1 Wednesday, 12 March 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus Stanislav Galic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Good morning to all of you as well.
11 Mr. Mundis, I think the last thing you asked yesterday, how much
12 time there would still be available. It would be 45 minutes.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Mundis: [Continued]
17 Q. Witness, yesterday you told us that you do not recall precisely
18 when you reviewed the transcript of the intercept or listened to the tape
19 but that it was prior to reading the transcript of Major Indic's interview
20 with the Prosecution; is that correct?
21 A. No, I said afterwards.
22 Q. Witness, the Prosecution disclosed the tape to the Defence in
23 October 2001, and the Serbo-Croatian transcript in December 2001. Your
24 report was filed in November 2002, so it would follow that you reviewed
25 the transcript and listened to the tape sometime between December 2001 and
1 November 2002. Do you accept that?
2 A. Well, I can only guess now. I can only try to read from the cards
3 like a gypsy. But I said I really don't know when it was. I feel
4 embarrassed having to tell you that I don't know when it was, but this is
5 the fifth time I've told you that.
6 Q. Witness, would you agree that if this tape and transcript are
7 authentic that this material contained in the tape and transcript are
8 significant to the issues in this trial?
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Could I ask this be done in the absence of the
12 witness, please.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the witness please be escorted out of the
15 [The witness stands down]
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that
17 sleeping on matters is beneficial sometimes, but apparently not always
18 because yesterday the witness said that he couldn't check either the
19 authenticity of the tape or of the transcript. He said that it wasn't
20 part of his competence. He said that he couldn't check it.
21 It's obvious that the witness is not in a position to comment on
22 the authentic nature of an audiotape. We contested it ourselves. But how
23 can such a witness confirm the authentic character of something which he
24 knows by hearsay alone? And such a question, this type of question,
25 is -- the purpose of this question is to embarrass the witness, to put him
1 in a difficult situation, nothing else. It's obvious that the witness
2 cannot comment on the authentic nature of the tape.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you please indicate where it
4 is asked to comment on the authenticity of the tape. This is what you
5 usually call a "question hypothetique," that is assuming something would
6 be the case -- yes.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I agree that
8 the expression itself implies if, if it's authentic. We agree. But
9 nevertheless this witness has already clearly said there was nothing he
10 could say about it. And this is the second part of my objection. If
11 there is nothing he could say about it - I think he already said this
12 yesterday - and we are going back to a subject that has already been
13 addressed. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The witness, as far as I understand, Mr. Mundis, is
15 invited to tell us that if this would be an authentic copy, whether it
16 would be of relevance, the witness has been -- or at least says that he
17 reviewed the material. Therefore, I think we could ask questions about
18 it. And if it finally turns out not to be authentic, then of course the
19 Chamber will have to draw consequences. If it turns out to be authentic,
20 then perhaps the consequences might be different. But --
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I would
24 like to add that the Defence also has the impression that when such
25 questions are put in the way that the Prosecution put it, we are outside
1 the framework determined by your Trial Chamber yesterday with regard to
2 the type of questions to be put about such documents because we are
3 addressing the substance of the matter; that is to say, the authenticity
4 or the lack of such authenticity of this cassette. Thank you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers the question not to be -- the
6 witness is not asked about whether these are authentic tapes. The witness
7 is asked on whether, if authentic -- I would say the subject matter of the
8 tape would be relevant.
9 But, Mr. Mundis, you said relevant for the trial. Whereas we,
10 yesterday have seen that there seems to be some confusion as to who
11 decides what's relevant for the trial. But if you would limit that to the
12 subject matter of the report.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President. I would rephrase the question.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you'd please do so.
15 Then, Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness into the
17 [The witness entered court]
18 MR. MUNDIS:
19 Q. Witness, if this tape and transcript are authentic, what is
20 contained in the tape and the transcript would be significant to the
21 issues that you address in your report; isn't that right?
22 A. I said before this Trial Chamber that I wrote my report on the
23 basis of the operative documents of the sides. All the other documents
24 had secondary importance.
25 Q. Witness, you've listed a wide range of material that you relied on
1 in producing your report. My question goes to the tape and transcript of
2 what purports to be an intercept wherein General Mladic is issuing orders
3 regarding shelling of certain areas of Sarajevo. If that tape and
4 transcript are proven to be authentic, that would certainly be an
5 important issue with respect to your report.
6 A. I told you what my attitude towards tapes were. In my opinion,
7 this material doesn't have the probative value of an operative document,
8 so I couldn't assess its importance in that sense and rely on it. I
9 reviewed this, just as I reviewed hundreds of documents. Occasionally I
10 used this as an illustration when it corresponded to the data that I found
11 in operative documents. But tapes or transcripts I didn't use as primary
12 documents, but I did review them and tried to establish to what extent
13 they corresponded to my findings -- to what I found out in operative
14 documents. But with regard to this specific tape, you showed me a part of
15 it, but I'm not familiar with the entire tape. I don't know what you're
16 interested in exactly. I don't know about everything that you're
17 interested in, so I cannot tell you whether this is important for me or
18 not. I don't remember every transcript.
19 Q. Witness, you've told us that you've reviewed the tape and the
20 transcript of the -- what appears to be an intercept of General Mladic.
