of this
21 difference in the level of fear felt if one determines that such a
22 difference existed.
23 In Dr. Turner's report, I came across allegations about the
24 irregular frequency of explosions and shooting occurring. I'm not a
25 military expert, but I asked myself whether in the course of a war there
1 is a certain schedule that is respected, that is to say, whether shooting
2 occurs at a certain time and not at other times. So these are certain
3 regularities that should be investigated in order to see whether there was
4 fear and what the cause of fear was.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that's the way, how you would make a
6 distinction between what might have been caused by terror and not by
7 terror. Is that a correct understanding?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what a psychiatrist can make
9 a distinction in understanding of the quantity of fear, and after that we
10 would have to have military experts take things into their own hands, to
11 say how frequent were the operations, the shooting, then how much legal
12 experts would agree on the terminology in such issues. I believe this is
13 a multidisciplinary problem.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is clear to me.
15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
17 For the record, on page 45, line 2, we should read "expert" and
18 not "extent," but that's just a detail.
19 Q. The second series of questions is the following and stems from the
20 questions you were asked by Judge Orie, on page 41, line 20, Presiding
21 Judge Orie observed that your criticisms of the report were in terms of
22 methodological criticism or statistical but not in terms of results.
23 Therefore, my question is the following --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please before -- let me just refer,
25 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, to what I said exactly.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 40, 20? Should I quote,
2 Mr. President?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 41, page 41, line 20. I will
5 quote in English the question asked by Judge Orie: [In English] "But you
6 say 'I'm a psychiatrist,' but isn't a major part of your criticism to
7 Dr. Turner of statistics rather than methodology, methodology and
8 statistics rather than interpretation of results?" End of quote.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I did not say that the criticism of the report
10 were in terms of methodological criticism or statistical but not in terms
11 of results. I said --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- More and less. That was the distinction I made, I
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I didn't find it in the text I
16 was quoting.
17 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Is the major
18 part of your -- of statistics and methodology -- methodology and
19 statistics rather than interpretation of results, that is more the major
20 part and the lesser part and not criticism yes in this field and no in
21 another field. That's a difference.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no. That's not what I
23 intended to say, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] What I quoted is clear, I
2 Q. My question is the following, Doctor: If on the basis of
3 methodological aspects of a work we can see that one part of this work
4 does not correspond to what should have been done, could you tell us what
5 logical conclusions we can draw from that in terms of the conclusions that
6 we drew from this work which we called imperfect, so to speak?
7 A. When in relation to poor methodology and positioning the problem
8 and the error in the work itself, then conclusions are erroneous.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No further questions. Thank
11 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Kuljic, this concludes your testimony in this
12 court. I'd like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague, for
13 answering questions of all parties and of the Bench, and I hope
14 that -- but I promised you one thing, that if there would be a specific
15 issue finally you would say that would need a further explanation where
16 the questions did not give you an opportunity to explain, that I would
17 give you an opportunity at the end of your testimony. So if there's an
18 issue, it's not necessary to repeat what you've written or to repeat what
19 you've said. But if you say on that question I would have loved to say
20 this and this and I got no opportunity, then this is the moment to do it.
21 If not, we'll relieve you from your duties as an expert.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some questions I was having in my
23 head and thinking about them, but I believe that today I managed to give
24 some answers. As you said, many things were said. You have my report,
25 and I still stand by my report. I would like to thank you for the
1 questions, and I hope that I managed to shed some light on these issues.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much for coming. I wish you a safe
3 trip home again.
4 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Dr. Kuljic out of the
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Goodbye.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, is the Defence ready to call its next
9 expert witness?
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But first, before we do that, I would like to ask the
12 usher to take care that the next witness will be standby when we need him,
13 and meanwhile that we deal with the documents.
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is there a document tendered in respect of this
17 witness? I didn't hear that, unless we'd need the dictionaries, but I --
18 yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I just wanted to say
20 that I have already given to Madam Registrar - I don't think she has
21 managed to see it yet - these are the pages requested by Judge El Mahdi,
22 and I will see whether the documents can now be tendered.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think that my
25 colleague, my co-counsel expects to get the front page of the Serb-French
1 dictionary that we promised. I can just confirm that we will either give
2 it today or tomorrow.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. So therefore,
5 Mr. President, just to give you a response, these two documents can be
6 tendered as exhibits. They can be marked and stamped, if that is useful
7 for Madam Registrar.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let's do the following: I think there are a lot of
9 exhibits still waiting for their final version or form. I would like,
10 including videos, this to be done by tomorrow. So tomorrow you can have
11 all the front pages of all the dictionaries that have been discussed
12 properly provided with exhibit numbers, and the same is true for videos
13 still to be tendered.
14 I'm also saying this because we might have another registrar next
15 week, and it's an impossible task for a registrar to keep record of what
16 is still needed. But there's one issue, I think the Chamber wanted to
17 have certain exhibits in evidence that have been produced by
18 Professor Vilicic.
19 Madam Registrar, could you guide us through those.
20 THE REGISTRAR: There are four additional documents: C6,
21 trajectories of mortar shell 120 millimetres; C7, comparison the
22 penetration of stabiliser HM of mortar shell 120 millimetres in concrete
23 and macadam, calculated by the method of Berezin, Gabeaud, Young and
24 Sutterlin; C8, impact velocity of the stabiliser of mortar shell 120
25 millimetres for penetration LP in various targets; and C9, impact velocity
1 VP of the stabiliser of mortar shell 120 millimetres for penetration LP
2 and various target.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The last two documents seem to have the same
4 description, Madam Registrar. Could I just see C8 and C9, because there
5 are some differences. In C9, the last part of the -- of the title is in
6 red "concrete 2 centimetres over other materials," and both C8 and C9 deal
7 with a theta 0 of 55.6 degrees.
