1 Tuesday, 11 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.12 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
9 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber has thoroughly considered the observations made
12 yesterday by Mr. Piletta-Zanin and unanimously considers that the trial
13 proceeds in the same spirit of neutrality and impartiality as expected
14 from professional judges as it did before.
15 The Chamber is of the opinion that the parties are free to
16 exercise all procedural rights granted them by the Statute and the Rules
17 of Procedure and Evidence.
18 Mr. Mundis, is the Prosecution ready to continue its
20 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
22 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.
23 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis: [Continued].
1 Q. Witness, shortly before we broke yesterday, I described to you a
2 process that we're going to go through this morning with respect to the
3 notes and interviews that you conducted. And I told you that we had been
4 provided with photocopies of your notes and that there were certain
5 portions of those notes which our language assistants had a difficult time
6 in deciphering your handwriting.
7 What I'm going to do now, with the assistance of the usher, is to
8 provide to you a bundle of the handwritten notes and ask you to assist us
9 with respect to the material that you've written on the notes. Do you
10 understand what I'm asking you to do, sir?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. I would also ask that -- if Madam Usher could put the material on
13 the ELMO at the time when I indicate, it might be helpful so that everyone
14 can follow exactly what it is the witness is referring to.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Madam Usher, if you could place the first stapled
16 section of that material on the ELMO, please.
17 Q. Witness, one of the individuals that you spoke with was Visnja
18 Stojanovic; is that correct?
19 A. No. It's not Visnja Stojanovic. It's General Stojanovic,
20 commander during the war of the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade.
21 Q. Thank you. Look at the notes that are on the ELMO to your right
22 and indicate if the notes that you have before you are the notes you took
23 when you interviewed General Stojanovic.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you please turn to tab number 1, which is ERN number 01189428
1 in the original and page 14 of the English translation. You'll see,
2 witness, there's a tab with the number "1." If you could please place
3 that back on the ELMO.
4 MR. MUNDIS: And if the ELMO could be zoomed back or the document
5 raised that the highlighted portion is visible.
6 Q. Witness, you'll see in the margin a blue highlight. Can you
7 please read that portion of your notes next to the blue highlighted
9 JUDGE ORIE: And could I ask you to do it slowly so that the
10 interpreters and transcribers can follow you. Please proceed.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This part of my notes relates to
12 snipers. I'm reading from the top.
13 "In every section according to establishment one sniper before the
15 Item 2 -- can I go on? Second bullet.
16 Q. Can you please indicate on the first line where it says "before
17 the war."
18 A. "One sniper before the war." The last two words "pre rata," in
20 Q. And second bullet, please.
21 A. "Sniping rifles introduced but there were not many. Serbs
22 abandoned lines if they had sniping rifles."
23 Q. And the bullets underneath that, please.
24 A. This is an explanation of what kind of sniper rifles we're talking
25 about. "Semi-automatic rifle," that's the first bullet. Next bullet:
1 "Not even needed because everything was within the range of firearms."
2 Following bullet: "In the second half of the war, this need
3 became greater."
4 I can't read the next line because it has been cut off in this
6 Q. Thank you, witness. These portions of your notes were referring
7 to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; is that right?
8 A. No. The 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade.
9 Q. Thank you, witness.
10 If we could then go to the second stapled bundle of the notes,
12 Witness, you also interviewed Cedo Sladoje; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what position did he hold during the war?
15 A. Before the war, he was in the staff of the Territorial Defence, as
16 far as I know. And during the war, he was chief of the operations
17 department of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
18 Q. Witness, can you please turn to tab 2, ERN number 01189445 in the
19 original, pages 38 and 39 in the translation.
20 A. You said 445. I have "444" here. Is that a mistake?
21 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps if I can see the document, Madam Usher.
22 Q. Witness, if you could look, please, at bullet number 6 again with
23 the blue highlighted portion to the right -- or to the left of that number
24 6. Can you please read out the highlighted portion beginning with bullet
25 point number 6.
1 A. Item 6: "Sniping. According to establishment, every sniper's
2 section -- so according to establishment, every sniper's section.
3 Assignments issued by section commander."
4 Second bullet: "Groups of snipers. It is the platoon commander
5 who issues assignments."
6 Q. Keep going, please.
7 A. "The corps ordered the setting up of sniping units. Warnings
8 issued against the danger of hostile snipers and the organising of
9 anti-sniping sections."
10 Following bullet: "Training of snipers."
11 Following bullet: "7.9-millimetre sniper, 7.62 PAP,
12 semi-automatic rifle with sniper."
13 Following bullet: "12.7-millimetre snipers. We didn't have them
14 in 1994. We only got them from the Muslims at the end of 1994. We used
15 rifles with optical sights." That's the end of it.
16 Q. Witness, again, this section of your notes is referring to sniping
17 within the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, in the second half of 1994.
19 Q. Bullet number 7, can you please read that out for us.
20 A. "The MUP had 12.7-millimetre snipers."
21 Q. Witness, let me just briefly return to point 6. You
22 indicated -- or the notes indicate in the first line "according to
23 establishment." When was that? What does that refer to?
24 A. That was -- that relates to the second half of 1994, when we
25 started establishing anti-sniper units for anti-sniping activities.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Witness --
2 A. That was in the latter half of 1994. In mid-1994 we didn't have
4 Q. That's not what the notes say though is it, witness?
5 A. That's what's written here. You see in the middle --
6 Q. The only reference in these notes with respect to the end of 1994
7 has to do with 12.7-millimetre rifles. The bullets above that say nothing
8 about end of 1994.
9 A. No, you're not right. You have to know the context, the
10 background. This item, this bullet which says that the corps formed
11 anti-sniping units -- will you please let me finish.
12 Q. Let me just -- I'll give you an opportunity to finish, but let me
13 just ask you in the first bullet under paragraph 6, where is there a
14 reference to 1994?
15 A. I am talking about the background, the linking up of anti-sniping
16 units within the context of anti-sniping activities from August, when the
17 corresponding agreement has been reached. So the corps has ordered the
18 forming of snipers units by brigades. Not in a single document --
19 Q. Witness --
20 A. -- Will you see a reference to an anti-sniping unit before that.
21 Q. In the first bullet of paragraph 6 of your notes, there is no
22 reference to 1994, is there?
23 A. Please --
24 Q. Witness, again, I understand that you want to place it in context.
25 My question is very simple: In the first bullet under paragraph number 6,
1 is there in your handwritten notes a reference to 1994; yes or no?
2 A. There is no reference to either 1992 or 1993 either.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 A. I'm telling you about any notes and deciphering them.
5 Q. Witness, you also interviewed Marko Lugonja; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Marko Lugonja told you that the SRK was disbanded after Dayton
8 and the documents were all over the place. Do you remember him saying
10 A. Well, yes, I know that's the case. And whether it's Marko Lugonja
11 who told me that, I would have to look up my notes to see that. But I
12 know that this fact is true.
13 Q. Witness, who was Marko Lugonja or who is Marko Lugonja?
14 A. Marko Lugonja is a general. He was chief of the intelligence and
15 security section in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps -- or rather, he was
16 assistant corps commander for intelligence and security.
17 Q. Now, witness, the military regulations require the archiving of
18 military records and documents, do they not?
19 A. Yes. I am not an employee of the archives, but I know that's the
21 Q. And documents -- primary documents would have been a very
22 important source for you in making your report. And I'm asking you what
23 inquiries you made concerning the corps documents to the Defence legal
25 A. I am not an investigator, nor was I involved in the search for
1 documents. I was given documents by the Defence team.
2 Q. Did you make any inquiries concerning documents, or did you make
3 any inquiries in order to obtain documents that you didn't have?
4 A. Yes. I always insisted that documents be made available to me,
5 especially documents I was missing and I still miss, such as documents
6 issued by the Supreme Command of the BH army to their own staff and to
7 their own units. Those are the documents that I didn't have. And I think
8 it was a great handicap for both my report and for the entire proceedings,
9 I would say.
10 Q. Witness, I'd like to focus your attention on SRK documents. What
11 steps did you take independently of those documents that the Defence
12 provided to you to search for or obtain the important missing documents
13 that were crucial for you to prepare your report?
14 A. I didn't look for any documents. I received all the documents
15 that were essential for me. And the documents that the Defence provided
16 me with for the SRK were quite relevant and sufficient for me to view what
17 the situation was and to write a report that was relevant, in my opinion.
18 Q. I suggest to you, witness, that the SRK documents, had they been
19 properly collected, catalogued, and archived, that your task as an expert
20 and the task that this Trial Chamber is undertaking would have been
21 easier - isn't that right - had these documents before properly collected
22 and archived?
23 A. That's not an affair of mine or of the Defence's. It's a matter
24 of the archives. The units were disbanded. They would lose the archives,
25 you know, when the army is transformed, when units are disbanded, the
1 political and strategic situation changes, it's different. And in such
2 cases there are failures, failings that occur. And this isn't a matter
3 for me or the Defence, and this is something we can discuss: Were these
4 documents I had sufficient for me to write a report? I think that they
5 were, but I didn't have documents from the other side which are available
6 for sure.
7 Q. Witness, in your report you allude to the fact that there are SRK
8 documents that you would have liked to have reviewed but the documentation
9 was not complete.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I'll withdraw that,
13 Mr. President.
14 Mr. President, could we be provided with a reference for the
15 report so that we can check this, because I think that it was stated that
16 he regretted not having documents but not only of those belonging to the
17 SRK but other documents too. So if I could be provided with the page
18 reference, please.
19 MR. MUNDIS: I'll withdraw the question, Mr. President, and
20 perhaps we'll return to it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
22 MR. MUNDIS:
23 Q. The disbanding of a unit such as a corps is hardly a satisfactory
24 explanation for the non-existence of an archive, is it?
25 A. I don't know what you're asking me about. That's not a question
1 that I should answer. But if you really want me to -- well, I don't think
2 it's good for archives to be lost, to be closed down. Archives constitute
3 part of history, and I think that this is a pity. But don't ask me how
4 this happened or why this happened. I don't know.
5 Q. Witness, the question is simply whether or not the fact that the
6 corps was disbanded was a good reason for not archiving the corps's
7 documents. Is that a good reason, in your opinion?
8 A. It's an academic question whether it's a good reason or not. We
9 should see --
10 Q. Witness --
11 A. We should try and determine why this was done. I don't know. But
12 whether it's a good reason or not, it's not a reason at all. Disbanding a
13 corps is not a reason to destroy the archives disbanding the corps.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think this
16 goes beyond the scope of General Radinovic's competence as an expert.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, one could wonder whether it does or not. But
18 since the witness has answered the question, we can proceed.
19 MR. MUNDIS: Simply, for the record, Mr. President, the witness
20 told us his doctoral dissertation is in the methodology of military
21 science, and that would seem to go right to the issue of maintaining
22 military records.
23 Q. Witness, I suggest to you that the SRK archives were intentionally
24 dismembered and dispersed. What is your reaction to that?
25 A. I really can't answer that question.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. The
2 relevance of the question with regard to the matter that we are interested
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: There is -- I think also this question has been
6 answered by the witness, that he says he doesn't know. But the objection
7 based on relevance is rejected.
8 MR. MUNDIS:
9 Q. Witness, I would ask now with the assistance of the usher that we
10 turn --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I don't
13 know if we will carry on and follow this line, but the objection also
14 concerns the chronological time frame. These events took place after what
15 we are interested in, after September 1994. If we're talking about the
16 disbanding of the Romanija Corps and as a result of the archives and also
17 of the loss of the archives, the voluntary loss of the archives, all of
18 this happened a long time after the relevant time period.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Of major
20 relevance for the sources still available for the experts to reconstruct
21 or to give us their opinion on what happened in the time before. I mean,
22 the mere fact that disbanding a corps took place later, it even, I would
23 say, from a logical point of view, that would be no case if the SRK would
24 have been disbanded during or before that time. So it's certainly
25 relevant, although mainly on the basis of sources available for experts to
1 base their opinion upon.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
3 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask now with the assistance of the usher that we
4 turn to what's marked as tab 4 in the witness's notes. And perhaps the
5 witness could be shown the first page to indicate who these notes refer
6 to. So if you could place just the first page on the ELMO.
7 Q. Witness, what you now have before you are the notes of your
8 interview with Marko Lugonja; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you please turn to the tab number 4. In order to save time,
11 we're skipping tab 3. Go to tab 4, please. This is ERN page number
12 01189449 and page 45 in the English translation.