21 In the intercept, it appears that he is ordering shelling of the city of
22 Sarajevo. You've told us that you primarily looked at operative
23 documents. Are you telling us that if we have an intercept of an oral
24 order by the commander of the VRS that that would not be of significance
25 in preparing your report?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. For my report that would have had importance if it concerned the
2 period during which General Galic was the commander. If this was an order
3 issued to General Galic --
4 Q. Witness, let me stop you. You've mentioned the period during
5 which General Galic was the commander. You have read the indictment that
6 the Prosecution prepared against General Galic and you've read the
7 pre-trial brief which the Prosecution filed. Is it not clear from those
8 two documents that the Prosecution has alleged that General Galic in
9 effect assumed command whereby a pre-existing campaign was in existence?
10 Is that not clear from the documents from the Prosecution which you have
12 A. That is the Prosecution's claim, but the findings contradict that
14 Q. Witness, the issue is whether or not you would have found the
15 contents of the tape and transcript significant for purposes of your
17 A. It's not enough just to hear what is said on a tape. It's
18 necessary to know who said what, when, to whom, in what period of time.
19 It's necessary to know the context. It's necessary to know what was
20 happening in Sarajevo at that time. These are facts on the basis of which
21 this answer should be answered. It's not possible to take this out of
22 context and then comment on this because then --
23 Q. Witness, please.
24 A. -- Then what I -- the information I provide you with would not be
1 Q. Let me ask you this, witness: This intercept is not referred to
2 anywhere in your report, is it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Yes, it is referred to in your report or yes, it is not referred
5 to in your report? Is it referred to in the report?
6 A. Your question was formed as a claim. In your report -- this
7 intercept isn't mentioned in your report; is that correct? And I said
8 yes, it's not mentioned in my report.
9 Q. Witness, it would seem that in light of your previous answer with
10 respect to placing the intercept in context and to know what was happening
11 that the proper place to do that would have been in your report.
12 A. It wouldn't. If I were to write the report now after having
13 spoken to you about this matter, I still wouldn't include it in the report
14 because this is something that didn't occur during the term of office of
15 General Galic and that is a period during which war was raging in Sarajevo
16 and all JNA features had been attacked and all Serbian settlements had
17 been fiercely attacked by the Muslim forces. And to take this out of
18 context and not analyse everything else would be imprecise.
19 Q. Witness, there is a wide wealth of material in your report dealing
20 with issues before the indictment period. Why was this tape and
21 transcript not dealt with in a similar manner, in light of the fact that
22 you have discussed at great length a series of events that occurred before
23 General Galic assumed command?
24 A. I discussed the events before General Galic assumed command to
25 show how the forces ended up in the Sarajevo theatre. I wanted to
1 demonstrate the situation to the Trial Chamber, to show that there was a
2 war in Sarajevo and that it wasn't a matter of some wild Serbs having
3 descended from the hills, who started terrorising the civilians. I wanted
4 to show that there was a war, that they engaged in a conflict, and that
5 that conflict had certain consequences. That was the purpose of my work.
6 Q. Witness, let me --
7 A. And I think that you can gain a picture of this from my report.
8 Q. Let me just stop you there, witness. Does it not seem from the
9 transcript or tape of this intercept that what General Mladic was ordering
10 goes to the very issue of terrorising the civilians?
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, I'd ask that it be done in the
13 absence of the witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May the witness be escorted out of the
16 [The witness stands down]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] First of all, I'm assuming
19 that we are still discussing matters hypothetically. If we assume that
20 this transcript is something real and assuming that the voice we hear is
21 that of General Galic and assuming that there is a certain Vukanovic,
22 assuming all of this, Mr. President --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] -- If we assume all this and
25 if we assume that it isn't fabricated, in this attempt we are trying to
1 return to the substance, that is to say, the general quite clearly said
2 that everything depends on the context. Everything depends on the
3 context, and he quite clearly said that he couldn't answer if he's not
4 aware of the context.
5 If he is told that if we don't know in relation to what this order
6 was issued, perhaps there was an ongoing operation, perhaps the barracks
7 were blocked, we know that they were in the month of May - this is one of
8 possible questions - but we can't put to question to him as such if he is
9 not provided with all the contextual elements. This is too microscopic
10 view of the problem and it is then blown up to present a false image of
11 the situation on the ground, of the reality. So this is a distorted form,
12 a distorted version of what should have been done, nothing else.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
14 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, the Prosecution is attempting
15 to adduce this information because it goes to the methodology that this
16 expert used in preparing his report. At no time have we suggested that
17 this witness could authenticate anything, nor have we -- I'm not quite
18 sure what the objection is with respect to microscopic view of the
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think the objection mainly is that where the
21 witness has testified that he could not give any comment on the matter
22 unless he would know more details. It is not possible to characterise the
23 subject matter of the conversation without knowing more details.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from the objection, Mr. Mundis, the Chamber
1 invites you to move on. The issue has been sufficiently dealt with, I
2 would say.
3 MR. MUNDIS: That's fine, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Usher, can you please escort the witness
5 into the courtroom again.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 MR. MUNDIS:
8 Q. Witness, I'm now going to return to the issue of the interviews
9 that you personally conducted. You told us on page 6 of your report that
10 you interviewed a number -- a series of outstanding superior officers of
11 the SRK and direct participants in the war at Sarajevo battlefield, and
12 you also spoke with seven UNPROFOR and UN military observers.