9 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I'd like the opportunity to confer
10 with Mr. Stamp, if I could, about that. Perhaps if there's any issue,
11 could we raise it at the beginning of the next session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although, usually objections are against
13 evidence produced by the other party, and I'm not -- of course, if there's
14 any issue to be raised, it may be done at the beginning of the next
15 session. But the --
16 MR. IERACE: I understand the position now, Mr. President. I'm
17 sorry. Yes. I don't have --
18 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has asked -- these are C exhibits.
19 MR. IERACE: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Produced by the expert witness of which the Chamber
21 thinks it's important to have them in evidence.
22 MR. IERACE: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. President.
23 There's nothing further I wish to say about it. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just one observation so that
1 we are absolutely certain that we're speaking of the same exhibits.
2 Madam Registrar, would you be kind enough to make copies for us.
3 Thank you in advance.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although all these documents have been copied
5 and distributed, perhaps it's good to have them with the relevant C
6 numbers on it copied so that there can be no confusion whatsoever.
7 Mr. Ierace.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, before the next witness is brought in
9 to give his evidence, there are some issues to do with documents that the
10 Prosecution would seek to raise at the outset, and that witness will be
11 taken by Mr. Mundis. With your leave, he will make those points now, as
12 soon as we swap positions at the bar table. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Mundis.
14 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I will try to be as brief
15 as possible, but there are a number of issues that I think should be
16 raised before this witness testifies and which I believe overall will
17 result or could result in saving time if these matters can be drawn to the
18 Trial Chamber's attention prior to this witness testifying.
19 There are two primary issues associated with the statement of the
20 expert General Radinovic that I would like to briefly raise at this point:
21 The first series of issues concerns the documents which the expert relied
22 upon and which are attached to his statement; and second, material that is
23 cited in the footnotes of the expert's statement and the difficulties that
24 the Prosecution has encountered in identifying this information.
25 Let me begin with the 131 documents which were attached and filed
1 with the expert's statement. There's a list of these documents following
2 page 195 of his statement, and pursuant to the Chamber's decision of 27
3 January 2003 it would seem that these documents, since they are attached
4 to the expert's statement, have been admitted into evidence. A large
5 number of these documents, Mr. President, are documents from the Sarajevo
6 Romanija Corps or SRK documents. The Defence has not called as witnesses
7 before you those individuals who made these documents or those individuals
8 who stored or archived or had custody of these documents, nor has the
9 Defence provided sufficient information for the Prosecution in order for
10 us to make inquiries in this regard. Accordingly, the authenticity
11 remains unestablished with implications for the weight to be attached to
12 such documents, in particular where their contents assist the Defence
14 In view of the Chamber's oral decision of March 3rd in respect of
15 the evidence of Dr. Vilicic, an issue nevertheless remains as to whether
16 some of these documents, these 131 documents, can properly remain in
17 evidence. In particular, the Prosecution would contend that if there is
18 no nexus between one or more of these documents and the contents of the
19 expert's statement or the expert's oral testimony, the Prosecution would
20 argue that those exhibits should be withdrawn from evidence.
21 This, Mr. President, is a point to which we may have to return
22 following the completion of the expert's testimony.
23 Further, there are parts of the expert's report or statement which
24 are not sourced. Perhaps this will occur during his oral testimony; we
25 will have to wait and see in that respect. Although his statement has
1 been accepted and admitted into evidence, if by the conclusion of his oral
2 testimony there remain unsourced sections of significant content, the
3 Prosecution will request that those unsourced sections of his statement be
4 withdrawn from evidence.
5 Let me turn briefly to those portions of the statement which are
6 sourced. The Prosecution asserts that there are serious problems with
7 respect to the method employed by this expert in citing to some of the
8 material in his statement. For example, many of the footnotes refer
9 rather cryptically to documents based on scant information containing
10 little more than dates and military numerical codes, for example,
11 footnotes 5, 30, or 38. It is impossible to tell whether these documents
12 cited in the footnotes refer to exhibits or are references to the 131
13 documents that are attached. In none of the footnotes does the expert
14 make reference to any document by exhibit number, and that includes the
15 131 documents which are attached to his statement.
16 The Prosecution has spent countless hours, Mr. President,
17 attempting to decipher some of these footnotes and the documents he refers
18 to appear to fall into several categories, the first of those being
19 documents that are exhibits and which are in evidence, documents which are
20 neither exhibits nor are they attached to the expert's statement or on the
21 list following page 195 of that report. That category, Mr. President,
22 would include documents which were marked with Prosecution exhibit or
23 Defence exhibit numbers prior to trial but which in fact were not tendered
24 and have not been admitted into evidence. The third category involves
25 references to transcripts of individuals who were interviewed by the
1 Office of the Prosecution but who were not called as witnesses by either
2 side. Footnotes 123 and 124, for example, make reference to Prosecution
3 interviews of three witnesses who were on the Defence witness list but
4 were subsequently dropped. The transcripts of these interviews by the
5 Prosecution are not in evidence, nor are they attached to the expert's
6 statement. The fourth category concerns references to books, many of
7 which are published in B/C/S and which apparently do not exist in either
8 English or French translations. And the fifth category, Mr. President,
9 refers to notes of interviews conducted by the expert and which have been
10 the subject of previous litigation.
11 The Prosecution would like to make its position very clear with
12 respect to those parts of the expert's statement that are not supported by
13 material in evidence. If at the end of the expert's oral testimony it is
14 clear that there are parts of his report which cite to or otherwise rely
15 on material not in evidence, the Prosecution will again ask the Chamber to
16 reconsider its decision to admit the statement, at least with respect to
17 those portions of the report not supported by material that is in
19 Turning very quickly, Mr. President, to the attached documents. A
20 quick review of the material attached to the expert's statement, which
21 runs to several hundred pages, reveals that the documents do not contain
22 exhibit numbers, they are not in any chronological order or in the order
23 that they are cited to in the footnotes. Quite simply the attached
24 documents are not organised in any apparently coherent way that would
25 assist the Trial Chamber in attempting to make sense of them prior to the
1 witness's testimony. As you are aware, yesterday we faxed the Defence a
2 list concerning approximately 26 footnotes seeking clarification.