13 If you could -- again to save time, ignore the highlighted portion
14 at the top and turn to the bottom of that page where there are two lines
15 indicated with the blue highlighter. Can you please read for us the two
16 lines that have been highlighted at the bottom of that page.
17 A. "General Lugonja said --" and I wrote this down" -- the snipers
18 weren't special units. They were part of units. They were within units.
19 The commander of the battalion and company issued tasks to snipers."
20 Q. And witness, this -- these two sentences refer to snipers within
21 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps --
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Sorry, Mr. Mundis. Which is the English page?
23 MR. MUNDIS: I believe -- it's page 45, I believe. You've found
24 it, Your Honour?
25 Q. Witness, these two sentences refer to snipers within the Sarajevo
1 Romanija Corps; is that correct?
2 A. In this corps, the units of the corps -- there's the corps it's an
3 organisational establishment structure, and it can have its units. But
4 here it says that the corps didn't have units, so the snipers didn't form
5 a special unit. They didn't form a unit, but the snipers -- it was a
6 military occupational specialty that existed within the units. And as
7 they were important, commanders of companies and battalions issued them
8 with tasks and they said which important military targets the snipers
9 should target. These were observations, couriers, targetsmen. These were
10 military targets, and the purpose of snipers is to fire at such targets.
11 Q. Witness, again, in order to save time I would ask if you could
12 please focus on the questions I'm asking. My question was: These two
13 sentences refer to snipers in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps?
14 A. Yes, to [Realtime transcript read in error "two"] snipers in the
15 Sarajevo Romanija Corps.
16 Q. Witness, I would now ask that you turn to the -- to the notes
17 of --
18 JUDGE ORIE: There might be some confusion. The answer was:
19 "Yes, to snipers in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps." But it appears in the
20 transcript as "T-W-O" as I understood it to be "T-o."
21 MR. MUNDIS: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
22 I would ask that the witness be shown -- I would ask if they could
23 please -- I'm hearing audible noises, Mr. President, from the Defence bar.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
25 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask now that the witness be shown the bundle that
1 includes tab number 6 -- or excuse me, number 5, the bundle with tab
2 number 5.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'm very sorry. I was trying
6 to reread the transcript. There are a lot of omissions in this
7 transcript. We would have to -- I'd have to discuss with Mrs. Pilipovic.
8 And if I hear comments that I can hear the Defence, well, we've left
9 school a long time ago. Things are going very fast. We can't listen to
10 the witness, concentrate on what the Prosecution is saying, try to find
11 the errors and do all this in silence as if we were telepathic. I don't
12 have such a talent, contrary to the Prosecution without a doubt.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Time will be
16 given to that. And if I may make a suggestion, whenever you keep your
17 earphones on, as I see Ms. Pilipovic does, you need a louder voice to
18 understand. So as long as one of you two conferring keeps his headphones
19 on, the automatic consequence will be that the -- that the other person
20 has to speak louder in order to be understood. So therefore, if you take
21 off your earphones while conferring, it will certainly assist in keeping
22 the level of noise down.
23 General Galic.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I shall make sure that I take
25 my headphones off next time.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was talking about Ms. Pilipovic.
2 General Galic, you're --
3 THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It seems that we have a
6 problem with the microphone. It doesn't seem to be working.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I see it's -- its light is on at this moment.
8 General Galic --
9 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you are conferring, rather not do it with the
11 microphone on. Yes, now it functions.
12 Was there anything you would like to --
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to confer,
14 Mr. President, after all of these statements. Could you please allow me
15 to do this.
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Give you an
17 opportunity to do so.
18 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We will then --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We haven't finished,
22 Mr. President. And so as not to make any noise and bother the
23 Prosecution, I will check the transcript in silence. Thank you.
24 Yes, Mr. President. The objection is that it seems that we're
25 talking about two different levels. The witness spoke about units when he
1 provided his answer in Serb, in the Serbian language, and the question
2 that followed in relation to that --
3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps this should be done in the absence of the
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Madam Usher, to escort the witness
9 out of the courtroom for a second.
10 General Radinovic --
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we continue, I understood the last
13 question to be whether it was within the Sarajevo Romanija Corps or within
14 any other corps. And if there would be any doubt as to that, we could
15 easily clarify that.
16 I do understand that the witness said that snipers were located in
17 the units and not directly related to the corps command but under the
18 command of the units. If that's the issue, I think we could clarify
19 that -- yes.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. But it
21 should be said that what we hear directly in the language of Shakespeare,
22 that is, the language used by Mr. Mundis, is not necessarily what the
23 witness hears. He does not necessarily understand the same thing. So
24 confusion might arise in the witness's mind, and this immediately -- this
25 is shared by General Galic and my colleague, so I think that the witness
1 could be confused too. In other words, what I'm saying is that the
2 witnesses given by the witness concern the level of the units themselves,
3 and the development of the question as it was understood by Mrs. Pilipovic
4 in her mother tongue might make one thing that one is referring to a
5 superior, higher level, the level of the corps, and this is of
6 considerable importance given the duties of the accused. So I think that
7 if this matter was clarified and we were said that you're talk about units
8 but these units of the Romanija Corps, in such a case things would be a
9 lot clearer. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: From the answers of the witness, I took it that he
11 was not that confused, that he was able to correct if there was any
12 misunderstanding. But we'll ask the witness.
13 And Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
14 courtroom again.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, when you told us about snipers
17 within the units of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, finally a question was
18 put to you by Mr. Mundis saying that whether you're referring to the
19 Sarajevo Romanija Corps, that is - at least that's how I understood
20 it - units within the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. And when you said yes, it
21 related to that, did you then intend to say to the units within the
22 Sarajevo Romanija Corps and not in another corps? Is that how I have to
23 understand your answer?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please try to understand the
25 difference between the units of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and the
1 Sarajevo Romanija Corps as a whole.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I finish?
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's perfectly clear. But none of your answers
5 related to anything outside the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; is that a correct
6 understanding? Not the Drina Corps or whatever other corps. You
7 understood the questions to be about what happened within the corps at
8 whatever level of units, platoons, or brigades, or -- that's how you
9 understood the questions?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But so that things are clear,
11 the item that we read out does not refer to sniper units under the command
12 of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps because there were no such units.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's perfectly clear.
14 There seems to be no confusion any more. Please proceed,
15 Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I would ask with
17 the assistance of the usher that the witness be shown those portions of
18 his notes that contain tabs 5, 6, and 7.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may I ask you
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor said that I would
23 help him to interpret some things that he wasn't able to read, and it
24 appears that these questions don't refer to that aspect but to what he
25 read, what he has understood, and what he wants to -- and he wants to
1 impose his understanding of these things on me. But there is something
2 that I would like to request too, and it's of a general nature: Since we
3 are dealing with notes that I took in the course of my discussions, and I
4 didn't take all the necessary precautions that one would take if you were
5 writing official documents, would you allow me to check how they read what
6 I wrote down, and they think that they read it correctly. Because I've
7 already seen that the context of my notes has been changed, and this could
8 have a certain effect. This could influence the way these notes are
9 understood. And if this is going to be a document that will be discussed
10 in the course of testimony and that will be given value as evidence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Prosecution is inviting you to read those
12 parts where they have difficulties either in reading, I take it, or
13 understanding what you exactly did write down. And of course the Chamber
14 is fully aware that short notes are not a verbatim record of your
15 interview and only point to some issues you thought sufficiently relevant
16 to write them down in brief words. And therefore, if there would be any
17 need to further explain, as you did before, when you said the -- something
18 happened only after 1994. If there is any such explanation needed in
19 order to not distort the meaning of what you did write down, you can give
20 that after you have answered the questions of the Prosecution. And if
21 there's any doubt as to whether there's a correct reading, I think that is
22 remedied by asking you to read out those parts of your notes. So if
23 there's any need for you to explain, please ask me and I'll give you an
24 opportunity to do so. But usually first answer the questions and then
25 explain if there seems to be any misunderstanding in the way the question
1 is put to you.
2 On the other hand, I have to inform you that of course both
3 parties are seeking to establish what they think is of importance for the
4 presentation of their case. So there will be a difference between Defence
5 and Prosecution in this respect.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
7 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 If the document could please again be placed with the front page
9 to indicate whom the witness was speaking to.
10 Q. It appears, witness, at the top, above the number - and again this
11 is ERN 01189450 - it appears that the name Makso is written. Is that what
12 that says at the top?
13 A. No.
14 Q. What --
15 A. It's not Makso. It's Marko.
16 Q. Marko. So again, this would be Marko Lugonja that you were
17 interviewing on this day; is that right?
18 A. I spoke to Lugonja on several occasions, but I'm not sure that
19 that was on the same day. I think that it actually wasn't on the same
20 day, because the rhythm with which this was written is different.
21 Q. The question was: These notes refer to an interview you conducted
22 with Marko Lugonja; is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Can you please turn to tab 5 of these notes.
25 MR. MUNDIS: This, Mr. President, is on page 46 in the
2 Q. You will see at the top, include the part where the staple is on
3 this document, two lines, both beginning with "Josipovic." Can you please
4 read out the top three lines, that is, the top two bullets, on the page
5 before you.
6 A. I'm reading. "Josipovic did not report on the problem with Vaske.
7 He was loyal to him, Vaske. The symbol this Vaske wore was a skull with a
8 helmet. That's the Vaske that the general had problems with.
9 Next bullet: "Josipovic was more in the power of politics than
10 the army."
11 Q. And witness, who is Josipovic?
12 A. Josipovic was an officer in the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. He was
13 the commander of the Ilijas Brigade, and on several occasions he was also
14 commander of the Vogosca Tactical Group when the Vogosca Tactical Group
15 was set up.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think we have a transcript
17 problem, Mr. President. I didn't listen to the English version. I don't
18 know this -- if this was translated or not in the English version, but it
19 seems to me that in the Serbian text there is a reference to UN -- sorry,
20 a reference to the N, 4N. I don't know if it is in the transcript or not.
21 Did you --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I see on the screen, that's the last two elements of
23 the second line of the -- of the document? Is that what you're referring
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Yes, exactly that. It's that, yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- General Radinovic, on the second line,
2 it seems something like "4N" or "NN" or -- I cannot -- could you please
3 tell us precisely what that stands for.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That means that this Vaske used to
5 wear a UN helmet with a skull drawn on it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And Mr. Piletta-Zanin, "4N" is still not -- I
7 do not know what word --
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: It's UN. It's not 4N. It's UN.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It's UN.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: Instead of 4N.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a United Nations helmet, UN
12 helmet, a helmet of an UNPROFOR member. That's what this Vaske was
13 wearing, with a skull painted on it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I do understand. It was a UN helmet but
15 something else painted on it.
16 Then -- thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.
19 Q. In order to save time if we could now turn to tab 7, which is ERN
20 page numbers 01189455, and page 51 in the English translation.
21 Witness, again, in order to save time, I'm only going to ask you
22 to read the first major bullet and then the four smaller bullets
23 underneath that. If you could please do that beginning with the very
24 first bullet -- actually, start with the title that that covers, please.
25 A. "Snipers." That's what you mean?
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. First bullet: "PAP." That's an abbreviation for a semi-automatic
3 rifle. "7.62 and 7.9 millimetres."
4 Q. Continue reading, please.
5 A. First subbullet: "This most of all, more than anything else, but
6 a small number."
7 Q. Continue, please.
8 A. To tell you the truth, I can hardly read this third subbullet. I
9 think it says "not developed."
10 Q. So you're having a difficult time reading your notes; is that
12 A. Certainly. Yes, precisely. It's really difficult for me to read
13 my own notes because during the interview I wrote this as a reminder. It
14 wasn't drawn up as a document.
15 Then fourth subbullet: "From the depot --" it says something like
16 "hunting weapons."
17 And the last subbullet says "untrained."
18 Shall I read on?
19 Q. Witness, the fourth subbullet, the one with "depots," does that
20 also indicate sniper rifles, sniper rifles from depots?
21 A. To tell you the truth, I really can't read it. "From the depot,
22 snipers were stolen to be used as hunting weapons," or "sniper rifles were
23 stolen as hunting weapons." I can't read any better than that.
24 Q. Thank you, witness. I think in order to save time, that's all
25 we'll be doing with the notes.
1 MR. MUNDIS: So, Madam Usher, if you could please retrieve all of
2 the notes.
3 Q. Now, witness, next I'd like to show you a document which was one
4 of the documents that was attached or filed with your report. There were,
5 as you know, about 130 documents that were filed with your expert report.