13 If you tally up the numbers presented on page 6, it would appear
14 that you interviewed 34 individuals. We have your notes from 11 of those
15 interviews, and you told us that you didn't take notes with respect to the
16 other individuals; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, witness, these 34 individuals that you interviewed, how were
19 those -- how was the initial contact with those 34 individuals
20 established? Did you prepare a list of 34 individuals that you wanted to
21 interview? Did the Defence legal team arrange that? How did that come to
22 pass that you interviewed these 34 individuals?
23 A. I conceptualised my methodology of work. Then of course I drafted
24 my own plan of work. Under number 1 came the operative information from
25 the parties. In the second place I put -- I can't explain it to you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 otherwise, except by telling you the sequence in which I proceeded. If
2 you want me to answer, I'll answer. If you don't want me to answer, you
3 can reply yourself.
4 Q. Witness, the question is: How were these 34 individuals selected
5 and how did you make the initial contact with these individuals?
6 A. The persons were chosen by me, and I contacted them through the
7 Defence team. Specifically, I agreed my study trips with Mrs. Pilipovic
8 and I always travelled with her. She had the authority to enable me to
9 speak to these people. Some of these people were in Belgrade, and I
10 occasionally saw them in Belgrade, not only on the site. As far as
11 UNPROFOR members are concerned, those were members of the Russian
12 Battalion and the members of the UNMO from Moscow. I went on one occasion
13 with Mrs. Pilipovic to Moscow and talked to them. And I was primarily
14 interested in the Monitoring Mission, how they gathered information, how
15 they drafted their reports, how they sent them. This part was not quite
16 clear to me, so I wanted to get first-hand information.
17 I was particularly interested in this part, in learning about this
18 part from Mr. Indic. And since this contained very little of that kind of
19 information, I was not particularly interested in that transcript.
20 Q. Let's -- you've classified these individuals according to their
21 positions. Let's start with the two corps commanders. You indicate that
22 you interviewed two corps commanders. It would appear from your notes
23 that one of those was General Djurdjevac, the commander of the JNA 4th
24 Corps. Is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you interview Dragomir Milosevic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where were you when you interviewed Dragomir Milosevic? Where did
4 that interview take place?
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. President.
6 MR. MUNDIS: Again, Mr. President, I'd ask that it be done in the
7 absence of the witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, on the other hand, we are not going to -- I
9 think you have these little houses where the people turn in and out
10 according to whether the weather is better or worse. We're not going to
11 do this.
12 Could you say in one word - so not argument - but is it relevance?
13 Is it --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. Yes, Your
15 Honour. It's a question that's purely --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not asking -- is it about relevance that
17 you're -- I mean, what is very often done is that you just indicate in
18 what field the objection should be sought. If there would be needed
19 further argument, then of course we have to ask the witness to leave the
20 courtroom. But sometimes one word is enough. Is it relevance or is
21 it ...?
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's what I said, Your
23 Honour, relevance to the subject.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, again, it goes to methodology and
1 perhaps credibility. I can't elaborate more upon that.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I thought I said in French
6 immediately "objection, relevance," but that's what I said in French from
7 the very beginning.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, it is clear now, so there's no need to
9 reiterate the matter.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: At this very moment the relevance is not clear. But
12 if you want to come back to that specific question, we'll perhaps do it
13 after the break and then you can explain. But at this moment, please
14 proceed with another question.
15 MR. MUNDIS:
16 Q. Witness, did you interview any other corps commanders?
17 A. No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: To be quite clear, Mr. Mundis, it was about the place
19 of the interview that our ruling was. Yes.
20 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President, for that clarification.
21 Q. With respect to Dragomir Milosevic, when did you interview him?
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Same. And at this stage,
23 Mr. President, I would like to say something in the absence of the
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll ask the witness to leave the courtroom.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, I'd ask that --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
5 MR. MUNDIS: I'd ask that this be done in private session,
6 Mr. President.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then turn into private session, unless -- but
8 Mr. Piletta-Zanin, if the matter you would like to raise should not be
9 done in private session, then we'll first give an opportunity to the
10 Prosecution to explain the -- what in their view the relevance of the
11 question is, and then we could return in open session and you can make
12 observations as needed.
13 Mr. Mundis.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. President, that
15 this should be done in public session. I don't know what the method is
16 that's used. Maybe we go into private session and then we go back into
17 public session. I am at your disposal.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll first turn into private session.
19 It seemed that we were, but now it's not on our screen any more.
20 So -- yes, we are in private session now.
21 [Private session]
12 Pages 21184 to 21187 – redacted – private session
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there was an issue you'd like to
25 raise in open session. You told us before. Or was this the matter you --
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No -- yes, Mr. President. I
2 was trying to say that these questions should be asked in public session.
3 You decided otherwise, but we are at your service. We thought that this
4 should be settled in public session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could the witness be brought into the
6 courtroom again.
7 Mr. Mundis, oh, you're just waiting for the witness to re-enter
8 the courtroom.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Witness, you told us again on page 6 that you interviewed two
13 chiefs of staff of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. What were the names of
14 those individuals?
15 A. It was Dragan Marcetic and Milosevic.
16 Q. I'm a bit confused, witness. You -- in response to a question
17 about corps commanders, you gave us the name Dragomir Milosevic. It's
18 true he was previously chief of staff of the SRK. Who did you include in
19 the category of the two corps commanders?