3 Yesterday we received an oral response indicating that the documents
4 referred to in the fax were either Defence documents which had been
5 disclosed to the Prosecution or conversely Prosecution documents which had
6 been disclosed to the Defence. We were informed immediately prior to
7 today's session that the Defence has the documents cited in the footnotes
8 that we asked them about, they will provide them to us tomorrow with
9 translations and annotated with the relevant footnote number.
10 But I would suggest, Mr. President, that disclosure is not the
11 real issue here. The issue is whether or not this expert's statement is
12 based on facts in evidence and whether the statement is of sufficient
13 transparency to enable the Prosecution to challenge it and ultimately for
14 the Trial Chamber to determine if it is trustworthy.
15 As I indicated, without some further guidance on these issues from
16 the Chamber before this witness takes the stand, additional time may be
17 unnecessarily consumed throughout the testimony of this witness as these
18 issues arise. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need to respond, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President, but very,
21 very briefly. I thought I understood that my honourable colleague said
22 that the handover of the documents was not a problem, and I was very happy
23 about that.
24 Now, second issue was the coming of the following witness and his
25 transparency. What I wanted to say without the witness being here - and
1 this is something we can check when he comes in - he was a military
2 expert. He's a career general. And he was an expert at the time when
3 various commissions were working on peace negotiations in Bosnia. So he
4 is -- really was busy on the most trustworthy level.
5 Now, I heard what Judge Orie said or some other persons, so
6 knowing a person like, for instance, General Radinovic, it is impossible
7 to find everything out. What is important is that we hear what he has to
8 say and what he will say to you.
9 Now, let us hear him. This is to do with the orality of the
10 sources. We know that this is very hard that -- considering that the
11 truth is that all of these documents have been at the disposal of the
12 Prosecution for many months and -- now, let us hear the witness and then
13 ask the question at the end if need be. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: In previous decisions concerning admissibility of
15 evidence, the Chamber has, I would say in a general sense, explained that
16 although not everything would be accepted as an expert opinion, that much
17 attention is paid finally to the weighing the evidence. Of course the
18 admission of evidence, which is especially a well-developed feature of the
19 common law systems, of course it also functions in order to -- to filter
20 the evidence that comes to a jury. It's in this mixed system a bit
21 different. Since it also would be almost impossible to deal with every
22 single detail for all these documents, the Chamber has decided that the
23 report was admitted into evidence, but that does not mean that every
24 single part of that report is accepted as being true. And therefore, if
25 one reads one page of events of which one could not easy accept that the
1 expert had been present during all these events described and if there are
2 no sources, then the requirement that the Chamber has put clearly on the
3 table, that is, that there should be transparency in methodology and
4 facts, might not optimally be met.
5 We'll start hearing this witness. The Chamber does well
6 understand that the Prosecution reserves its right at the end of the
7 testimony to come back to certain issues and to submit further requests of
8 parts of the evidence to be declared inadmissible. Perhaps we'd rather
9 deal with it not on the abstract level but on the concrete level, if
10 it -- if we are there.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: We are sitting until 7.00. Perhaps it would be
13 better to have the break right now and that we start at ten minutes to
14 6.00 with the examination of the expert witness.
15 We'll adjourn until ten minutes to 6.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 5.55 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, would you please escort the next witness
19 into the courtroom.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I take it that you
22 are Mr. Radinovic.
23 Mr. Radinovic, before giving testimony in this court, I first
24 should inquire whether you do hear me in a language you understand.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And I then inform you that the Rules of Procedure and
2 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the
3 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text will be
4 handed out to you by the usher. May I invite you to make that solemn
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated.
11 Ms. Pilipovic.
12 Examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Radinovic.
14 A. Good day.
15 Q. Mr. Radinovic, regardless of the fact that we've also provided
16 your curriculum vitae with your report, I would appreciate it if you could
17 give us information on your background very briefly.
18 A. My name is Radovan Radinovic. I was born in 1939 on the 11th of
19 September in Podgorica, Montenegro.
20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Radinovic, can you tell us what your educational
21 background is and what your profession is.
22 A. I finished secondary school in Podgorica, which is my place of
23 birth, the military academy, the engineers section in Belgrade and
24 Karlovac; the staff academy -- the command staff academy and military
25 school in Belgrade; and at the same time I finished -- I graduated from
1 the University of Political Science. I obtained my masters and Ph.D.
2 there. And I am a full professor -- I was a full professor at a high
3 school, colleges, for strategy and for military and scientific
4 investigations. And I had the research post of a scientific researcher in
5 the economical institute in Belgrade, which was part of the military
6 institute there.
7 Q. Mr. Radinovic, you told us that you were also a full professor at
8 the -- at a war school, at a military school. Can you tell us whether you
9 hold a rank.
10 A. Yes. I am a lieutenant colonel in -- a retired lieutenant
12 Q. Mr. Radinovic, since you said that you were a full professor and
13 that you held the rank of a lieutenant general --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
15 Q. -- Can you tell me how I should address you.
16 A. Well, you can address me as you like. But if you would like to
17 know how I would like you to address me, then please call me general,
18 because the rank of general in my system of values is more important to me
19 than the position of a professor.
20 Q. General Radinovic, at the Defence's request, you wrote a military
21 report "The Sarajevo battlefield, 1992 to 1994." Can you tell us whether
22 you stand by your report.
23 A. Yes, I stand by my report with regard to the main conclusions and
24 findings that I reached, but I would first of all like to draw your
25 attention to a few matters which I think are important.
1 First of all, a comment of a general nature: I've studied tens of
2 thousands of pages in the course of the two years that I've spent on this
3 subject. I've also examined over 5.000 documents, operational documents
4 of the sides involved in the conflict. And during that time I've made
5 notes and I wrote my report. Perhaps while this report of mine was being
6 printed, since the normal publishing procedure was not followed, it wasn't
7 proofread, it's possible that in some series of numbers there were
8 mistakes and there might be problems in finding the reference of
9 documents. Likewise, in certain expressions, formulations, there might be
10 some errors, and I'd like you to inform me of this if you come across any.