6 You reviewed all of those documents that were filed and attached -- or
7 attached to and filed with your report; isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. MUNDIS: With the assistance of the usher, I would ask that
10 this document be placed before the witness. We do have sufficient copies.
11 This was premarked as Defence 259; however, it doesn't seem to have been
12 tendered. We have clean copies without the D number on it.
13 Q. Witness, if you could please place that document on the ELMO so
14 that we can all see what it is you're --
15 MR. MUNDIS: Madam Usher has helped us.
16 Q. Witness, I would like you to read out loud the second paragraph of
17 this document, the paragraph beginning "Svima nama".
18 A. "We all care about liquidating as many Turkish converts as
19 possible but not at the cost of such political consequences as are caused
20 by shells or grenades falling on Sarajevo with minimum effects.
21 Q. And witness, this document was issued by the deputy commander of
22 the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. This order was delivered according to the delivery line to all
25 commands of SRK brigades and PKM; isn't that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. That document can be returned to the usher.
3 Witness, I'd now like to turn to that portion of your report where
4 you discuss the accused, General Galic. How long have you known the
5 accused for?
6 A. I don't know him very well personally. Perhaps we saw each other
7 a couple of times when he visited schools. But I don't know him
8 personally. We just know of each other. We are almost the same
9 generation. He is four years younger. We knew of each other, as I said,
10 but we were not friends and we don't know each other well enough so that I
11 can give you some information about him that is not reflected in documents
12 or in other sources.
13 Q. When you were preparing your report, witness, did you speak to
14 General Galic? Did you interview him or speak to him about preparing your
16 A. No.
17 Q. Witness, as the commander of the military police in Ljubljana for
18 several years, the accused would have had a thorough understanding and
19 knowledge of military law and disciplinary matters. In this capacity, you
20 would have expected that he would have been thoroughly familiar with the
21 military criminal justice system by the time that he arrived at the
22 commander of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps; isn't that right?
23 A. I think that the criminal legal system is not within the
24 competence of the military police, and I would not be expected to be very
25 familiar with criminal law.
1 Q. Witness, the question is not necessarily whether the military
2 police controlled the military criminal justice system. But as a
3 commander of a military criminal police unit, he certainly would have had
4 familiarity with military law, would he not?
5 A. Not more than an average -- than an officer of average education.
6 Military police has its own job. It doesn't deal with criminal
8 Q. How would the military police be in a position to enforce the law
9 if they don't know what the law is?
10 A. Military police receives assignments, assignments that are very
11 specific, assignments to search, to take into custody, to keep territory
12 under control, to protect the command post, to organise patrols, to
13 protect checkpoints. That's what the police does. And if the prosecutor
14 orders the police to take someone into custody, they comply. They don't
15 ask whether the prosecutor is right or not, or the investigative judge or
16 whoever it is that issues such warrants.
17 Q. In your opinion --
18 A. That is what I know about it. That's as much as I know. You're
19 asking me if I'm familiar with this. I'm really not.
20 Q. According to your report, witness, and in your opinion I believe
21 it's fair to say that you've written that the accused had a stellar
22 military career. He served as a member of Tito's escort battalion. You
23 characterise that as being indicative that he had joined the elite of the
24 JNA, and you wrote that that indicated early in his career that he was
25 destined for senior command. Is that a fair characterisation of the
1 information in your report?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, witness, based on the interviews that you conducted, would
4 you say that the accused was well liked and well respected among his
5 subordinates and his senior subordinate commanders?
6 A. I have much less information about this than you could have heard
7 from witnesses that testified in defence of General Galic. They gave you
8 their views and judgments about him. I didn't ask his subordinates what
9 they thought of him because it is simply indecent for a person outside
10 their circle, outside their units, to ask such questions about the
11 commander. It would be contrary to military ethics to ask questions about
12 the commander of his subordinates, and I refrained from asking them.
13 Q. Based on the research done in conducting your report to include
14 the interviews that you conducted, is it fair to say, based on what you've
15 read and the information that came into your possession, that the accused
16 demanded high standards from himself and from his corps?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you say again, based on the research and information that
19 came into your possession in compiling your report, that the accused was
20 respected by members of his corps?
21 A. That is difficult to conclude from these documents. All I know
22 from the documents is that the command system did function. That is an
23 indicator of their relationship between the commander and the subordinates
24 and vice versa. Also in my report and in my earlier testimony I spoke
25 about impeding factors that were present in General Galic's command
1 system, from higher politic, UNPROFOR, media, et cetera.
2 Q. Witness, the question was a relatively straightforward one: Based
3 on the information that you reviewed, the documents, the interviews, et
4 cetera, was the corps commander respected by his subordinates?
5 A. Well, apart from certain exceptions, yes, he was held in very high
7 Q. Witness, given the training, experience, these high standards that
8 he held, and this respect that he garnered from his troops, if- and I
9 stress here the word "if" - if the accused were to be convicted of the
10 charges for which he faces, that finding would be all the more
11 reprehensible because of his standing and position. Do you agree with
13 A. I did not understand your question. I really tried to follow, but
14 I couldn't understand. If you could be -- put it more briefly.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. And
16 I want to formulate -- to express my objection in the absence of the
17 witness, unless Mr. Mundis wants to withdraw the question.
18 MR. MUNDIS: No, Mr. President. We do not want to withdraw the
19 question. And I would ask that the witness be escorted out of the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Madam Usher, would you please escort the
22 witness out of the courtroom.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. I'm reading here,
1 Mr. President, in the language of Falstaff, that the term "reprehensible".
2 What matters, in fact, what implies a strictly ethical notion. It's not a
3 fact. It's a value judgment, to know whether the conduct of a certain
4 individual was reprehensible or not and at the same time - this is the
5 second level - also in the language of Othello, if you say would this make
6 the charges against General Galic even worse. Now you are putting the
7 witness in a situation when he is no longer able to testify about facts
8 that he knows of but he's made to talk about things that he only can know
9 by inference. This is a whole scene that should not be allowed to be
10 played out here.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I will interpret that as being an
13 objection on the grounds of relevance. Certainly it's relevant in the
14 sense that the Prosecution has an obligation to put before the Trial
15 Chamber any evidence that might go to a sentence in the event the accused
16 were to be convicted. I stressed in my question if, I repeated that word
17 twice. The question goes to the issue of sentencing and what we are
18 trying to establish is in light of the accused's experience, reputation,
19 training, and background as set forth by this witness in his report and in
20 his testimony, whether or not that would be a particularly -- those -- the
21 accused's background would be relevant to sentencing. And the Prosecution
22 position would be in effect, to use a metaphor, "the bigger they are, the
23 harder they fall," in the sense that as a senior commander with an
24 outstanding record, if he were to be convicted, that that would be
25 particularly reprehensible. And that's what the question goes to. It's
1 an issue with respect to sentencing. And the Prosecution feels that under
2 the Rules we are obligated to do this in light of the fact that we do not
3 have bifurcated sentencing procedures before this Tribunal. And that's
4 the relevance of this question.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, briefly. The
8 Prosecution is confusing witness and Judges. Here is a question that
9 should interest a Judge or Judges but not the witness. To know what is
10 the degree of guilt of someone, supposing such guilt exists, that's not a
11 question for the witness. And to ask it in such a manner amounts to
12 badgering the witness -- perhaps not badgering, but putting him in a very
13 sensitive situation. And it is this attitude, quasi-psychological
14 treatment, that we object to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, this is important evidence, the
17 Prosecution submits, because one of the things that the Trial Chamber
18 might have recourse to in the event the accused was to be convicted would
19 be information concerning community standards with respect to sentence.
20 This witness comes from in effect the same community that the accused
21 does, and his views, therefore, would be particularly probative and
22 relevant with respect to a sentence. That's why we're leading this
23 evidence -- or that's why we're seeking to lead this evidence,
24 Mr. President. It doesn't -- we're not asking this witness questions
25 about guilt or innocence. We're simply asking him that in the event the
1 accused were to be found guilty, how he would characterise or how he would
2 view that in light of the accused's background experience.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. There is the facts the
5 Prosecution would like to draw the attention to have been dealt with in
6 previous questions, and their very last question does not assist the
7 Chamber in making determinations, if the Chamber will have to do so.
8 Therefore, we -- I'll ask Madam Usher to escort the witness into the
9 courtroom again.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, in light of the time, I was going to
13 suggest that perhaps now would be a time for a break, in light of the fact
14 that there's -- the following subjects will require quite a bit of time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then adjourn -- I'm sorry for you,
16 General, that we asked you to come back and then adjourn at that same
18 We'll adjourn until five minutes to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, are you ready to proceed?
22 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
24 MR. MUNDIS:
25 Q. Witness, just a couple of follow-up questions from prior to the
1 break. You testified on the 7th of March about the accused. And as part
2 of that testimony, there was some fine detail about his personal
3 circumstances, including issues related to his family situation. You've
4 told us that you didn't interview the accused. How is it that it came
5 into your possession this -- these details concerning the accused's family
7 A. I went to Banja Luka on a study trip, and I visited Mrs. Galic. I
8 spoke to her, and these are things that I found out from speaking to her.
9 Q. Witness, where in your report do you indicate that Mrs. Galic was
10 a source of information that you relied upon in producing your report?
11 A. Well, you don't think I should have mentioned that Mrs. Galic told
12 me that she had information of any kind that was important for my report.
13 You just asked me how I was familiar with the family background, and this
14 is not a matter I dealt with in the report.
15 Q. But you certainly included information that you received from
16 Mrs. Galic in your report; isn't that right?
17 A. No. No. It was a visit which I -- which was a matter of
18 courtesy. I went to Banja Luka with the Defence, and we visited the
19 family as a matter of courtesy, and I listened to what she had to say and
20 there were certain things that I knew about in any case, as an informed
21 officer, a well-informed officer, I knew most of the officers from our
22 army, and it's quite simply something that I knew.
23 Q. Well, witness, you've told us now here today that you spoke to
24 Mrs. Galic. Is that -- in Banja Luka. You've told us that just now.
25 Where in your report do you specify the information that you obtained from
1 Mrs. Galic in producing this report? Where do you cite to that?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I be allowed
3 not to answer questions that don't have to do with the subject that we are
4 discussing. I visited Mrs. Galic as a matter of courtesy. I wasn't
5 alone, and we didn't discuss anything that might be relevant to this
6 trial. Don't ask me to remember and to improvise, because these are
7 conversations that are quite customary when you visit someone.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Of course there's nothing against visiting
9 Mrs. Galic. But when you're asked what was the source of your knowledge
10 of family details and you describe a few family details in your report,
11 your answer was "I went to Banja Luka on a study trip and I visited
12 Mrs. Galic. I spoke to her, and these are things that I found out from
13 speaking to her." So what you said is that these family details, that you
14 knew about them on the basis of a conversation, even if it was a matter of
15 courtesy that you visited Mrs. Galic, on the basis of a conversation with
16 Mrs. Galic.
17 The only thing the Prosecution at this moment seems to do is to
18 explore whether all the sources - and you just indicated that this was a
19 source in this respect - are written down in your report being the source
20 of your information. That's what the Prosecution asked you about.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The information that we have just
22 exchanged, these aren't things that I mentioned in the report, and
23 therefore I was under no obligation to mention this as a source. I don't
24 know why this matter being addressed. But if it is really important, I'm
25 quite ready to discuss this subject.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's not a matter of major importance, as a
2 matter of fact, but you testified yourself that the family details you did
3 write down in your report, that you learnt them from Mrs. Galic.
4 That's four minutes ago, it was you yourself who testified that this was
5 your source, and then the next question was why this source was not
6 mentioned in the report.
7 But I don't know whether it's of major importance to further
8 explore this matter.
9 MR. MUNDIS: We'll move on, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
11 MR. MUNDIS:
12 Q. Witness, during your military career, have you ever personally
13 been in combat?
14 A. I'm afraid not.
15 Q. So it would equally be true that you've never commanded troops in
16 a combat situation.
17 A. Not in a combat situation. I've been involved in training in
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness said
20 "fortunately, I have not been involved in combat".
21 MR. MUNDIS:
22 Q. Witness, I'd like to turn now to the second half of your report,
23 pages 101 through 195. In this part of your report, you provide an
24 in-depth analysis of the charges against the accused. And in reaching
25 these conclusions, you relied on all the sources listed at the beginning
1 of your report. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, of course it is. But if you ask me about some specific
3 source, I'd be able to provide you with a more concrete answer. But you
4 can only answer a general question in general terms.