20 A. Let me explain one thing, please. I spoke to Mr. Milosevic, both
21 as corps commander, as chief of staff of the corps, and as commander of
22 the 216th, that is, the 1st Romanija Brigade. So you will find him in
23 three places in my interviews.
24 The chief of staff position was occupied by both Dragan Marcetic
25 and Milosevic, and I talked to both of them.
1 Q. So when you list the interviews by their functional titles in your
2 report, some of these individuals would have counted more than once. Is
3 that what you're telling us?
4 A. Yes. I made -- in fact, if I had made a list of persons in an
5 attachment, I would have written that I have spoken to Milosevic in his
6 three capacities, with Sajlovic in two of his capacities, but I didn't
7 think that was necessary and I didn't do it. It is insignificant. I can
8 explain this here if you want to take my word for it. If not, I'm sorry.
9 Q. We have some time constraints, witness. Let me ask you about the
10 seven brigade commanders that you've indicated you interviewed. Who were
11 those brigade commanders and which brigades did they command?
12 A. Let's begin with the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade. The person
13 is Stojanovic. Then going eastward, according to the operative
14 disposition, the commander of the 1st Romanija Brigade was Lizdek;
15 commander of the same brigade, Milosevic; and commander of the 216th
16 Brigade from Han Pijesak, which came to the Sarajevo theatre in May,
17 commander was Milosevic, and I spoke to him about this aspect of the
18 theatre of war. The commander of the Kosevo Brigade was Mr. Krajisnik.
19 The commander of the Ilijas Brigade --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I wonder if I can say this
23 here. If by mentioning certain names we are not falling into the same
24 trap as before. I know that the witness himself is doing it, but we
25 should be cautious about this.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. But it's inappropriate to deal with
2 the matter in the presence of the witness, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Mundis.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you.
5 Q. Witness, when you were interrupted, you were about to give us the
6 name of the commander of the Ilijas Brigade that you interviewed in
7 preparing your report. Can you please continue.
8 A. A young man by the name of Savic. I think Savic is his name. The
9 commander of the Ilidza Brigade, Radojcic, and Sehovac, who was commander
10 of the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade.
11 Q. You also indicate that you interviewed two chiefs of brigade
12 staff. Can you please tell us who these two individuals were and of which
13 brigades they served as chief of staff.
14 A. Chief of staff of the 1st Sarajevo Brigade was Sajlovic, and
15 before that he used to be a commander of one mechanised battalion, whereas
16 commander of the Ilijas Brigade used to be chief of staff of that brigade
18 Q. And when you say the commander of the Ilijas Brigade, would that
19 again be the individual with the name Savic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You told us also that you interviewed two security officers. Who
22 were those two individuals?
23 A. That was Lugonja and Bukva.
24 Q. The next category is three battalion commanders. Who were those
25 three individuals and which battalions did they command, please?
1 A. One was the commander of the battalion at Hresa. I don't know his
2 name. One was the commander of the battalion at Grbavica. And the third
3 was the commander of the 2nd Sarajevo Brigade at Vojkovici. I must tell
4 you that I honestly don't remember the names.
5 Q. You then told us that you interviewed some, as you characterised
6 it, fighters. And you mentioned four fighters from Grbavica. Who were
7 these individuals that you interviewed?
8 A. I can't remember the names. I can't remember the names, to tell
9 you the truth. I can't remember the names of the soldiers because I spoke
10 to them very briefly. I just wanted to feel what the atmosphere was like,
11 to see how they felt when the front was 200 metres away or even closer.
12 That's the atmosphere that interested me from the psychological point of
14 Q. Witness --
15 A. But I didn't remember them.
16 Q. You indicated that you interviewed three fighters from Nedzarici.
17 What were their names?
18 A. I don't know their names.
19 Q. And you --
20 A. They were fighters at the front line. They used nicknames, you
21 know. They're still afraid of being identified on the basis of their
22 names because the consequences of the war are still present there and
23 they're very reluctant to speak.
24 Q. You indicated that you interviewed two fighters from Dobrinja. Do
25 you remember their names?
1 A. No, I don't remember the names of the fighters.
2 Q. Now, you told us earlier in setting up the interviews that you
3 prepared the list of individuals that you wanted to speak with. Does that
4 include these nine fighters from Grbavica, Nedzarici, and Dobrinja?
5 A. No, I didn't say that I made a list of soldiers, but I decided on
6 the sort of people I wanted to speak to. But I didn't make a list because
7 that didn't depend on me, whether we found these people didn't depend on
9 Q. So you prepared a list of the types of people you wanted to speak
10 with, and then the Defence legal team prepared the list of people for you
11 to speak to and made arrangements for you to speak to them; is that right?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have a
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What's the problem, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We have a problem. I want to
16 draw your attention to it now. Page 23, line 6 and 7. It seems that the
17 English booth did not fully reproduce what the witness said, or that the
18 French booth added something, because we don't have the same thing in both
19 transcripts. I know that the French booth mentioned discussions with
20 Mrs. Pilipovic.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have to check whether the translation of
22 your words is complete and correct, General. In the English translation,
23 your answer to a question reads: "No, I didn't say that I made a list of
24 soldiers, but I decided on the sort of people I wanted to speak to. But I
25 didn't make a list because that didn't depend on me, whether we found
1 these people didn't depend on me." Is there anything extra you said which
2 is -- does not appear in this translation of your answer?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say anything else.