11 I personally found three items that I would like to have corrected.
12 Mr. President, if I may have a look at my findings and draw your
13 attention to where these errors occur.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you may. If, on the other hand, if you would
15 prefer to do it in writing and to present this tomorrow to us, since I
16 take it that we might not come across any of these mistakes, that will
17 save time, and -- so if you could prepare that briefly in writing, then
18 we'll consider it. Yes.
19 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. General, in your written report - you called it methodology, you
22 mentioned the methodology - what was the basis of your report?
23 A. Documents form the basis of my report, the documents from the
24 parties involved, and that means orders, combat orders, combat reports,
25 and information from both parties involved in the Sarajevo theatre of war.
1 And naturally I analysed a certain number of maps, and above all maps
2 which the Prosecution gave to the Defence and which belonged to the 1st
3 Corps of the BH army. In addition to the key documents, the documents
4 that were the basis for my report, on the basis of a sample that I
5 selected myself, I listened to recordings of witnesses' testimony in front
6 of this Trial Chamber, recordings that I thought might be of interest for
7 my report. I've studied all the transcripts of the statements. I also
8 made a selection of my own. So the transcripts of UNMO observers, of
9 UNPROFOR officials, members of the 1st Corps and of the BH army. And
10 naturally I also examined the transcripts of statements made by members of
11 the Army of Republika Srpska, partly from the main staff and partly the
12 transcripts of members of the SRK, Sarajevo Romanija Corps. In addition
13 to doing this, I spoke to some of those officers, to some of the brigade
14 commanders, some of the battalion commanders, and soldiers at the front
15 lines. I also personally visited the Sarajevo theatre of war. I went
16 there on three occasions to carry out research. As far as I can remember,
17 we went there together. I personally visited this area and used a method
18 that one could call the method of observation.
19 In addition to that, I read about 20 studies which related to this
20 subject, written by various authors who were involved in the conflict in
21 Bosnia and Herzegovina in various ways. I'm thinking about General Rose,
22 Carl Bildt and others. I heard everything that the members of the BH
23 army, the more important ones, wrote about the Sarajevo battlefield. I'm
24 thinking of Ajnadzic's book --
25 Q. General, thank you. I think that you provided detailed
1 explanations of this in your report, but I just wanted this to be heard
3 General, can you tell us why --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, I do understand that you wanted to
5 have repeated the Defence has claimed again and again that they would have
6 not sufficient time. The last four minutes, I would say we have heard a
7 repetition of pages 5 and 6 of the report. It's really not necessary to
8 have repeated what we have all read already. So it's up to you how to use
9 your time, but don't be surprised if at the end you might be short of
11 Please proceed.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I understand that
13 everyone is familiar with the contents of this report. But given the
14 public nature of this trial, I wanted this to be said very briefly, to be
15 presented very briefly.
16 Q. General, can you tell, why did you write this report on the -- how
17 did it develop on the Sarajevo battlefield? Why did you call it as you
19 A. For various reasons, and primarily because I'm convinced after
20 having examined, studied, many documents that a real war was being waged
21 in Sarajevo. It was a fully active battlefield, it had warring sides,
22 systems of command, and all the factors that make a certain area a theatre
23 of war. And the second reason, which is very important for me too, is
24 that the Sarajevo battlefield, or rather, the situation in Sarajevo, was
25 the real epicentre of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and I think
1 the title itself draws attention, emphasises the importance of that
2 battlefield, that theatre of war for the entire area centre of
4 Q. Thank you, General. Before we move on to questions that have to
5 do with the activities of the army in the Sarajevo battlefield, as you
6 have just said, can you tell us what the character of the armies was, in
7 terms of their doctrines, the armies that were involved in the conflict
9 A. The characteristics, the general character of all three armies
10 that were fighting in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the Sarajevo battlefield,
11 I'm referring to the Army of Republika Srpska, the Army of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And to the Croatian Defence Council. I'm using the
13 official names that were used for these armies. These were so-called
14 people's armies and they belonged to the militia type of army
15 organisation, and they had all the aspects that such a character entails.
16 With regard to the command and combat functioning and the relation to
17 civilians, in terms of the territorial principle of waging a war. So
18 these armies were in a conflict which was, I would say, almost a classical
19 civil war.
20 Q. General, you said that the armies in the Sarajevo theatre of
21 war - and you mentioned the Army of Republika Srpska and you mentioned the
22 BH army - can you tell us briefly what your position is with regard to the
23 formation of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. When was this corps formed?
24 A. The Sarajevo Romanija Corps was formed in May 1992. That would be
25 the shortest answer.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence would
2 like to show the general document 246. I've prepared all the documents.
3 So if it's necessary, the Defence would like to ask some questions about
4 this document which bears this number.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber is provided with a full set of copies
6 you'd like to raise with the expert witness in order to avoid that time is
7 spent again and again on the distribution. So this is just to inform you
8 why we get a bundle of papers rather than one document. That certainly
9 will save time, that will assist the Defence.
10 Yes, Mr. Mundis.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, similarly for the record, the
12 Prosecution has been provided with the bundle as well as a score card.
13 And I'll only rise to my feet if there's a document which we haven't --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That will certainly save a lot of time and ...
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Q. General, do you recognise this document?
17 A. Yes, I recognise it. It's a document issued by the command of the
18 4th Corps of the former JNA. It's dated 17th of May, 1992. It was sent
19 to the 216th Mountain Brigade, which was a unit of that corps. And in
20 that document, they -- it is stated that this corps -- the name of this
21 corps has been changed to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, and they mentioned
22 the units that are going to form a part of that corps.
23 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, may I ask you to speak a bit
24 slower because every word has to be translated and to be transcribed, and
25 we wouldn't like to miss a word of you. So will you please slow down a
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll be careful.
3 So in the document under item 1, it says that "The 4th Corps is to
4 be named the Sarajevo Romanija Corps." And they mention the units that
5 belonged to that 4th Corps and from that date they were given new names.