5 Q. And as part of the process of reaching your conclusions, you
6 considered all the material together and assessed the credibility of the
7 material and weighed the relative weights to be given to all this
8 material. You did all of these things so that your report would be
9 objective. Is that a fair summary of what you've done?
10 A. Yes, that's how you proceed in general. If someone uses sources,
11 the sources that are considered to be relevant are selected. Various
12 sources have varying kinds of value, as information.
13 Q. And, witness, would you consider that the role that you have
14 undertaken in this case is one of being an independent expert?
15 A. Yes, I would.
16 Q. And that's equally true of the role that you played in both the
17 Foca and Krstic cases as well.
18 A. I strive to be independent. My answer is yes.
19 Q. Do you consider yourself to be biased in any way with respect to
20 the parties to the conflict in Bosnia?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You've told us that you've reviewed tens of thousands of pages of
23 documents. Based on your analysis of these documents and the other
24 sources that you relied upon, would you say that the conclusions in your
25 report are definitive?
1 A. I haven't understood your question. What do you mean when you say
2 "definitive"? It was translated as "definitive." I don't know if that is
3 what you said. It was translated as "final."
4 Q. Based on the documents that you've reviewed and the other source
5 material, are the conclusions that you've reached in your opinion
6 conclusive? Are they definitive?
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have to intervene at this
10 point, and I'm doing this out of respect for everyone. It's possible that
11 the witness might be troubled, but I have to say this in front of him
12 because contrary to what you said, Mr. President, a minute ago, the
13 Prosecution did not ask why -- didn't want to find out why this witness
14 did not mention the sources or, rather, Mrs. Galic, to whom he referred
15 himself. The Prosecution only wanted to find or should only find out
16 where these sources are mentioned in the report. And as these questions
17 were put to the witness -- but perhaps he didn't understand the difference
18 between the question of why asked by -- and where, which is the question
19 asked by the Prosecution. Perhaps the witness is in a delicate situation.
20 So in our opinion, there is an error -- the Prosecution isn't asking
21 about why, it's asking about where in the text. And I think that the
22 witness would feel at great ease if the question were put to him in this
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: A few minutes ago you were asked about mentioning
1 your visit to Mrs. Galic as a source of your -- a source of your opinion.
2 Later on I explained - and perhaps not for the full 100 per cent
3 correct - the reason why these questions were put to you. There were no
4 further questions put to you. When you were asked about mentioning the
5 source, was there any confusion on your side as to the answer you would
6 have to give to those answers -- to those questions?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was confused seeing
8 that in such serious proceedings that deal with such a serious subject
9 such as the war in the Sarajevo theatre, I was confused by the fact that
10 certain matters were being investigated that had to do with events that
11 concern courtesy, which are matters of courtesy. I can see some pretty
12 ladies in front of me, but these aren't sources of information that I
13 would mention. I'm quite relaxed. Now I can answer any question --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you. Were you confused on the
15 issue I just mentioned to you? Was there any other confusion, apart from
16 the one you have mentioned, that you thought that more important matters
17 would be the subject of debate in this court? Was there any other
18 confusion, as far as the questions are concerned? I mean, would you have
19 answered those questions in a different way? I think, as a matter of
20 fact, that -- no. Would you have answered these questions in a different
21 way depending on whether the Prosecution would like to establish whether
22 you did not mention them or why you didn't mention them?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer any questions put to me
24 by the Prosecution to the extent that I have knowledge about such matters.
25 When I went to see Mrs. Galic, I didn't go there to investigate anything,
1 and this was not a source of information for my report.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I went with the Defence to pay her a
4 visit, when I was on my study trip.
5 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, yes, you're repeating now what you
6 say, which contradicts your own testimony. But -- then perhaps your
7 testimony is --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I still don't understand what the
9 sense of the question is. I still don't understand it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then let me -- do you have to
11 make -- you've now explained why you did not mention your visit to
12 Mrs. Galic as a source in your report. That's clear. Is there anything
13 else to be clarified?
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I just
15 wanted to clarify this issue, and I thank you for that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
17 MR. MUNDIS:
18 Q. Witness, you told us that you've reviewed tens of thousands of
19 pages of documents and you've had recourse to other sources as well. On
20 the basis of all of these materials that you've reviewed, would you say
21 that in your report you have clearly demonstrated that the accused is not
22 guilty of the charges for which he's accused?
23 A. Yes, I would.
24 Q. And you would testify here today that you found no evidence that
25 he was responsible for the sniping and shelling of the civilian population
1 in Sarajevo or no evidence that the accused was responsible for
2 terrorising the civilian population of the city of Sarajevo; is that
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. And in producing your report, did you consider any evidence that
6 might contradict the position advanced by the accused? And if you did,
7 can you please cite us to a page or paragraph in your report where you
8 acknowledge the truth of any of that contradictory evidence?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object because the question
12 is in fact so complicated, if we bear in mind the structure of the
13 indictment and the reference to Article 3 or 7, and it would require the
14 competence of a legal expert. And perhaps General Radinovic does not have
16 JUDGE ORIE: The last question put to the witness is not something
17 that would need legal expertise.
18 The question to you was whether there -- where to find in your
19 report reference to evidence that contradicts your findings, just by
20 giving an example of such a place.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My report consists of 200 pages, and
22 it would be difficult for me now to find the references that the
23 Prosecution has asked for. But I did analyse --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We're not asking you to give the full -- and the
25 Prosecution doesn't ask you to give the full set of where you made
1 reference to evidence that contradicts the position of the Defence but to
2 just -- as an indication to give one or several examples of where you paid
3 specifically attention to evidence that would be contrary to the evidence
4 presented by the Defence.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report, I analysed the
6 operative positions of the parties involved in the conflict, and in that
7 part of the analysis I discussed the thesis that appears in the indictment
8 and in supplementary material and in testimonies of witnesses and in other
9 secondary material that deals with the Sarajevo Romanija Corps at all
10 elevated positions around Sarajevo. And by using the map and video
11 cassettes and in my report, I contested this thesis by referring to
12 specific empirical facts that I established when investigating the matter
13 for this testimony. And if we are discussing the weapons that the parties
14 in the conflict had, it's also possible to find in my report a part that
15 mentions the fact that it is not correct to claim that the 1st BH army
16 Corps was not armed and that in Sarajevo there was only the civilian
17 population and not the army. I have presented before this Trial Chamber
18 and I have also mentioned this in my report, I have mentioned a lot of
19 documents which show that the entire city of Sarajevo was an enormous
20 military target. The commander of the 1st BH army Corps has also
21 testified here and a commander of one of his brigades, an expert, a
22 shelling expert, and they all --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you. You're not -- you're not answering
24 the question. You're now explaining to us on the basis of what
25 circumstances you find the indictment to be incorrect. The question,
1 however, was a totally different one. The question was: Where in your
2 report evidence that would contradict the Defence positions - and you
3 referred now to evidence that would support the Defence positions - where
4 such evidence can be found in your report. So evidence that, I would say,
5 would be in favour of the Prosecution and against the Defence rather than
6 the other way around, where to find that in the report. That's the
7 question to you. And just give a few examples of that. That's what the
8 Prosecution asked you to do. Could you please answer that question.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I based my report above all on
10 documents. I said this.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I was asking
13 the same thing as the witness. He should be allowed to refer to his
14 report because he has to answer on the basis of his report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There was no need to intervene at this very
17 Could you answer, whether by referring to your report, whether you
18 could do it by heart. If you would need your report, then please ask for
19 a copy if you haven't got one so that you can refer to the pages. But
20 could you please answer the question.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the documents from the BH army
22 1st Corps contain information and mentioned facts that support the
23 Prosecution's thesis. Part of the documents or some of the facts referred
24 to in those documents which I have mentioned here support the Defence. So
25 none of the documents that I referred to, none of the documents from the
1 archives of the 1st Corps of the BH army, are documents which fully
2 support the Defence thesis. But to a large extent they support the
3 Prosecution thesis. So I didn't select documents. I wasn't biased. I
4 analysed the documents that presented the best overview of the military
5 situation which would allow one to determine whether General Galic was
6 responsible or not. If the responsibility of some other commander in the
7 2nd Corps was concerned, I would have reversed the situation. I would
8 have analysed things differently. But we're dealing with the
9 responsibility of General Galic and of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, so
10 naturally one looks for facts that are for or against this, that support
11 this thesis or deny it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So if I do understand your answer well, you say where
13 I referred to documents of the 1st Corps, that's where you find in my
14 report facts that contradict the Defence case and seem to support, at
15 least to some extent, the Prosecution's case. That's a clear answer.
16 That's where we find it in your report.
17 Mr. Mundis, please proceed.
18 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 I would ask that the witness be shown map 1913, Defence map 1913.
20 It's not necessary to place it on the ELMO, usher. I just want to
21 refresh the witness's recollection as to which map we're talking about.
22 So as long as he's got that.
23 Q. Witness, looking at map D1913, it would appear that the city of
24 Sarajevo is riddled with legitimate military targets in your opinion; is
25 that right?
1 A. And here it's [indiscernible] to an extent in comparison to what
2 the actual situation was. There are far more targets, in fact.
3 Q. Okay. So in reality, there would be even more targets than are
4 indicated on that map.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It would seem, witness, that if what you're saying is right, that
7 any mortar, artillery, tank, triple A round, or any small arm fire that
8 hit a civilian in the city could be explained away as having been intended
9 for a legitimate military target but that the round went astray. Do you
10 accept that? Is that right?
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I object because the question
14 as it stands is very general. It would be necessary to be more specific.
15 It would be necessary to relate it to the presence of an attack, the
16 absence of an attack, et cetera, et cetera.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, a further specification of the question
19 would prevent answers that do not assist the Chamber.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MR. MUNDIS:
22 Q. Witness, if -- you've told us that there were even more targets
23 than you put on the map. You've told us that a couple of times. Is that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. If you were to put all of the targets on that map, would there be
2 any area at all in the city of Sarajevo that wasn't a legitimate military
4 A. No, there wouldn't.
5 Q. So based on your analysis of the information, the entire city of
6 Sarajevo was a legitimate military target?
7 A. A legitimate target was any place where there was -- where there
8 were army troops, on the Serbian side and on the presidency side. That's
9 the term that is used.
10 Q. My question was a slightly different one: Based on your analysis
11 of the information and what you've just told us, the entire city of
12 Sarajevo would seem to be a legitimate military target in your opinion?
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
14 Since we're talking about the entire city of Sarajevo, does this also
15 include Nedzarici, Grbavica, Ilijas, et cetera?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
17 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I would refer you in my LiveNote to
18 page 44, line 5, the response which the witness gave. He certainly could
19 have clarified that had he chosen to but did not do so.
20 I would also note that the witness didn't seem to have any
21 confusion with respect to the question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: When you said that there would not be any area that
23 would not -- on the map that wasn't a legitimate military target, I take
24 it that you referred - but please tell me if I'm wrong - you referred to
25 the area under the control of the BiH forces. Is that correct?
1 A. I said - and I don't know if it's on the transcript - that
2 anywhere where you have troops, both on the Muslim and the Serbian side,
3 it is a legitimate military target. Where you have are military resources
4 is a place that is a military target.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That was your next answer. But your first
6 answer was -- you were asked. I'll read it literally to you:.
7 Mr. Mundis said: "Witness --" no, let me just see. Yes. You were asked:
8 "If you were to put all the targets on that map, would there be any area
9 at all in the city of Sarajevo that wasn't a legitimate military target?"
10 Your answer then was: "No, there wouldn't." Were you then referring to
11 the BiH-controlled areas or to the other areas as well?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the entire city of Sarajevo,
13 including Grbavica, including Nedzarici, Ilidza, Vogosca, because there
14 were troops everywhere. Anywhere where you have troops is a legitimate
15 military target.
16 JUDGE ORIE: But then putting military targets on the map, you
17 restricted yourself to the BiH-controlled area, didn't you?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Said that
20 there would be more military targets than those indicated on the map, you
21 referred to that same area on which you marked the military targets,
22 didn't you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, if you were asked about what would be the
25 consequence of putting all military targets on the map, it seems logical
1 that you're referring to that same area.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I was referring to that area.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Q. Witness, in reviewing the evidence of the specific scheduled
6 sniping and shelling incidents, what evidence did you review in reaching
7 the conclusions that the accused was not guilty of those offences?