4 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you then now, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, what
5 appears in the French translation which does not appear --
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I asked for
7 this to be confirmed because I'm only using one set of headphones today,
8 which is not my custom. Mrs. Pilipovic tells me that she heard that the
9 general said that it also depended -- General Radinovic said that this
10 depended also on interviews with Mrs. Pilipovic, because she was the
11 person who could guide her in relation to these contacts. This was
12 translated into French, but apparently it wasn't translated by the English
13 booth. That's all.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is it correct that you said that it depended on
15 your -- we could check it in the original, but if you could confirm that
16 you said that it depended on your interviews with Ms. Pilipovic. If you
17 said this, please confirm it. If you didn't say it, then it's -- one of
18 the two booths translated different from the other, and we could check the
19 original, but if you could help us out, please do so.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned Mrs. Pilipovic in this
21 context, in the following context: I didn't personally contact these
22 people, but it was through Mrs. Pilipovic, or rather, her team. I don't
23 know whether she arranged for this or someone from her team, but for me
24 the only thing that was important was that I should tell her about what
25 and with whom I wanted to speak, and that is why I mentioned
1 Mrs. Pilipovic in my answer, so all contacts with the people that I spoke
2 to went through Mrs. Pilipovic, or rather, her office, her team, her
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
5 Mr. Mundis, you were interrupted where you were about to ask a
6 question. Could you please repeat the question, Mr. Mundis.
7 MR. MUNDIS:
8 Q. Witness, the question was: You prepared a list of the types of
9 people you wanted to speak with and then the Defence legal team prepared
10 the list of people for you to speak with and made arrangements for you to
11 speak with them. You've --
12 A. No, you haven't understood me correctly. The Defence didn't make
13 a list. I told the Defence that I wanted to speak to commanders -- to
14 brigade commanders, and then I said that I would like to -- when going to
15 certain places, I said that I would like to speak to certain people in
16 those places and I would like contact with certain people in certain
17 places so that we could talk about certain issues that I was interested
18 in. That's how we proceeded. When we went to Sarajevo, I said that I
19 would like to speak to people in Sarajevo on that day, people who were in
20 the SRK, and I had contact with a lot of people in Belgrade and this was
21 through Mrs. Pilipovic, apart from the fact that we used her offices for
22 discussions. Well, I didn't need that kind of intervention. But since
23 she was my host, we did all of these things through her.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis, may I invite you to conclude within a
25 couple of minutes.
1 MR. MUNDIS: Yes, Mr. President.
2 Q. Witness, you told us you interviewed seven UNPROFOR or other UN
3 personnel. Do you remember the names of any of these United Nations
5 A. I remember the commander of the UNPROFOR Russian Battalion,
6 Vorobev, he was also a witness as far as I know here, and I followed that
7 testimony live. I don't remember the other names because I didn't obtain
8 anything particular in the course of speaking to them.
9 Q. Witness --
10 A. The name was Vorobev.
11 Q. Witness, other than the names that you've given us this morning
12 and of course Mrs. Galic, that you told us yesterday, did you interview
13 anyone else other than the people you mentioned this morning and
14 Mrs. Galic?
15 A. Not in official communications, but in professional terms, yes,
16 perhaps I did, but I can't really remember. But officially, no.
17 Q. Witness, on page 64 of the English translation of your report,
18 footnote 72, there's a reference to a statement of Kojovic given to the
19 Defence. Did you interview anyone by the name of Kojovic and do you know
20 who that person is?
21 A. Not Koljevic, it's Kojovic, Kojovic, the pre-war minister for
22 culture and information in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the director of
23 Sarajevo Television. On a study trip to Banja Luka, I had the pleasure of
24 having dinner with him, and it was a totally informal conversation. It
25 had nothing to do with the report, but I read his statement, and in
1 particular I read his book called "The Bloody Sarajevo Shirt," and it
2 talks about the war in Sarajevo.
3 Q. Witness, I have just a couple of remaining questions. Page 167,
4 footnote 252 of your report you also make reference to information of
5 General Zdravko Tolimir, deputy commander of VRS main staff for
6 intelligence, security affairs. Did you interview General Tolimir?
7 A. No.
8 [Prosecution counsel confer]
9 MR. MUNDIS:
10 Q. Thank you, witness.
11 MR. MUNDIS: The Prosecution has no further questions at this
12 time, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
14 Is there any need to re-examine the witness, Ms. Pilipovic?
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. We have a
16 certain number of questions, with your leave.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Re-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, we'll first of all start with what you
21 said today and then we will examine what you said yesterday in relation to
22 questions put to you by the Prosecution.
23 First of all, good day. I'd like to go back to the numerous
24 questions put to you about the well-known document which is apparently a
25 transcript of a tape on which there is a Serbian general and another
1 Serbian officer, and it apparently concerns the shelling of Sarajevo. My
2 first question is a methodological one: What do you do when you have a
3 document the sources of which have not been identified, not in a
4 sufficiently credible or serious way, a document which doesn't have a date
5 of any kind or any information that would make it possible to establish a
6 date for such a document? And could you answer this question purely in
7 methodological terms.