6 I don't think it's necessary for me to read this out. You can see it in
7 the document. It's quite clear.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you, General. General, in your report, you spoke about the
10 structure of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. It's figure 8 on page 44, I
11 think, and it is Exhibit D81 in the series of documents which I provided.
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we put this key on the ELMO
13 so the general can see it too.
14 Q. Can you briefly tell us what this represents, what this diagram
16 A. It represents the structure of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, the
17 way it was organised. At the very top we have the corps commander. Here
18 to the extreme left it's the chief of staff, the corps chief of staff.
19 And we have the deputy for morale, the assistant for security, and the
20 deputy for logistics.
21 Q. General, we have been able to observe the diagram represented by
22 an expert, you were present when he was testifying. Does this scheme you
23 have here represent what Mr. Philipps presented?
24 A. I was present at the examination-in-chief of Mr. Philipps. I
25 noticed that in the structure that he presented here, there were several
1 serious errors, and I think it would be important to correct those errors
2 so that such omissions aren't included in the record of the trial.
3 Q. Since you were here, can you tell us what errors are concerned.
4 A. It has to do with the position of the tactical operations group of
5 Vogosca, it has to do with the structure of the Vogosca Brigade, and also
6 with the structure of the mixed anti-armour artillery regiment and the
7 structure of the engineers battalion. I have those parts at hand. I
8 could show them to you, I could tell you about them.
9 Q. Well, since you have mentioned them verbally -- well, if
10 necessary, we will check this in the scheme, in the figure.
11 General, could you now tell us, the 1st Corps of the BH army, when
12 was it formed? Since you told us when the SRK were formed and which units
13 were part of the SRK.
14 A. The 1st Corps was formed by virtue of a decision by
15 Alija Izetbegovic, who was the president of the Presidency of Bosnia and
16 Herzegovina at the time, and that also means the Supreme Commander of the
17 BH army. It was formed on the 18th of August, 1992.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, bearing in mind the
19 witness's answer, the Defence would like to show the witness document 293,
20 294, 297, and 289.
21 THE REGISTRAR: The last document was 289?
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 Q. General, do you have document 293 in front of you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is that a document dated the 18th of August, 1992? Is it the
1 decision of Mr. Alija Izetbegovic with regard to the units that are to be
2 part of the 1st Corps?
3 A. Yes. I said that Alija Izetbegovic adopted this decision on the
4 18th of August, the decision to form the 1st Corps of the BH army and the
5 brigades mentioned in this document were to be part of its structure.
6 That's the 1st independent brigade -- the 1st Sarajevo independent
8 Q. General, it's not necessary to read this out since we have
9 translated this document but since you analysed this document, can you
10 tell us how many brigades formed part of the 1st Corps?
11 A. 14 brigades were in the 1st Corps. But here there are certain
12 special brigades that you can't see, certain special units that became
13 part of the corps. You can't -- it doesn't mention those special MUP
14 brigade under the command of Dragan Vikic, and that was an important unit
15 of those troops and it was under the command of the 1st Corps. There were
16 about 1.000 or 1.500 men. They were very well armed and they had armoured
17 vehicles, Pragas, anti-armour equipment. It was a very strong brigade and
18 it hasn't been mentioned here.
19 Later on, reconnaissance and sabotage brigade was formed, and the
20 manoeuvre battalions, or rather, platoons weren't mentioned. Many special
21 detachments of battalions, et cetera. So perhaps on the basis of this
22 document, you might not get the right picture. You might think that the
23 corps was not as strong as it actually was.
24 Q. General, as part of your explanations on the 1st Corps, could you
25 have a look at document 297.
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher please show the
2 following document, document 297 -- 294, 297, and 289.
3 Q. Could you comment on these documents and tell us what they are
5 A. These three documents are decisions on organisational changes, on
6 improving the organisation and formation of the 1st Corps. In the
7 document that we had a look at first of all, you can see the brigades are
8 listed and these brigades have names that come from their regions, the
9 areas where they were formed. And then new orders were issued, or rather,
10 decisions concerning organisational improvements, and the brigades were
11 then called according to their purposes and characteristics. So you have
12 motorised brigades, then mechanised brigades, mountain brigades, brigades,
13 or rather, the corps started to look like a well-organised and structured
14 army. All these three -- these three documents are of that nature, and I
15 don't think it's necessary to provide special explanations of them, unless
16 you insist on this.
17 Q. No, but, General, can you tell just me if you have document 294,
18 297, and 289 in front of you.
19 A. Yes, I have them. In document 289, 9/10/93, you can see the
20 reconnaissance and sabotage unit.
21 Q. Thank you. General, you also mentioned the formation within the
22 1st Corps of the BH army and you also mentioned existence of manoeuvre
23 battalions. You also mentioned special units now.
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence would like to show the
25 general document 292, 1850.
1 JUDGE ORIE: 289, what is the title of that document?
2 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 289, we have the coat of arms of
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the upper part it says "Republic of Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina, the Staff of the Supreme Command." The document is --
5 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... In our --
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 1 through 133.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please, since this is the document that was
10 not numbered, could you please give us -- do you know the handwritten
11 numbers for the filings on it? I have difficulties in following you when
12 you say --
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 289. D289.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I see a stamp. Is this the document which has number
15 stamped on it, on the original, 01805139 and 0180 --
16 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. General, we were talking about the structure of the 1st Corps of
22 the BH army about the composition, about the brigades, and you spoke about
23 the units. You spoke about the special units and about the manoeuvre
24 battalion. For these reasons, I'd like to show you the document 292,
25 1850, and 1859.
1 General, can you see the document before you 292?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you tell us, this document is dated 9th of October, 1992?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And this is the Supreme Command of the BH army. With this
6 document, what is ordered?