8 A. I studied all of these incidents. I listened to testimony. I
9 have studied all the documents. I have taken into account the military
10 resources that were located in the part of Sarajevo for which
11 General Galic is charged. And I came to the conclusion that Sarajevo was
12 packed with military targets, that those targets were legitimate, and that
13 the greatest suffering was incurred in exchanges of fire because it is
14 absolutely natural to expect that if there is outgoing fire from the city,
15 there would be a response. This is the conclusion reached from the
16 information that was available to me. As for specific incidents, you had
17 testimony on that, you had experts, and there was no reason for me to
18 study them in particular, in addition to what they said here and what they
19 have prepared for this.
20 Q. So I take it from that answer, witness, that you didn't feel it
21 was necessary to review the specific evidence put before the Trial Chamber
22 relating to the specific scheduled sniping and shelling incidents. Is
23 that what you're telling us?
24 A. No. You didn't understand me very well. I have studied all the
25 testimony heard here.
1 Q. You just said, "As for specific incidents, you had testimony on
2 that, you had experts, and there was no reason for me to study them in
3 particular, in addition to what they said here and what they have prepared
4 for this."
5 A. But please read the sentence before that. I said that I have
6 studied all that and that I have heard all the testimony, but I did not
7 make a detailed investigation and research into each and every incident
8 because that's not my role here.
9 Q. Witness, can you point us to any citation or reference in your
10 report to the actual testimony or evidence relating to any of the specific
11 victims of a scheduled sniping or shelling incident?
12 A. In a footnote I wrote that sniping incidents are a matter that
13 needs to be investigated by an expert. A military expert cannot analyse
14 every detail separately because my report would then be 10.000 pages long.
15 Q. Witness, you have written in your report and testified here today
16 that you reached the conclusion that the accused was not guilty with
17 respect to the sniping and shelling charges. How is it possible for you
18 to reach that conclusion unless you had recourse to the evidence with
19 respect to those incidents on the particular day and time that the
20 incidents allegedly occurred?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
22 It's a tendentious question.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied by a majority decision,
25 Judge Nieto-Navia dissenting.
1 MR. MUNDIS:
2 Q. Witness, would you like me to repeat the question?
3 A. Yes, please.
4 Q. You have written in your report and testified here today that you
5 reached the conclusion that the accused was not guilty with respect to the
6 sniping and shelling charges. How is it possible for you to reach that
7 conclusion unless you had recourse to the evidence with respect to those
8 incidents on the particular day and time that the incidents allegedly
10 A. First of all, I said that I have studied all the incidents that
11 are alleged in the indictment, but I didn't go to the spot where it
12 happened as an expert for sniping to study that myself. I studied other
13 people's analyses. I don't see what else I could have done.
14 Q. Witness, I'm not asking you if you conducted an investigation.
15 I'm simply asking you where in your report you specify which evidence
16 regarding the specific incidents that you relied upon, whether it was
17 witness testimony, victim testimony, medical records, et cetera. Where in
18 your report do you indicate the material you relied on with respect to the
19 specific scheduled sniping and shelling incidents?
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, insofar as the
21 witness does not listen to Falstaff's language, he only hears the
22 interpretation, it would be good for the Prosecutor to clarify his
23 question, as well as his previous question, because he's now talking about
24 a different question, not the one he asked before that.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the question I asked before that was
1 answered, and then I moved on to another question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would agree. Because when Mr. Mundis repeated
3 the question, he literally repeated that question. The question was then
4 answered, and then the next question started with: "Witness, I'm not
5 asking you if you --" so referring to --
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then, Mr. Mundis, you continued: "I'm
8 simply asking you." And that was not a repetition of your previous. So
9 you put a question to the witness, and we had an objection. Then you
10 repeated the same question and you got an answer, which in your view was
11 not an answer to the question. And then you said "I'm simply asking you,"
12 and then the question that follows is not exactly the same as you put
13 before to the witness. So if you would please clarify that, we'll avoid
14 whatever confusion.
15 MR. MUNDIS:
16 Q. Witness, are there any references in your report to the testimony
17 of victims or witnesses to the scheduled sniping and shelling incidents?
18 A. There is shelling -- we're talking about the football match in
19 Dobrinja, about Mahala, about the Ciglane shelling. As for sniping, I
20 viewed it as a general problem, not as incidents. I bore in mind that the
21 Defence and the Prosecution both have experts especially for that, and I
22 didn't view my role as involving the review of specific sniping incidents.
23 I viewed sniping and treated it as a military problem, and that's what I
24 wrote about in my statement.
25 As far as this is concerned, I dealt with it in detail and my
1 report contains a particular chapter on this issue --
2 Q. Witness --
3 A. -- With references to documents.
4 Q. With respect to the Ciglane shelling, what expert report did you
5 review concerning that incident?
6 A. I dealt with Ciglane in my conclusion number 33 of the report,
7 saying that in some of the accompanying documents it was said that Ciglane
8 neighbourhood suffered because fire was returned by the Sarajevo Romanija
9 Corps. That is in conclusion number 33 in my report.
10 Q. Witness, the question was: You've told us that you have
11 reviewed --
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The
13 first of the questions was not which expert he had or which expert report
14 he read but if he read any expert report referring to Ciglane. I am
15 reminding you that the witness is listening to interpretation and that the
16 appropriate linguistic and semantic distance needs to be taken into
18 JUDGE ORIE: Was there any confusion? Did you review any expert
19 report on Ciglane?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I reviewed a sea of material about
21 shelling, and as far as I can remember now I first studied all of that and
22 then the Defence team, as I could conclude, this incident with Ciglane was
23 written off in the indictment and I didn't deal with it any more. But I
24 mentioned this in my report in order to illustrate how certain
25 neighbourhoods come to suffer consequences because fire is opened from
1 them against the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and when fire is returned, these
2 neighbourhoods suffer. And I illustrated this using the example of
3 Ciglane. That's all there is to it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Are you able to repeat what I asked you?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You asked me whether I have studied
6 material about the Ciglane incident.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I asked whether you studied an expert report on
8 Ciglane. Did you study any expert report on Ciglane?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Please
11 proceed, Mr. Mundis.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. Let me turn back to the map D1913 that you have before you.
14 Witness, there's no date or range of dates or scale indicated on that map,
15 is there?
16 A. I don't understand the question.
17 Q. The map that you produced, D1913, does it have a date on it,
18 indicating the date of the information that's on that map?
19 A. You mean the date when they happened or when -- the date when I
20 put them? I don't understand you again.
21 Q. You reviewed about 25 --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
23 MR. MUNDIS: I'll clarify the question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is it -- would that help you out, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
25 if the question would be clarified?
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Are we talking about this map?
2 MR. MUNDIS: We're talking about D1913, with the numerous coloured
3 circle that is the witness produced.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's the map that is in front of the witness.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Unfortunately I did not number
6 it myself, but is it this map?
7 MR. MUNDIS: Yes.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could I just check the
9 witness's map, Your Honour.
10 MR. MUNDIS: Your Honour, if Mr. Piletta-Zanin is going to point
11 out that the map actually has a date by the company that produced the map,
12 that's not the issue.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the issue.
14 Is that the problem you have, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, no.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's -- when we are talking about maps, one date --
17 Okay. Please tell us what the problem is.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thought -- but
19 it just disappeared from my screen because I'm trying to focus as much as
20 I can. In the question put by Mr. Mundis, it is asserted that there is no
21 scale on this map. However, I can read here, under "D," in quadrant D,
22 13 -- something that looks like a scale.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Map you're
24 using that --
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's the question I was
1 asking, if we're talking about the same map. Here down below. It may be
2 that this was erased during printing --
3 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Could I see
4 both maps -- I'd like to see the maps so that we see whether we're talking
5 about the same map or not.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It may be that working with a
7 document used for preparations --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I please have both maps.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since I have only
11 that copy, it may be that it's not completely identical. It's a working
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, when we are talking about maps, we
14 are talking about the maps as they get numbers, that's D1913 and that
15 should be the same as the map you're referring to. Would you please
16 refrain from referring to maps that are not produced and are different --
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... And would you
19 please be more restrictive in your objections, because this is not a way
20 to interfere in the --
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] My apologies.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
23 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Witness, you've told us that this map was created on the basis of
25 about 25 documents which were then admitted into evidence or tendered into
1 evidence under Defence number 1915. Is that right?
2 A. 24.
3 Q. 24. I'm sorry, that's right. Because one of them I think you
4 said was a --
5 A. But you have cardinal numbers from 1 to 25, and 16 is missing,
6 number 16 is missing, so we have 25 numbers and only 24 documents.
7 Q. Okay. Now, those documents, those 24 documents, were the primary
8 sources for the information that you've placed on map D1913; is that
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The 24 documents have a wide range of dates; isn't that right? Or
12 were all of those 24 documents produced on the same day?
13 A. No, they were not produced on the same day, but they all referred
14 to the units which were located in the area of responsibility in question
15 throughout the war. So the timing absolutely does not affect the data
16 about the accuracy of targets within the city.
17 Q. Well, witness, wouldn't it be correct, however, that -- to state
18 that this map represents an accumulation of information covering the dates
19 or the range of dates that the underlying documents reflect?
20 A. In replying to questions in chief, I talked about this map. I
21 said it was produced based on data collected from various documents,
22 documents of different types and provenance to illustrate the position
23 that Sarajevo held an entire armed corps, from 10 to 15 brigades, and
24 that's what I have shown here in this graph.
25 Q. Witness, my question --
1 A. And that is the purport of this map. It is not the purpose of the
2 map for every little circle to bear a date, although every little circle
3 does bear a date, indicating which target it refers to, which location,
4 and which date. We can easily establish that.
5 Q. That's what my question goes to, witness. The fact of the matter
6 is that not all of these targets were at the locations marked on this map
7 on the same day. The map was --
8 A. No, not on the same day.
9 Q. So this map represents an accumulation based on the 24 documents
10 that you produced. You went through the documents, and if on a given day
11 a unit was at a specific location, you marked that on the map.
12 A. You seem to be using the term "accumulation" in a context in which
13 I don't think you should be using it. "Accumulation" doesn't mean that
14 I'm showing several targets than actually existed based on various
15 documents. A brigade can only have one firing group. In this 102nd
16 Brigade, there is only one firing group, not two. It is only drawn in to
17 show that on this 1st February of 1994 it was located here. I didn't draw
18 two of them.
19 Q. I understand, witness.
20 A. So you don't use the term "accumulation" meaning that there was an
21 accumulation of targets.
22 Q. I'm not trying to suggest that there was. What I'm trying to
23 suggest is that the circles which you drew on these maps came from
24 documents with a wide range of dates, so that this map does not produce a
25 picture of the city of Sarajevo on any given date but, rather, reflects
1 the placement of these targets on particular dates as reflected in the 24
3 A. These are only selected documents concerning brigades that were
4 permanently located in these locations. In terms of territory covered,
5 there was absolutely no dynamics. It is here, whether it's called the 3rd
6 or the 102nd, until March 1993, it was called 3rd and from then on it was
7 called 102nd Motorised Brigade. But they were there.
8 Q. Witness --
9 A. Both before and after March 1994.
10 Q. Due to time constraints, witness, I'm sorry, but I need to cut you
11 off. The question - I'll repeat it if you'd like me to - but the question
12 goes to the dates that the symbols on the map refer to. My question
13 simply is: Does the map reflect the situation on one day or does the
14 information reflected on the map represent information that you obtained
15 on a variety of dates, as reflected in the 24 documents?
16 A. This map provides a rough image of the military targets in
17 Sarajevo while General Galic had a mandate, during his term of office.
18 That was the purpose of this map. And I'd like to repeat this. It's an
19 illustration. It doesn't include everything, because all the targets
20 couldn't be represented, because they're nothing -- it wouldn't be
21 possible to see anything in the city given the numerous targets.
22 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, there seems to be a kind of a
23 Babelonic situation where the Prosecution asks you repeatedly a question
24 and you repeatedly are explaining something which is not directly related
25 to the question. Do I understand your testimony well that this map does
1 not reflect all military positions but only a selection?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Do I understand you well that the markings you made
4 were on the basis of documents which bear a different date?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And that, therefore, this map reflects the positions,
7 at least on those dates and not necessarily all of them on one date?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's true that it doesn't reflect
9 the positions on just one date, but it reflects the positions in that
10 area. And I recorded those positions on that date.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's perfectly clear.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Q. Witness, you told us a few days ago that the Sarajevo Romanija
15 Corps or Republika Srpska had six goals and that the destruction of
16 Sarajevo was not one of those goals. Is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And I think you also told us that you had never seen any SRK
19 documents indicating that the destruction of Sarajevo was a goal of either
20 Republika Srpska or the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. Is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. MUNDIS: With the assistance of the usher, I would ask that
23 the -- that this document be shown to the witness.