8 A. Well, as far as the methodology is concerned, this isn't a
9 document that I could accept as a relevant one for my analysis. But as
10 far as the facts contained in that document, this could be a reason for
11 checking in operative documents, checking this in operative documents,
12 checking in sources that I said were relevant. Perhaps something could be
13 found in such operative documents. This could be a reason for further
15 Q. Thank you. To make sure that we have understood you correctly,
16 the documents that you saw or attached to your expert report and the
17 documents on which you based your report, did you verify the dates, the
18 fact that they had dates, et cetera?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Thank you. General, let's imagine that the date of the 12th of
21 May, 1992 was a date that one had to remember. And as I said, let's
22 imagine this. You spoke about the relation to context, the importance of
23 context. Could you tell us what you meant to say when you were
24 interrupted by the Prosecution. What was happening in Sarajevo around the
25 12th of May, 1992? Could you briefly give us certain elements,
1 certain -- could you tell us about certain event, certain facts that you
2 are aware of?
3 A. In mid-May -- well, there was almost no area in Sarajevo where the
4 war wasn't raging. That was a time which more or less overlapped with an
5 operation carried out by the Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina at
6 the time. It still hadn't become the official Army of BH. It was called
7 the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That was the so-called
8 Pofalicki battle, the bottle for Pofalici, as the commander of the
9 Territorial Defence, Hasan Efendic says in his book. They still
10 celebrate this as a great victory, but in fact it was an attack on the
11 Serbian settlement of Pofalici, and over 200 people, mostly civilians,
12 were killed on that occasion. That was the time when Grbavica was
13 attacked frontally. It was under the control of the Army of Republika
14 Srpska. Before that there was a mass attack on Ilidza. Nedzarici was
15 constantly under fire. There was an attack on Rajlovac towards the end of
16 May. Efendic also writes about this in his book. Vogosca was also
17 attacked and many people were killed on that occasion. That was a period
18 during which the war was extremely intense. It was the most intense
19 period of fighting in Sarajevo.
20 Q. General, during this period of time, mid-May - we're talking about
21 this period in relation to this document - in inverted commas, these
22 attack, these military operations you have mentioned, did they include
23 mounting operations, logistics -- on the level of logistics, troops, et
24 cetera, in the centre of Sarajevo, according to your expertise as a
25 professional member of the military?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. Beyond the scope of
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, absolutely not.
5 We wanted to discuss this document at length. The general said it would
6 be necessary to place it in its proper context. I'm just asking whether
7 the context makes it necessary --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mundis.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the purpose of taking that witness to
10 that document related to the methodology and credibility of the witness
11 with respect to a statement he had made. We certainly did not in our view
12 open up the door to a lengthy discussion on the contents of that document.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I sat down as a matter of
16 courtesy, but I think that everyone saw that I hadn't concluded. But I
17 should be allowed to finish. I have nothing against genies out of
18 bottles, but I should be allowed to finish.
19 JUDGE ORIE: But let's try to minimise the theatrical part of the
20 debate in this courtroom.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, Mr. President. To
24 return to more specific matters, was this witness aware in technical terms
25 of the fact that it was necessary to group people in the centre of the
1 city or not. This is the expert who is supposed to tell us whether such
2 attacks took place on the line because one snapped one's fingers or were
3 there serious preparations. This is an expert. He can tell us about
4 this. And if we are told that this is not within the sphere of his
5 competence, this is barely acceptable. It's almost theatrical.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I earlier asked you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, not always to
7 echo my comments on what the parties do. Would you please refrain from
8 that. To a limited extent you'll be allowed to ask the witness questions
9 about the context. To a limited extent because the witness has testified
10 that he could not answer the question of the relevance of the audiotape
11 without looking in more detail to the context. That means that the
12 context to the extent of importance for the witness not being able to
13 answer the question is relevant and arises from cross-examination. The
14 context as a, well, part of the conflict of Sarajevo in general terms does
15 not arise from cross-examination. So one or two questions in this respect
16 so that the witness can explain himself, I'll allow it, and then please
17 move to your next subject.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Gladly.
19 Q. One question, witness: Mounting operations, what can you tell us
20 about the principle -- about how such operations were mounted in
21 principle? And I'm not asking about what actually happened.
22 A. Well, this was a period of time during which the inner part of the
23 city, the part of the city mentioned on the tape, operations were mounted
24 from that part of the city in the direction of the Army of Republika
25 Srpska, or the fronts that it held, and also towards Serbian settlements
1 such as Grbavica, Velesici, Nedzarici, Ilidza, Vogosca, et cetera. And
2 the fact that from the very centre of the town, that the army headed out
3 from there and that it was used for basing the army there, because of that
4 it was a legitimate target. So what you could hear on the tape could be
5 legitimate, in spite of the fact that it seems terrible. I'm just
6 discussing this from the point of view of military doctrine.
7 If you have an active enemy, it's quite legitimate to counter
9 Q. Witness, we will now move to certain responses that you provided
10 to questions put to you by the Prosecution yesterday. I'm referring to
11 pages yesterday. On page 5 of the transcript yesterday you spoke about
12 anti-sniper units, but you didn't finish what you were saying. I would
13 appreciate it if you could add something and tell us why there were such
14 anti-sniper units.