7 A. This is the staff of the Supreme Command.
8 Q. I apologise.
9 A. For you as a layperson, you don't think it's important. But for
10 me as an expert, that is very important. So this is the staff of the
11 Supreme Command of the armed forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
12 And on the day of the 9th of October, 1992, they order a reconnaissance
13 and sabotage brigade. And as part of this brigade, sabotage
14 and -- reconnaissance and sabotage, there would be the regiment of the
15 protective company of the regional staff of defence Sarajevo, special unit
16 Sultan Fatih, special unit Boris, special unit Fatih, special unit Kobra,
17 special unit Ljiljan, then there would be a special unit Bida [phoen], the
18 corps reconnaissance company, and the special unit called Drago Prazina.
19 Q. Thank you. General, can you tell us about the document
20 1815 -- 1850, dated 10th of third, and the 21st of June, which is document
21 1859. These documents, are they also documents from which you can see --
22 A. I have 1851, not 1859.
23 Q. Is this document dated 10th of March, 1993?
24 A. Yes, 1850.
25 Q. Can you tell us about this document. What is this document about?
1 A. In this document, the command of the 1st Motorised Brigade of the
2 1st Corps on the 1st of March, 1993 orders that there should be special
3 training from which we can see that within the structure of the
4 organisational establishment of the brigade there were certain units whose
5 identity was very hard to identify, to establish. The command of the
6 brigade orders the command of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Motorised Battalion to
7 conduct a selection and to appoint five combatants to form composition of
8 units for carrying out special training. In item 2, and this is what is
9 particularly intriguing for me, is that the commander says that candidates
10 for training should be between 20 and 30 years old, that they should not
11 have children, and that they should not have any criminal proceedings
12 pending against them. And under item 3, it say that is the training will
13 be conducted in the premises of the former Marsal Tito Barracks in the
14 school of war skills and that this training will last for 28 days.
15 Q. Thank you, General. When you spoke of item 2 that you quoted, you
16 said that you found it particularly intriguing. Can you tell me, why is
17 that? What did you mean by that?
18 A. Well, for such restrictive measures, in terms of selection, for
19 certain specialties mostly this is to be personnel that are going to be
20 used for special tasks. I'm almost certain these will be units, these
21 will be personnel that are going -- were going to be trained for serious
22 forms of sabotage and anti-terrorist activities.
23 Q. Thank you, General. You have before you document from the 21st of
24 June, 1994, 1859 document.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The data that you mentioned, you said that they were manoeuvring
2 battalions. Did you mean -- you meant this document?
3 A. Yes, of course I meant this document. But the data regarding
4 this, I obtained through the books of the 1st Corps members. By this I
5 mean Nedzad Ajnadzic, who was the commander of the 101st Brigade and then
6 he was the commander of the corps, the chief of staff of the corps. He
7 said that they had manoeuvring battalions starting from 1993, while in the
8 documents that I had available, I managed to find this document which
9 dates 21st of June, 1994, although I reiterate they had these battalions
10 from much earlier. Now, this is about a special type of unit which is
11 meant for a kind of alternative task without an area of responsibility and
12 they are deployed according to the commander's instructions, decisions,
13 where need arises. It could be in any area of the theatre operations.
14 Q. General, when we have this document before us, since we have it,
15 could you please read item 3 of this document, the question of the housing
16 for the brigade.
17 A. It says in item 3: "Croatian Kralj Tvrtko does not have at his
18 disposal adequate accommodation and the question of the accommodation of
19 the seat of the command of the brigade and the 1st Battalion which are
20 accommodated in the facilities of primary school Alija Alijagic and orders
21 for its replacement represent a problem."
22 Q. Thank you, General. During the examination-in-chief we will come
23 back to sections from these documents, but my question now is:
24 Considering that you were telling us about the structure and units of the
25 1st Corps, could you tell us, what was the structure in the establishment
1 of the 1st Corps of the BH army? What was this like?
2 A. The 1st Corps of the BH army was established based on the
3 infrastructure of the regional staff of the Territorial Defence -- of the
4 former Territorial Defence for Sarajevo, then on the basis of armed groups
5 and a paramilitary organisation which, as far as I'm aware, that can be
6 called as being a paramilitary party troops - that's Patriotic League - in
7 the territory of Sarajevo.
8 Q. General, can you tell us, considering that you studied the
9 documents on both sides, could you tell us how many troops were involved
10 in the 1st Corps of the BH army and how many troops in the
11 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, and later on I will ask you a question about the
12 positions of these corpses, that is, and brigades and lower echelon units
13 within the corps.
14 A. Now, in terms of the strength of the opposing parties in the
15 Sarajevo theatre, tend to vary. In various sources you will find
16 different data. But the discrepancies in data are not such that they can
17 contest the fact that these were caused, were organised and
18 well-established army. The Sarajevo Romanija Corps had at the time of
19 the -- of General Galic's tenure, between 18 and 22.000. The top strength
20 of the corps was 22.000 troops. And as far as the data for the 1st Corps
21 of the BH army is concerned and its strength, I obtained from the
22 operations documents from the 1st Army Corps and from the study by Nedzad
23 Ajnadzic, a former chief of staff of the 1st Corps, and there is no
24 surprisingly much difference between the strength which I established to
25 be from the documents of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and from the data
1 about the strength that was in Nedzad Ajnadzic's study. That is, between
2 78.000 and 80.000 troops under arms, except that in the urban part of
3 Sarajevo, in the narrow city centre, there were between 45 and 50.000
4 people under arms, including armed policemen. The rest of them were on
5 the so-called outside fronts from Mount Igman up to Visoko.
6 Q. Thank you, General. Considering that you told us briefly about
7 the structure of both armies in the Sarajevo theatre of war, you told
8 us -- you gave us together with your expert report, you also gave us a
9 map. Is this the map that you gave us together with the expert report?
10 A. Yes, this is the map which I made. I don't mean I drew it, but I
11 marked it.
12 Q. What does this map represent?
13 A. This map represents, together with topographic symbols, and this
14 is a topographic map 1 to 50.000, this is the area of responsibility of
15 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and the disposition of both sides in this
17 Q. General, before you show us this map, you told us that this map
18 represents areas of responsibility.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Of both corps.