24 While this document is being circulated:
25 Q. Witness, have you seen any documents indicating -- as part of your
1 review, any documents indicating that the destruction of Sarajevo was a
2 goal of the Republika Srpska?
3 A. I haven't seen a single document that would show that the
4 destruction of Sarajevo was one of Republika Srpska's objectives. On the
5 contrary: At its assembly session, Republika Srpska in the constitution,
6 in Article 4 of its constitution, mentioned Sarajevo as its capital and
7 would therefore be mad if one of its objectives was to destroy its
9 Q. Witness, the document you have before you now on the upper right
10 has a stamp of the command of the 1st Partisan Brigade. Have you seen
11 this document before?
12 A. Yes, I have.
13 Q. Was this one of the 130 -- approximately 130 documents that was
14 attached to and filed with your report?
15 A. Yes, I think so.
16 Q. If you could turn to the fourth page of that document in
17 both -- for the benefit of the Chamber, the fourth page of the English
18 version as well. Can you tell us who signed this document?
19 A. Some captain first class Viktor Momcilo [as interpreted]. That's
20 what it says.
21 Q. Now, this document purports to be minutes of a meeting. Is that
23 A. Yes, it seems to have that form, the form of minutes of a meeting.
24 Q. And Captain Momcilo took the minutes of this meeting; is that
1 A. No. Or rather, if it's authentic, yes, he did.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. According to the form, it seems to be the minutes of a meeting.
4 Q. And based on the stamp that you see on the upper right of the
5 first page of this document, this document was received by the 1st
6 Partisan Brigade; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I just wanted to
11 point out that the Defence has objected. It contests the authenticity of
12 this document and we have said why we contest its authenticity, as was
13 requested by the Trial Chamber.
14 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask this be done in the absence of the
15 witness, please.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you, General Radinovic, to leave the
17 courtroom for a while.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like to
20 draw your attention to the fact that this document -- I think the footnote
21 is 83 and it was part of the expert report of Robert Donia's. And on that
22 occasion the Defence contested the authenticity of the document. The
23 Trial Chamber decided to have it admitted as part of the expert report and
24 then we heard Mrs. Jelena Guskova, an expert for the Defence, and the
25 Prosecution presented two sources for this document then, and we still
1 don't know what the source of this document is. Now the Prosecution is
2 showing a document that is part of footnote 83, and when Mrs. Guskova was
3 heard, we had this document without a single page and the Defence was
4 ordered by the Trial Chamber with regard to this document that has all the
5 pages and with regard to the document that doesn't have one page, the
6 Defence was ordered to explain what its objections were, and the Defence
7 submitted a submission in which it explained why it was contesting the
8 authenticity of this document. First of all, we have never seen the
9 original of this document. We don't know what the source of this document
10 is. Here it says the "1st Partisan Brigade," which is also contested,
11 which is also in dispute. And for these reasons, the Defence objects to
12 showing this document in that -- to showing this document to the witness
13 so that he could interpret it.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One question, Ms. Pilipovic: I do understand
15 from the answer to one of the questions that this document was attached to
16 the report of the expert.
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, it wasn't attached to the
18 expert report. It was only analysed in the expert report. But it wasn't
19 attached as evidence. It was only analysed.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The question was put to the witness: "Was this one
21 of the 130 -- approximately 130 documents that was attached to and filed
22 with your report?" And the witness said: "Yes, I think so." But of
23 course this leaves some reason for doubt. Ms. --
24 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that there was a
25 misunderstanding between the expert and the question put by my colleague.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then at least this should be clarified,
2 whenever the witness returns. But --
3 Mr. Mundis.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I will endeavour to double-check
5 whether this was in fact attached to his report. He certainly, as
6 Ms. Pilipovic indicates, makes reference to the document in his report,
7 and the witness himself indicated that he thinks it was probably attached
8 to his report.
9 The point is, Mr. President, that this witness has said he's never
10 seen a document that goes to the destruction of the city of Sarajevo.
11 This document, which he has in fact seen, there is reference to that in
12 this document. So once --
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's not on my mind at this very moment where exactly
14 it is. If the parties could provide the Chamber --
15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, in the English version, it would be on
16 the third page, about a third of the way down under number 5.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just see.
18 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. On page 44 in
19 the Serbian version all other interpretations of that target or those
21 JUDGE ORIE: Are we now correcting the transcript or ...?
22 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let me just confer with my
24 JUDGE ORIE: I was -- we were dealing with --
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] We're discussing the document,
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 2 of the document, yes. I
4 now understand what my colleague is referring to on page 3. I apologise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, you said reference was made in number
6 5 -- oh, in that document.
7 There seems to be a lot of confusion. I was trying to find the
8 place where in the report of the expert we'd find reference to this
9 document just --
10 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Item 102. That would be footnote
11 50, see the minutes of the meeting with municipality presidents.
12 JUDGE ORIE: What I find in footnote 48 is a document which is
13 not, as far as I remember, unrelated to this document but it's not the
14 same document.
15 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if you would look at footnote number
17 JUDGE ORIE: 50, yes.
18 MR. MUNDIS: The ERN numbers match, with respect to the B/C/S
19 version of the document.
20 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 50.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 50. Now it's clear to me, "the transcript of the
22 meeting with the presidents of the municipalities". Let me just see in
23 the text whether there's any reservation as to the authenticity of this
25 The document is referred to by the expert, so -- we have a
1 corresponding ERN number and we have a four-page document, and that was a
2 problem in the past.
3 Ms. Pilipovic, if an expert refers to a certain document and if he
4 has explained to us that he received documents from the Defence and if he
5 makes no reservation as far as the authenticity is concerned, what would
6 be the reason to forbid the Prosecution to show that document? I mean,
7 it's part of his report, isn't it?
8 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted to
9 point out that there is such an objection. I wanted to inform the Trial
10 Chamber of the position of the Defence. That was why I stood up and made
11 this comment with regard to this document.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, let's then proceed.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has a question.
15 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Mr. Mundis, you were referring to page 3 of
16 the English transcript, number 5, and I think that was the line of your
18 MR. MUNDIS: That would be where I would take the witness to, Your
20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. My question is the following: It says,
21 at least in the document that I have, "double-underlined in the original."
22 Do you agree with that?
23 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, it does, Your Honour. And --
24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Well, now you can go to page 3 of the B/C/S
25 version and look at number 5.
1 MR. MUNDIS: And there is no double-underlining.
2 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: The problem is that sometimes the documents of
3 the Prosecutor bring comments included, like certain Bibles. Thank you.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
7 thank Judge Nieto-Navia for the acuity he has brought to bear on the
8 matter, and I think I understand why the error lies. You remember that
9 there are two documents: One in reference to page 2 that we examined with
10 our Russian expert, I think, and the other is this entire document. And I
11 think that what has happened is that we have been given a draft
12 translation that concerns another document. But as the other document is
13 not exactly identical, this is why this problem has arisen. So couldn't
14 we ask the Prosecution to make a distinction, a clear distinction, and to
15 have a translation for each document so that we can in a certain sense
16 find our bearings. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In order to prevent a repetition of what
18 happened before, that is, to call the witness in again and then
19 immediately adjourn, the Chamber would like to adjourn for 20 minutes.
20 And perhaps in the meantime the Prosecution could provide a clean
21 translation of this document without the issue just raised by
22 Judge Nieto-Navia. If there's any other part of the translation that
23 should be reviewed and if one of the parties notices that there is some
24 incorrect part in the translation, the party should either correct or
25 inform the other party that this does exist.
1 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Ierace.
3 MR. IERACE: Just before we adjourn --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. IERACE: -- Might I say a few words very quickly.
6 Mr. President, I've spoken to Mr. Piletta-Zanin this morning in
7 relation to the Gray tape issue. I understand that he has some
8 information. He's told me what it is. I wonder, since the witness
9 is -- it happens that the witness is not present at the moment and we're
10 about to adjourn, if this would be a convenient time. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if there's anything that -- well, first of all,
12 perhaps we should convey the message to the witness that we'll adjourn for
13 20 to 25 minutes so that he doesn't have to wait for us to return. And if
14 there's anything that should be said in the absence of the witness,
15 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, perhaps this would be an appropriate moment to do so.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. I did
17 speak to Mr. Ierace this morning, and I informed him of certain
18 situations. I told him that there was no need to bother the Trial Chamber
19 for the moment with these matters, and he didn't take that into account,
20 and I told him that I would provide him with all the information I could
21 provide him with as soon as I have this information. I'd be glad to
22 expose the matter to the Trial Chamber, but it would waste time. But if
23 Mr. Ierace is impatient, I think that by tomorrow he will know everything
24 about everything.
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. IERACE: The situation where the Prosecution and Defence have
3 very different accounts of private meetings continues. I will say this,
4 and perhaps Mr. Piletta-Zanin can confirm or deny it that he told me this
5 morning that the fourth tape has been checked, the segment is not on it,
6 they concede that there was a fifth tape and they are now searching for
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I said a number of things. I
10 said that we spent quite a lot of time on reviewing all these tapes. The
11 quality was terrible, and it's quite likely that the segment sought for
12 wasn't there. But as the images were not very good, it's difficult to be
13 certain. So there is probably a fifth tape. As I said, we are looking
14 for this phantom tape. And as soon as we find it, the Prosecution will be
15 informed of the fact and will be provided with the original, such as we
16 received it at the time. But again, this is a hypothesis because we have
17 to check all of this.
18 JUDGE ORIE: The -- Mr. Mundis.
19 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, prior to us breaking, if I could get
20 some indication from the Chamber as to how much time I have remaining,
21 that would be very helpful.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that I would need to do some calculations
23 on that because the cross-examination could not proceed as smoothly as the
25 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps so that I could organise over the break, is
1 the Chamber anticipating that I would be required to finish today, or will
2 I have a little bit of time tomorrow? That would at least help for
3 purposes of planning over the break.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just try to calculate. But I am doing it now
5 by heart. Yesterday I think the Prosecution took -- yes. I do understand
6 that the Prosecution has used three hours and twenty minutes, today
7 included. So if we would now adjourn, we would have one hour left. That
8 would bring us to four hours and 20 minutes. And since the Defence took
9 five hours, that would leave us with some time tomorrow.
10 I'm not sure. I have to check with the registrar to what extent
11 interruptions have been taken into account. But certainly there will be a
12 little time tomorrow.
13 MR. MUNDIS: That's sufficient. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn --
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm sorry. But
16 with regard to this matter, Defence counsel thinks that if time has been
17 wasted, this is because of the Prosecution who wanted to ask certain
18 questions that were subjective: For example, what the responsibility, if
19 any, of General Galic was. We have wasted this time, but this time has to
20 be taken into account because this isn't due to the Defence. I committed
21 one error, I think, with regard to a map, but I think everything else was
22 due to the Prosecution. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until quarter to 1.00.
24 --- Recess taken at 12.26 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, please proceed.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have corrected
3 versions of the English translation of the document.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you then please use that version.
5 MR. MUNDIS:
6 Q. Witness, I would ask that you please go to the third page of the
7 document that's now before you. This document, as we've previously
8 addressed, concerns notes taken on 14 May 1992 at a meeting, and it
9 appears as though the notetaker was Captain Momcilo; is that right?
10 A. Yes, that's what I said.
11 Q. If you'd go to, please, page 3 of this document and look at what's
12 indicated on the document under the number 5, approximately one-third of
13 the way down the document. Do you see what I'm referring to?
14 A. Yes, I can see that.
15 Q. That makes reference to the destruction of Sarajevo, does it not?
16 A. It says: "The President of Mrkonjic Grad municipality," not
17 General Galic. In fact, the notetaker says this was said by the president
18 of the municipality of Mrkonjic Grad.
19 Q. Can you please read out precisely what it says next to the number
20 5 on page 3 of this document.
21 A. With the proviso that these are the president of the
22 municipality. The president of Sanski Most municipality, Milan Malidza,
23 said in item 5, in fact, the notetaker records him as saying 'it was said
24 that Sarajevo must be divided or razed to the ground." These are not
25 Galic's words and this part is totally irrelevant.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The relevance of issues and who said what has not
2 been at this very moment part of the question. So there's no need -- if
3 someone would have asked you: Are these the words of General Galic? I
4 can imagine that in interpreting this you would say no or -- well,
5 whatever. But that has not been asked at this very moment. The only
6 thing that has been asked you now is to read that part. So please would
7 you listen careful to the question and answer the question. And if
8 there's anything that should be said about it, first of all you have an
9 opportunity to do so if later on there seems that there is confusion, and
10 you might be re-examined by the Defence who might ask you questions about
11 it as well.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. MUNDIS:
14 Q. Witness, if you look at the bottom -- or perhaps the top of the
15 following page, it indicates the -- what will happen at the end of the
16 meeting or what happened at the end of the meeting. And there's a
17 reference there to the accused. Do you see that?