15 A. Well, anti-sniper units existed because combat with snipers is the
16 most difficult part of combat. It's the most efficient way -- the most
17 efficient way to eliminate a sniper is to use a sniper, provided that you
18 detect the sniper and provided that the position from which fire is being
19 opened can be reached, is accessible. UNPROFOR insisted and the Serbian
20 side too, they insisted on reaching an anti-sniper agreement and on
21 forming units which would deal with snipers. As far as I know, UNPROFOR
22 also had an anti-sniper unit and on several occasions it eliminated
23 snipers on the Muslim side in Sarajevo.
24 Q. Thank you. You provided certain answers yesterday on page 12 and
25 the pages that followed. You mentioned documents that you were able to
1 consult, and you mentioned the documents you had access to. You mentioned
2 the military archives, and my question is as follows: The BH army
3 archives, were they made accessible to you and were you able to gain
4 access to those documents?
5 A. The archives of the BH army were not open to me, because that's in
6 another state. I'm not a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and I could
7 not gain access to the archives, but I did examine documents from that
8 side on the basis of the documents that the Prosecution provided to the
9 Defence, and there were quite a lot of documents. Naturally, the ones
10 that I mentioned were missing and that had to do with the civil part of
11 command, so the political strategy and military strategy in the context of
12 political strategy cannot be observed. I think that this is a weakness
13 perhaps in my report.
14 Q. But do you think that the BH archives exist somewhere according to
15 your information? Do you know how they are treated today? Do you know
16 anything about this?
17 A. Well, I think they do exist, because given the documents that I
18 examined here - because as you know, I've been here on two occasions to
19 examine documents that the Prosecution provided to the Defence, documents
20 which have to do with the documents of the BH army 1st Corps - that
21 consisted of many documents and these documents were very well ordered,
22 and I was able to come to the conclusion that these archives had been very
23 well organised and put in good order, and I hope that there will be a time
24 when these archives will be accessible and it will be a great satisfaction
25 to be able to use what these archives -- the documents that these archives
1 have. I mean, it will be a great satisfaction for investigative purposes.
2 Q. On page 18, General, you said that there were no sniper units.
3 I'd like you to provide us with more information and to tell us on what
4 kind of information you -- on the basis of what kind of information you
5 provided such a claim.
6 A. Well, my claim is based on operative documents, above all. Not in
7 a single document of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps did I come across
8 indications that there were special sniper units. Not a single document
9 issued by the commander of the corps, his deputy acting as commander, not
10 a single document mentions a separate sniper unit under the command of the
11 corps commander. Likewise, I personally didn't come across any
12 indications according to which there were special units in brigades under
13 the command of brigade commanders. I'm referring to sniper units. The
14 only indication of a special sniper unit in the brigades of the SRK was
15 found in a document provided by the Prosecution, and it has to do with a
16 sniper section as part of the 1st Ilijas Light Infantry Brigade. And this
17 is something that I heard in the course of the testimony of the
18 Prosecution expert, Mr. Philipps. I examined this document, and I must
19 admit that it raised certain doubts -- I have certain doubts as to its
20 authenticity, but I'm not going to comment on that because this is not my
21 field. This document doesn't have a stamp. So the form of the document
22 is not right. But as this is not my sphere of competence, I'm not going
23 to tell you what my reservations are. But I didn't find any confirmation
24 in any other document that might show that there were sniper units within
25 the SRK. I didn't come across such information in documents, and not a
1 single brigade commander with whom I spoke confirmed that he had a sniper
2 unit. All of them told me that they had snipers. Of course they had
3 snipers in sections, but far fewer than you might expect in terms of the
4 establishment. And they did not have sniper units that they would have
5 used as a manoeuvre force, sniper units they would have issued orders to.
6 Q. General, a few questions about sniper units. Did you ask
7 commanders direct questions about the existence of sniper units in
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And when they replied, how did you perceive this response? Was it
11 doubtful? Was it timid? Was it quite clear? Was it a response that you
12 thought was truthful?
13 A. Well, these answers corresponded fully to my previous view of this
14 situation, my previous knowledge of the establishment of the brigades of
15 the SRK. I know what the formations looked like. When you form an army,
16 you have so-called formation books, and in the formation books they don't
17 mention sniper units as special units within brigades, and this only
18 confirmed what I knew. If I had found something that contradicted this in
19 the documents, I would have taken this into account.
20 Q. Witness, we'll continue this subject after the break.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But I think it's time to have
22 a break now, Mr. President. Perhaps we should have a break now, if you
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you indicate how much
25 time you would approximately need.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have a dozen
2 questions or so. I'm going to try to control the witness's answers to
3 make sure that they are a little shorter.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 12 questions, 20 minutes would be fair, I would
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I don't
7 think so.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Try to economise, both in your own words and in the
9 words of the witness, and we'll see where it ends. But certainly not much
10 longer than 20 minutes.
11 Then we'll adjourn until 11.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ierace, I see that you're on your feet.
15 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, in view of the
16 answers given by the current witness during the morning session, I have an
17 application to make. I'd seek to make it in private session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
19 [Private session]
12 Pages 21208 to 21222 – redacted – private session
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE ORIE: And Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness
3 into the courtroom.
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] While waiting and to economise
5 time, the document dated the 12th of June, 1993, which is the one that we
6 examined yesterday, I think the Defence number is D259, it could be placed
7 on the ELMO. And I have the same request to make with regard to a
8 document the number of which is D64 [as interpreted]. That is to save
9 time, Mr. President.