21 A. On the map, I only indicated or marked the area of responsibility
22 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, but for most part the Sarajevo Romanija
23 Corps area of responsibility of the 1st Corps is within that area. I did
24 not have the exact data of the area of responsibility of the 1st Corps, so
25 I couldn't include it there.
1 Q. When you say "area of responsibility," can you as a military
2 expert tell us what is an area of responsibility?
3 A. An area of responsibility is a space within which a military
4 commander prepares, plans, and carries out combat operations.
5 Q. Thank you. General, we will come back later to the question of
6 responsibility of a military commander in his own area of responsibility,
7 but now could you please point on the map and tell us whether the data --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis -- I'm making mistakes again and again.
9 Mr. Mundis.
10 MR. MUNDIS: For the record, Mr. President, it would appear that
11 the map the witness is referring to is C2, but that should perhaps be put
12 on the record.
13 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No. I will resolve the
14 problem of the map. I will ask a few questions just now.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's also a large map.
16 Please proceed, Ms. Pilipovic.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Yes. General, you said that this is an operations map where data
19 has been marked, about the organisation and the positions of the warring
20 parties. Did I understand you correctly?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell me who made this map?
23 A. To make a map, well, that really means two different things. Who
24 created the data, the elements of the map, and who drew the map. It will
25 be best if I had done it all. However, because I'm not a very good
1 draughtsman, I did not draw the map, but this map was drawn by a
2 draughtsman under my instructions. So all the elements for this map are
4 Q. Do you confirm that this is the map where you have personally
5 according to your researches you have inputted the data?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. General, while you were making this map, on the basis of which
8 documents and during your researches, what -- how did you come to the
9 data -- or rather, what data did you use to work on this map?
10 A. The basic data for this working map I obtained from operations
11 documents of the warring parties, from the orders, instructions, combat
12 reports, plans, et cetera. Apart from that, I had at my disposal also one
13 map from the files of the SRK, of the Republika Srpska Army, and this map,
14 I believe, belonged to the intelligence organ and dates back to 1994. I
15 certainly have this information somewhere, and I probably would be able to
16 give more precise information regarding this.
17 I also had at my disposal a whole series of maps from the files of
18 the 1st Corps. I think that was what the Prosecution handed over to the
19 Defence and the Defence gave it to me to study.
20 From all of these maps that I used from the files of the 1st Corps
21 of the BH army, the most convincing map, which was the one that
22 corresponded most to the documents that I received from both sides, is the
23 map which I believe dates from March 1993. I'm not absolutely certain of
24 that. The date is not on the map itself. But this is a map which was
25 made sometime, I believe, in March 1993, on which the positions of the 1st
1 Corps brigades are marked in that narrow, what I call it, the narrow urban
2 part of Sarajevo. So here we have brigades that are listed with all their
3 names, their numbers, and with their lines and positions within the city.
4 Simply, I was drawn to believe this map and -- because they corresponded
5 to other sources, and you know that the more sources you use to draw data
6 from, then it is reliable. I don't know, of course, if I am right, but of
7 course this is something that is debatable.
8 Q. General, can you tell us briefly, what do specifically red lines
9 represent? I can't see the map very well. But if you can tell us very
10 briefly, what do lines represent and what is actually represented on this
12 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Of course, Your Honour, with your
14 Yes, we can see the red dotted lines and the blue dotted lines.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not on the -- but -- if the witness would like
16 to explain more areas of the map, then we can use a microphone that he can
17 use also when he's standing. There is a possibility to do so. So if
18 there's any -- for him to point at certain parts of the map, then it could
19 be --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have here a pointer
21 which can work from where I'm sitting. I find it more comfortable like
22 this. If I can, I can do it from my witness seat.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Everyone can see it. But you, General Galic, I
24 don't know whether it is clear enough for you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I can't see it yet, so I
1 can't say whether I can see it yet.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't see anything yet. I'm
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please use your -- I would say your flash
6 pointer and then see whether General Galic can see it on the map. Could
7 you please move it on the map.
8 Can you see that, General Galic, or is it -- oh, is it to be seen
9 on the ELMO? Let's just -- yes. On the ELMO we can see how --
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see, yes, Mr. President,
11 very well.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So perhaps if the witness uses his, what I would say,
13 his flash pointer, his red dot, that we then have that on the ELMO as well
14 so that General Galic can follow it.
15 Please proceed.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So here we have the borders of the
17 area of responsibility of the SRK, and there is a thicker full line, and
18 parallelly with that you have a dotted line. Now, that is according to
19 the working map rules that were in force during the war, and this is a
20 sign for the borders of the area of responsibility of the corps.
21 On the left-hand side border, you can see a semicircle, and it
22 denotes that place which is excluded from the area of
23 responsibility -- that location which is excluded from the area of
24 responsibility. If the semicircle had turned outside, then it's excluded.
25 When the semicircle is turned inwards, then it is included.
1 According to this model, we had the left-hand side border --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Just for the sake of the transcript, the witness is
3 pointing at thin relatively long red lines that are for longer distances
5 Please proceed.
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. General, can you tell us, the semi-circles on these lines for
8 which you said denoted the exclusion and inclusion zone, what do they
10 A. Well, these semi-circles on this borderline, these are locations
11 which are excluded from the area of responsibility. Where this location
12 is when the semicircle is turned towards the area is excluded. These are
13 areas around Visoko, here on Mount Igman, then more towards the south on
14 Mount Treskavica and so on. This is a usual symbol which denotes that
15 this particular location, this place, this topographic location is
16 excluded from the area of responsibility.
17 Q. General, can you tell us, what does a red line represent, what
18 does a blue dotted line represent, and what does a red thinner
19 line -- dotted line represent?
20 A. These dotted lines, thicker lines, the blue and the red, they
21 represent the most forward parts of the combat disposition of the parties
22 that are confronting each other in certain parts of the front. In this
23 case, the red line denotes the most forward positions of the SRK, and the
24 blue line, blue dotted line, thicker dotted line, denote the positions of
25 the 1st Corps of the BH army.