18 A. No, I don't. Could you guide me. Oh, you mean this sentence:
19 "At the end of the meeting"?
20 Q. That's the sentence. Please, can you read that sentence out to
22 A. "At the end of the meeting, Colonel Galic proposed the following
24 Q. Can you please read the first bullet under that.
25 A. "To implement the conclusions from the meeting in Banja Luka, but
1 they have to be submitted to unit commands and municipalities." So these
2 conclusions from the 12th of May, from the assembly meeting -- the
3 assembly session of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shall
4 I read on?
5 Q. That's fine, witness. If you then turn to the first page of this
6 document, you'll see approximately one-third of the way down the page a
7 list of 11 individuals who were present at this meeting. Can you please
8 read what's listed under number 1.
9 A. "Meeting attended: Commander of the 30th Division, Colonel
10 Stanislav Galic."
11 Q. Is there reference there to that being the 30th Partisan Division?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the stamp at the top of the document indicating the 1st
14 Partisan Brigade, was that brigade a subordinate command of the 30th
15 Partisan Division?
16 A. To tell you the truth, I can't say at this moment. I wasn't
17 interested in this at the time, and this is not the time that has to do
18 with the period when General Galic was commander of the SRK and I didn't
19 know anything about the composition of the 30th Partisan Division. I
20 don't know whether this brigade was within the division.
21 Q. This document was received at the -- according to the stamp, was
22 received at the 1st Partisan Brigade on 14 May 1992; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Witness, you told us earlier that among the transcripts of
25 Prosecution interviews that you read was one of Major Indic. Do you
1 remember that?
2 A. I think I said, if I recollect it well now, that I studied -- in
3 fact, heard the tapes of his testifying here.
4 Q. No, I'm talking now about the interviews that were given by
5 Major Indic to the Office of the Prosecutor. I can show you, sir, on page
6 5 of your report, paragraph 11 --
7 A. Yes. Well, that's fine. I reviewed that, but I wasn't sure that
8 I had stated in this specific case that it was a transcript rather than a
9 tape, but I studied his statement, not only his statement but the
10 statements of all the members of the SRK with whom the Prosecution had
11 talked, everything that was made available to me by the Defence team. I
12 suppose they gave me everything.
13 Q. Witness, do you recall reading in Major Indic's statement to the
14 investigator of the Tribunal that during that interview they played an
15 audiotape of an intercept on 29 May 1992 in which General Mladic is heard
16 ordering the shelling of certain parts of Sarajevo?
17 A. Did I say that?
18 Q. No, no. Do you --
19 A. It was interpreted to me as if I had said that.
20 Q. No. Let me be absolutely clear. My question is: Do you remember
21 reading in Major Indic's transcript that a tape was played during the
22 interview of Major Indic, the investigator played a tape of an intercept
23 from 29 May 1992 in which General Mladic is heard ordering shelling of
24 certain parts of Sarajevo?
25 A. I don't remember that right now, to be quite frank. But if you
1 gave me the transcript, I could see it.
2 Q. I do have copies here of the relevant portions of the interview
3 with Major Indic. These are both in English and in B/C/S.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Those can be distributed. I'll find the precise
5 passage for the witness.
6 Mr. President, for the benefit of the Chamber, on this copy it's
7 beginning on page 77 at the very top. I do have a copy marked for the
8 witness with the -- if that would be helpful.
9 Q. Witness, if you look at the portion of the transcript which I gave
10 you, you'll see the answer from Major Indic with respect to the tape.
11 A. What is your question? That's Indic's answer, not mine.
12 Q. Yes. You told us that you didn't remember that but if you saw the
13 transcript it might help refresh your memory. Having reviewed the answer
14 of Major Indic - and I'm not, witness, saying that you said this - but
15 what Major Indic said with respect to an intercept of General Mladic from
16 the 29th of May.
17 A. I can see this portion that you marked.
18 Q. Witness, have you ever heard the tape or seen the transcript of
19 the intercept that is the subject --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
21 MR. MUNDIS: I would ask that this be done in the absence of the
22 witness, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you escort the witness --
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's what I asked.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- The witness out of the courtroom, Madam Usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 We have an objection in principle concerning the exhibit that is
5 produced by the Prosecutor, either the tape itself or the transcript of
6 this interview. First of all - and we know to which point it is dangerous
7 to make a connection between two cases - in this case General Mladic, if
8 it is General Mladic, not simply a fabrication, the fact that we have
9 several cases involved, even if we refer to the enigma case, we can
10 mention several tapes that are appearing in an extremely favourable
11 moment. So we actually have every reason to judge that this cannot be
12 received as an authentic document. I know the Prosecutor will say that
13 this is in fact a part of public law and the question whether the shelling
14 of Sarajevo, forces of their own people, is part of that law.
15 We contest the authenticity of this document because we don't know
16 what are the forces that could have intercepted this conversation, and at
17 the very outset, Your Honour, this being so, the date in question precedes
18 by a long time the period when General Galic assumed command. It seems to
19 be the 29th of May, 1992. Not only this concerns third persons,
20 regardless of who they are, but the event itself is three months prior to
21 the facts that are of interest to us. So there is no chronological
22 coincidence and there is serious doubt as to what happened in Gorazde
23 regarding this document. I don't think the Prosecution should be allowed
24 to use this document.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
1 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President --
2 JUDGE ORIE: But before you answer, do you intend to produce the
3 tape or do you just want to confront the witness with the statement of
4 Mr. Indic?
5 MR. MUNDIS: Actually, a third variation, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. MUNDIS: We would intend to confront the witness with a
8 transcript of the tape. Let me address a couple of issues prior to
9 addressing the specific issues raised by Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
10 First of all, the draft transcript of this intercept was disclosed
11 to the Defence and had been on the Prosecution exhibit list.
12 Second, the Defence and in particular this expert the Defence has
13 put forth material which is not in evidence. They've canvassed material
14 which is both before this Trial Chamber and material which has not been
15 admitted into evidence. This witness purports to give definitive
16 conclusions with respect to the allegations facing the accused. But to
17 address specifically the issues that Mr. Piletta-Zanin has raised, the
18 Prosecution has alleged that General Galic assumed command of a
19 prior -- of an existing campaign. This evidence would go to demonstrate
21 It's also the Prosecution argument that the extent of material
22 prior to the indictment period was greatly expanded upon during the
23 Defence case in chief, whereas the Prosecution led relatively limited
24 amount of evidence to demonstrate that there was a campaign that had been
25 in existence prior to the accused assuming command. It was, in the
1 Prosecution's submission, the Defence case, which greatly expanded upon
2 evidence with respect to those periods prior to the specific indictment
3 period. We would point in particular to the evidence of Richard Gray,
4 where there was extensive Defence evidence with respect to numerous
5 shelling incidents and the party which was, in that witness's perspective,
6 the party that was responsible for that.
7 Mr. President, this would be the reasons why the Prosecution would
8 put this material to this witness. We would propose to deal with any
9 issues concerning authenticity in our rebuttal case.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this calls for
12 several comments. And from what they tell me in Latin it has a specific
13 name: Qui tacet non quio consentire [phoen]. Concerning the provenance
14 of this document, it remains a great secret. In the Serbian version,
15 which I have in front of me, I see the place and date and there is no
16 indication of these at all, so it's quite nebulous. We don't know where
17 it comes from, what are the ways that conveyed this message, if it ever
18 existed. We have no information on time. We don't know anything about
19 the period after, and we have no corroboration of the authenticity
20 whatsoever. Since the Prosecution says they have listened to this tape,
21 we can't even determine the date of the interview let alone the date of
22 the tape. We are doubly handicapped. We don't have an original with
23 which to check.
24 The Prosecution has to distinguish between evidence for and
25 against, and since an element is so far removed in time it cannot prove,
1 as they say, the existence of a campaign before General Galic assumed
3 We have to take into account the alleged activities of the persons
4 who are mentioned here, and I would say the historical character that it
5 has in the conduct of fighting in the former Yugoslavia, referring to
6 these persons means in a way that an oil stain is spilled in the path of
7 the Defence.
8 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ... Yes. I was
9 not waiting for the translation. I apologise for that.
10 What's the purpose? Do you want to establish whether the expert
11 explored all the potential sources or do you want to establish that a
12 telephone conversation has taken place? What's the -- what's the purpose?
13 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the purpose is actually both, although
14 let me say that it's not a telephone conversation but it was a radio
15 transmission that was captured.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 MR. MUNDIS: But our purpose would be to establish -- the witness
18 has told us at great length the methodology that he employed. He's told
19 us how he's considered himself to be an independent expert and an unbiased
20 expert. He had access -- or this Indic transcript, which he read, clearly
21 refers to this tape. It would seem that in light of the specific
22 allegations against this accused that that would be the type of material
23 that an expert in his shoes, who was attempting to undertake an
24 independent and unbiased investigation or to prepare a report, would have
25 sought out this information. That's the first point.
1 Let me just quickly hit two other points. First of all, this
2 conversation, the taped intercept, is actually in the public domain, has
3 been broadcast on television in Sarajevo, it's been -- the transcripts of
4 this have been reproduced in at least one published book that the
5 Prosecution is aware of. With respect to the authenticity, last week we
6 took a 92 bis statement of the head of the ABiH intelligence at the time
7 who personally was involved in this intercept, and that will be handed
8 over to the Defence tomorrow. As I said, we got that last week.
9 I should also point out that the formal translation, as well as a
10 copy of the tape with respect to the segment that I would take the
11 witness -- the witness to -- the transcript that I would take the witness
12 to was disclosed to the Defence about two weeks ago.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as for the
15 source that we are now discovering, we have to be even more cautious
16 because we know that television in general, and especially during the war,
17 is in the power of civilian nonmilitary authorities that employ them, and
18 this was made public only by the forces of the presidency. In fact, their
19 radio and television. It seems this source is extremely biased and
20 unilateral, and if we are going to base ourselves on this public source,
21 we have to take into account that Sarajevo, which is the place where the
22 war started, it would be very dangerous to accept this claim. The
23 Prosecution doesn't seem to claim that other televisions, TF1, or some
24 international televisions ever carried this claim or this conversation, in
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber allows the document and material related
3 to this overheard conversation to be shown to the witness and to
4 be -- there's nothing to be played to the witness, but only in respect of
5 the way he uses his sources and not in order to establish through this
6 witness whether such a telephone conversation ever took place and whether
7 he recognises voices, et cetera, et cetera. There's no reason to believe
8 that this expert witness could have any specific knowledge on that. So
9 the exercise is admissible but in order to question the witness about the
10 way he explored the sources available to him.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I know very well that this is
14 a subject that I can deal with during redirect, but General Galic asked me
15 to intervene and I'm doing it. I think it would be a good idea to draw
16 the witness's attention to the Serbian version as it appears in our
17 document, namely the portion that follows, starting with the words "I
18 heard that." We could see what actually happened, and I think this would
19 help the witness answer.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Do we have the Serbian version of the -- we have it,
21 yes. I see the translation is part of it. So preferably -- I take it
22 that these are the original words used, that we rely upon that as much as
23 possible, Mr. Mundis.
24 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I'm a bit confused. Is
25 Mr. Piletta-Zanin referring to the Indic transcript or to the transcript
1 of the tape?
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, obviously. I just said
3 so. "I heard about this tape" and so on and so forth. So that is this
4 line. You have it right in front of you, Mr. Mundis, page 116 -- sorry,
6 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer is referred to the Indic interview.
7 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I could just have a brief moment to
8 confer before the witness is brought back into the courtroom.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Page 76.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, perhaps an issue of clarification from
14 the Trial Chamber might be of assistance. I'm understanding the Chamber's
15 ruling to be that I can put to the witness the issue of whether or not he
16 relied or had recourse to the tape or a transcript of the intercepted
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And also whether, for what reason, whether he
19 used it or whether he denied it and for what reasons. I mean, whatever in
20 the field of the expert.
21 MR. MUNDIS: In which case, simply for clarification, for purposes
22 of the Defence, I have no further need to deal with the Indic transcript.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. But very unfortunately
25 we don't need it if we are going to ask questions about Mladic. Either we
1 are going to forget the whole subject and that would be okay or we are
2 going to deal with it fully.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Prosecution may put the questions to the
4 witness as they want, as long as it's not to establish whether this
5 telephone conversation took place, because I do understand that -- unless
6 there's a specific reason why this witness would know anything about that.