1 Q. Thank you. General, can you tell us and can you show us on the
2 map, what was the front line when General Galic became commander? Can you
3 tell us first, when did he become commander? And let us then link up with
4 this period when General Galic became a commander.
5 A. Colonel Galic then came to the post of the commander of the
6 Sarajevo Romanija Corps on the 7th of September, 1992. He was before the
7 commander of the 30th Division in Mrkonjic, and that's where he came from,
8 and he came to the most difficult part of the front in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
9 the hardest post of the Republika Srpska Army.
10 Q. General, I'll come back later and ask you to expand about your
11 observations and what you have to say about General Galic coming to this
12 post, but now I'd like you to tell us what was the front like when he took
13 over the command of the corps.
14 A. When General Galic came to the post of the commander of the
15 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, this front which is symbolically marked by these
16 lines, this front was a lot more chaotic than we can see this on this map.
17 This looks quite well positioned, but it was a lot worse, and I hope we
18 will have an opportunity to speak about it in more detail. But for this
19 occasion, I can start from the northern part. So I am drawing a line of
20 the front, and this is what General Galic found when he came to the post
21 of the command of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. Here I tried to represent
22 with my drawing also the front dynamics from the moment when General Galic
23 came to be the commander of the corps until the day he left. I have to
24 admit that this front suffered relatively few consequences, considering
25 quite a long time -- a long duration of the war. The really serious
1 changes, significant changes, that would express somewhat heightened
2 dynamics of the front, are in the urban area, would go from the River
3 Zeljeznica and would go up to Otes, Dogladi, and Bare, and the front in
4 the area of Zuc and also in the plateau. So Galic, General Galic came to
5 this curve here, came to the corps when this curve existed here, with this
6 area in Zuc and to the Nisici high plateau with this important curved area
7 which was turned towards the BH territory. And then when he left - and
8 this is the result of his tenure - so this was -- this front was
9 straightened from the Zeljeznica river between Otes and Bare, so this was
10 straightened, this front line was straightened, and the front line was
11 shortened, which was an improvement of the tactical position in the
12 Sarajevo theatre. However --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I rise to my feet simply because the
15 witness for several minutes has been pointing to various locations on the
16 map, none of which will be reflected on the record, making it virtually
17 impossible to ascertain exactly what the witness was talking about based
18 on the written transcript.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour, with
21 your leave, I would ask the general to describe for the record exactly
22 what he was indicating, considering that he knows this map best, when he
23 was speaking about the positions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But, Ms. Pilipovic, the general might not be that
25 well trained in choosing formulations that fit well into the transcript.
1 You know how difficult that is. So we'll see how you proceed, but let's
2 avoid confusion.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. General, on the map -- I just have a problem because I can't see
5 the map very well. General, on the map, you explained to us about the
6 area where there was a straightening of the line, so to speak. Can you
7 please point to that area of the map and you can tell us what that is.
8 A. I think that was entered into the record, because General Galic
9 from the moment when he arrived --
10 Q. Can you tell us if that is the eastern part or the western part of
11 the front.
12 A. I'm showing the front line towards Otes, so this line of the front
13 during General Galic -- when he arrived, and then the front line moved on
14 the line between Stup and Bare.
15 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, Your Honour, the
16 witness is showing to us the western part of the front of the Sarajevo
17 theatre, and it is on the extreme part of the western line where it is
18 indicated --
19 Q. General, what does it say here?
20 A. This is Ilidza Brigade.
21 Q. So this is Ilidza Infantry Brigade indication. You told us there
22 were other indications on the front line --
23 A. Yes. Now, I'm pointing to the way it looked when General Galic
24 came. That is, the north-western part of the front. And at the time
25 Orlic and Zuc, two important elevations above the urban part of Sarajevo,
1 were in the hands of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. When General Galic
2 left, these elevations remained in the hands of the 1st Corps.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] For the record, the general, the
4 witness, is showing -- pointing to the northern part of the front, the
5 area of Zuc.
6 A. Yes. The Zuc area, all the way to --
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The first
8 significant change the witness referred to, I'd like to have if
9 possible -- I know that the rule is the Presiding Judge should be on the
10 screen, but I'd rather have the map, as a matter of fact, as an exception
11 to the rule of what should appear.
12 Now I lost my image.
13 Yes. The expert witness first pointed when he was talking about
14 the Ilidza Infantry Brigade, where there are double confrontation lines
15 marked on the western edge of the confrontation lines around the city of
16 Sarajevo. And when he was talking about Orlic and Zuc, he was pointing at
17 the north-western part of the confrontation lines where they appear as
18 double confrontation lines.
19 Yes, Mr. Mundis.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, perhaps a suggestion: If overnight
22 the Defence could make a photocopy of the central part of that map, it
23 might be easier for the witness to actually mark portions of it by placing
24 the map on the ELMO and marking those portions that he's been testifying
25 about. Simply a suggestion.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, it is a suggestion. You can follow it
2 or not follow it. The experience is that markings on maps usually go
3 quicker than having to describe exactly what a witness pointed at, and it
4 even goes more quickly if markings -- some additional markings are done
5 during breaks. But it is a suggestion.
7 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Perhaps
8 my colleague could help me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Having noted the willingness to assist each other
10 among the parties, I just looking to Mr. Mundis, to see what he could do
11 to assist Ms. Pilipovic.
12 It's over 7.00 now. If this would be a suitable time for a break.
13 And if not, we'll adjourn anyhow.
14 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Just 15 seconds for
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Page 61,
19 French booth, 5.000. Page 67, August, not April. And page 72, it's
20 brigade and not battalion.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. We'll adjourn. We'll not sit tomorrow in
22 the afternoon but in the morning, same courtroom, as far as I understand,
24 General Radinovic, may I instruct you not to speak with anyone
25 about the testimony you have given until now and the testimony you are
1 still about to give. And we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning,
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
4 at 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
5 the 7th day of March, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.