7 But not just on the basis of this document.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, upon reflection and in light of the
10 issue raised by the Defence, we will begin by taking the witness to page
11 76 of the Indic transcript, beginning with that portion at the top of that
12 page indicating a tape recording, through pages 76 and 77 of the Indic
13 transcript, in light of the fact that the witness has said he read this
14 transcript as part of his preparation for his report.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 So then, Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
17 courtroom again.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 MR. MUNDIS:
20 Q. Witness, I would draw your attention to the Indic transcript which
21 you have before you, and I would ask you to turn to page 76, if that
22 hasn't been done. You will see from this part of the transcript that the
23 investigator, Barry Hogan, whose initials are BH, on the left-hand margin
24 of this document, made reference to a tape recording from 29 May 1992. Do
25 you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you see that the investigator asks Major Indic whether he's
3 ever heard of this tape recording before?
4 A. Yes. Here it says "do you recognise the voice?" It doesn't ask
5 about the tape.
6 Q. My first question is: Does it say that the witness Indic had
7 heard of the tape and that he had heard parts of the tape prior to it
8 being played to him on that day?
9 A. This could be concluded from the first line.
10 Q. Okay. Witness, have -- prior to reading the transcript of this
11 interview with Major Indic, had you ever heard of this tape before? Had
12 you heard of the tape? Not whether you heard the tape but whether you
13 heard of it. Had you heard of the existence of this tape before you read
14 this transcript?
15 A. I heard this tape and I saw it, because the Defence showed it to
16 me. I heard it myself.
17 Q. Do you recall approximately when the first time that you heard
18 this tape was?
19 A. No, I really don't, because this war lasted for over two years. I
20 could confuse the issues. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you know approximately what year or month in which year you
22 first heard this tape? Can you be any more specific whatsoever?
23 A. No, I can't. I really can't. I can't be specific. I apologise.
24 Q. Did you ever hear at any point during the war in Bosnia, did you
25 ever hear about the existence of this tape or the contents of this tape?
1 A. I never heard about it or saw it until the Defence provided me
2 with the opportunity of seeing it.
3 Q. And did you listen to the tape or did you read a transcript of
4 what the tape said or both?
5 A. I did both.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I would first like to have one clarification. One of
7 your answers says that you had an opportunity seeing the tape, whereas I
8 understand that we are talking about an audiotape. And your last answer
9 was that you did hear the tape and read the transcript. I'm just
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The witness said
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had the opportunity of seeing a
14 videotape of an event in the Sarajevo theatre. That was a videotape. But
15 the Defence provided me with the transcript of this audiotape.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which relates to this event.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: That clarifies the issue. I don't know whether the
21 tape is about an event or not.
22 But please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
23 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Witness, you've told us that you both heard the tape and read the
25 transcript. In your own mind, did you verify that the information
1 contained in the transcript accurately reflected what you heard on the
3 A. I really didn't pay attention to that. When the Defence provided
4 me with this, I -- well, I really am not in a position, I'm not capable of
5 checking whether the tape corresponds to the text. That would require an
6 entire investigation, and I didn't have the time nor the need for that.
7 You have to follow a methodology in order to check the authenticity and
8 the probative value of all the documents. I don't know how to do this.
9 It wasn't necessary for me to do this because I thought that this had
10 already been done in the course of previous proceedings.
11 Q. Witness, my question goes more to the accuracy of the transcripts.
12 In other words, did you listen to the tape and then did you read the
13 transcript and make a comparison between the accuracy of the transcript in
14 comparison to what you heard on the audiotape?
15 A. I didn't carry out any checks of any kind because I didn't think
16 that that was an obligation of mine. And this is something I don't know
17 how to do.
18 Q. Well, witness, when you -- do you remember if you heard the tape
19 first or if you read the transcript first?
20 A. I really don't know. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you recall whether when you read the transcript anything
22 occurred to you in reading that that you thought perhaps you hadn't heard
23 that on the tape?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Could I ask now that the witness be handed copies of
1 the transcript of the tape.
2 Q. Witness, if you could please place the transcript that I have
3 provided you on the ELMO so that we can all see what you're looking at.
4 That would be helpful.
5 MR. MUNDIS: For the benefit of the Chamber and the Defence, the
6 witness I've attention is being drawn to the bottom of the third page of
7 this document and similarly the third page of the English translation.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I need to
10 ask the Prosecution to clarify something. When we are told that this
11 document is dated May 1992, why do we find on page -- there's no page
12 number here -- ERN number 1065909 a date 31 July 1993? And I'm asking
13 this in order to avoid any confusion. Could I be told what this is
14 referring to, since the date itself is apparently a different date. Thank
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could anyone, before we listen to, tell me what
17 Bjelasnica is or -- I don't know how to pronounce it. Perhaps the
18 interpreters could. The word B-j-e-l-a-s-n-i-c-a.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Bjelasnica, Mr. President. It is a hill, a
20 mountain around Sarajevo.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. A topographic -- yes.
22 Mr. Mundis.
23 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the document that you have before you
24 contains a number of translations from various intercepts. The one in
25 question, as I've indicated, is the one on the bottom of the third page.
1 The one that Mr. Piletta-Zanin is referring to has no relevance with
2 respect to the questions being put to this witness.
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my question
4 was: Why we have the dates for what isn't relevant and we don't have
5 dates for what is relevant. And I'm referring to the transcript such as
6 it has been typed out.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, any response to --
8 MR. MUNDIS: We have no response to that, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: So you say we have not in this document the date
10 written down. So that's still -- other sources would have to provide for.
11 MR. MUNDIS: That's correct, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be -- could the relevant parts be taken out
13 from this document so that finally if you tender it, we limit ourselves
14 to --
15 MR. MUNDIS: Absolutely, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- The part that is relevant, yes.
17 MR. MUNDIS: And again, we're referring simply to the part
18 beginning on the bottom of the third page and continuing to about halfway
19 down the fourth page.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President. I
22 am sorry, but since we are contesting the way in which these documents
23 were established, I think it would be extremely useful - and this is an
24 objection to the response of the Prosecution - it would be useful to show
25 that if there are documents -- as if by accident there are documents for
1 which there are dates and it's almost accidental -- it seems accidental
2 that there are documents which we have dates. This seems important given
3 the probative nature of the document if it should be submitted as
4 evidence. And this is the issue to which I am objecting and I am
5 objecting to the response.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will still have to consider, Mr. Mundis,
8 whether we would like to -- this document to be split up, in view of the
9 different data for different parts of this document. So we'll decide on
10 that later.
11 But Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the objection is denied, but I immediately
12 add that the purpose for which these questions were permissible should be
13 kept in mind. So that's the -- if we keep that in mind, then you may
15 MR. MUNDIS:
16 Q. Witness, again, turning to the part that you have before you,
17 beginning at the bottom of the page next to the number "1" where it says
18 "Mladic." Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Can you please take a moment and read, beginning at "Mladic"
21 through the following page where it ends at the word "goodbye."
22 A. Are you asking me whether I know how to read? I don't see why I
23 should read this. This isn't a document I quoted. It's not part of my
24 report. I didn't refer to it. Why should I read it?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Because you're asked to do so. Would you please read
1 it, so that you can answer questions in relation to this document.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to read it aloud. It's just to make
4 yourself acquainted with the content of this part of this text.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am familiar with parts of the text
6 now, but I am still against reading it. I'm not here to read. I've come
7 here to answer questions. But if I have to read, I can do that too. But
8 I don't think there is any sense in asking me to read something that is
9 not mine.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please read it.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Mladic --"
12 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to read it aloud. It is just for
13 yourself, that you're acquainted with the text.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it for myself.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I take it -- do I take it from that
17 comment by the Bench that we -- that the Chamber does not want him to read
18 it out loud?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, if there's any specific -- you didn't ask him to
20 read it out aloud, so I thought that it would be just for the witness to,
21 but --
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
23 With regard to what you said, to the extent that it is a matter not of
24 establishing the reality of an alleged conversation that General Mladic
25 had but in the sense to test the procedure or the methodology used by
1 General Radinovic. We don't see how the facts of reading it out aloud
2 could change anything. So it's an objection that has to do with
3 principles. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, we discussed this issue in the
5 absence of the witness. The decision was given on purpose in the absence
6 of the witness. You should not have discussed the -- whereas I, when I
7 referred to the purpose, I specifically did not refer to what that purpose
8 was because it's not of any relevance for the witness.
9 Could we just -- I'll read it to you, Mr. Radinovic, so that we
10 know what the text is about.
11 Mr. Mundis, you're talking about the part -- in the translation,
12 exactly what part is it?
13 MR. MUNDIS: The part, Mr. President, beginning number 1:
14 "Mladic," at the bottom of page 3, continuing to the middle of page 4.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Piletta-Zanin -- reading out
18 this text aloud, would this really -- would this really assist in reaching
19 the purposes?
20 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I -- I would ask to be heard on that
21 point in the absence of the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps we have to adjourn anyhow.
23 General, we would continue tomorrow. It's about time to stop.
24 And we still have to deal with this -- with this procedural issue. So I
25 would like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.00 in this same
1 courtroom. And may I instruct you as I did before not to speak with
2 anyone about the testimony you have given and you're about to give. Yes?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's clear.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, could you please escort the
5 witness out of the courtroom.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
8 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, if I may, I'd like to address the
9 Chamber in private session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll turn into private session.
11 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We're close to the conclusion of the Defence case,
16 and there's still a few outstanding issues on exhibits. May I invite the
17 parties to look carefully to -- to look to the testimony of Dusan Dunjic,
18 Dr. Dusan Dunjic. The Chamber is asking to party to peruse the documents
19 used during the testimony of this witness and also inviting the parties to
20 decide which documents they wish to tender. And as far as my recollection
21 goes, this has not yet been done.
22 Then in respect of Witness DP35, if you'd look at the transcript
23 of the 17th of January, I think, the parties are invited to produce the
24 whole of the senior military observers end-of-the-month reports of
25 December and of January. And if you look at the transcript, you'll see
1 the Chamber requested the production of a certain set of documents. It's
2 my recollection that it has not yet been done. But if I'm mistaken, I'd
3 like to hear from the parties.
4 Then the final issue is that in view of the Defence witness expert
5 report, the procedure followed during the presentation of the
6 Prosecution's case was that finally they have been formally tendered and
7 admitted under P number. So therefore, the Defence is invited to tender
8 the Defence expert reports in a similar way and to grant them D numbers.
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, very briefly.
11 With regard to the end-of-the-year reports, I think that we have done what
12 we were supposed to do. They've already been provided to the registry.
13 As far as the expert reports are concerned, we are assuming that
14 given the absence of our usual registrar, who is familiar with this file,
15 we will deal with it with the person who will be replacing the registrar
16 tomorrow in order to avoid wasting time. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: As a matter of fact, it's not mainly whether these
18 documents have been produced. Perhaps I expressed myself not in a correct
19 way. But they have not been formally tendered, finally. And it could be
20 done in several ways: One of the ways of doing it is giving it a C number
21 and then the parties would know that these were Chamber exhibits, rather
22 than party exhibits.
23 Then I finally inform you that since these documents might take
24 some time as well, there are some others that -- on which we still have to
25 give decisions. If needed, the Chamber explores the possibility of
1 getting some extra hours next Thursday. It's not sure that we could use
2 them for several reasons, but this is to inform the parties that the
3 Chamber envisages to, if needed, to gain some extra hours on Thursday
5 We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning --
6 MR. IERACE: Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. IERACE: I'm sorry, just before you --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before I adjourn, yes.
10 MR. IERACE: By "Thursday," do you mean Thursday this week or
11 Thursday next week?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thursday this week.
13 MR. IERACE: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then --
15 Yes, Mr. Mundis.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Sorry, Mr. President. If it would be possible, later
17 this afternoon the Prosecution would appreciate an indication perhaps from
18 the registrar as to how much time remains for cross-examination of this
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, we usually deduce the time the witness
21 has spent out of court, and that -- when I said that the remaining time
22 would be approximately one hour, we started again at ten minutes to 1.00.
23 Examination was interrupted a couple of times. And some 15 minutes were
24 taken. So if that is some guidance, three hours and twenty would make
25 approximately, I would say, four hours and perhaps 10, 15 minutes. But we
1 have to make more precise calculations on that.
2 We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
4 at 1.53 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
5 the 12th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.