10 It hasn't been correctly entered into the transcript because we
11 have 264.
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: 264, please. That's the number I gave. Do
13 you have some difficulties -- yes, that's all right now. Thank you.
14 [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know if Madam Registrar
15 has found the documents, but I could show them to her so that we are sure
16 that we have these documents.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I suggest that we start with
19 document number 259.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could it please be put on the ELMO so that we are
21 certain that there's no mistake.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
23 Q. General, to your right you have a document. Is this document
24 dated the 12th of June?
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] That's it.
1 Q. Yesterday you read out the second paragraph, I think. Do you
2 remember that; yes or no?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Thank you. Could you briefly read out the following paragraph,
5 that is to say, paragraph 3 that starts with the word "upozoravam," "I
6 warn." And the fourth paragraph too, could you do that very quickly.
7 A. I can.
8 Q. Please go ahead.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. It's beyond the scope of
10 the cross-examination.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. The objection is denied. The -- you limited
12 your questions during cross-examination to one line of this document, and
13 the context -- the Defence should be in a position to create the context.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
15 Q. General, could you read these two paragraphs very rapidly, please.
16 A. "I hereby warn unit commanders that criminal proceedings shall be
17 instituted against irresponsible and wilful officers. All officers and
18 soldiers should be told, should be explained what the consequences of
19 irresponsible and wilful behaviour will be."
20 Q. And then?
21 A. "Saving ammunition is the primary task. We have exhausted supply
22 sources. It is not possible to obtain ammunition."
23 Q. Please continue.
24 A. "Explain to soldiers and officers that they should only open fire
25 when ordered to do so and authorised to do so by their officers and they
1 should only open fire on visible targets and when this is essential.
2 Soldiers and officers who disobey and are irresponsible should be held
3 responsible and they should be reported so that criminal proceedings are
4 instituted against them."
5 Q. General, according to your experience of military documents, does
6 this document have a stamp, et cetera, a signature? Does it appear to you
7 to be an authentic document?
8 A. Yes, this is an authentic document.
9 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President --
10 JUDGE ORIE: The authenticity does not arise from
11 cross-examination, I would take it.
12 MR. MUNDIS: No, Mr. President. And the Prosecution again would
13 like to articulate an objection to this line of questioning on the grounds
14 that the Defence had ample opportunity to go through these documents in
15 their direct examination, they chose not to. These are Defence exhibits,
16 Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand, Mr. Mundis. On the other hand,
18 these documents have been introduced in a rather general way, and in the
19 time restraints, that is understandable. Nonetheless, the Prosecution
20 cross-examination sought to have one single line read out of this
21 document, and under these circumstances the Defence is allowed to then
22 have a couple of more lines read out as well.
23 But it would give rise to me for one question for you,
24 specifically in view of the last line you read, General Radinovic. Did
25 you come across any reports or subsequent criminal charges in respect of
1 such incidents? And I'm referring to the last line, where it says that if
2 you violate this order, then soldiers and officers could be prosecuted for
3 that. Did you come across any such prosecutions or reports?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't come across any
5 documents on criminal prosecutions, but I did come across documents in
6 which requests were made to investigate cases and to establish the
7 responsibility of the persons concerned.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And did you come across any reports as a consequence
9 of such investigations ordered? I mean, ordering an investigation usually
10 results in a report of the investigator. Did you come across any report
11 of such investigations?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I came across such reports, and
13 I referred to those reports in my report, reports in which commanders
14 respond to the requests from their superior commands, from the Sarajevo
15 Romanija Corps, with regard to certain incidents. I mentioned them in my
16 report. In most of those reports the questions are answered as to whether
17 they're responsible for opening fire and why fire was opened. On the
18 whole, it is explicitly stated that they were either responding to fire or
19 that they didn't take action from their positions.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So -- yes, I do understand.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
22 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
23 Q. Witness, the question I'm going to put to you has to do with
24 document 264. I'm going to ask you whether you remember it. It mentions
25 an order from the army which says that measures should be taken to spare
1 civilians on the other side who remain in Serbian territory. Do you
2 remember this document?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. Beyond the scope. This
5 document was not put to the witness during the cross-examination.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, it was indirectly,
8 Mr. President. First of all, by us and then there was a question of a
9 general nature put to the witness by the Prosecution. They asked whether
10 he had found the document showing -- establishing the conclusions he
11 reached. The Prosecution asked such questions. They wanted to know which
12 documents he was basing himself in order to reach his conclusions, and my
13 question is to see what the intention was and to see whether certain
14 documents concern this matter. This is with regard to the
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained. It does not sufficiently
18 arise out of cross-examination. Please proceed.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. We'll forget that
20 document and we'll refer to document 259.
21 Q. General, do such orders on the basis of your experience conform to
22 what one should do? I'm talking about document 259. It's still on the
23 screen. Do such orders, in your opinion, conform to what a commander
24 should do if and when such problems arise? And I'm referring to the
25 Geneva Conventions. I'm making a direct reference to the Geneva
1 Conventions or to other conventions.
2 A. Yes. It seems quite appropriate to me.
3 Q. Thank you. If we assume that the signatory of this letter, who
4 is, I think -- the name isn't important, but he's a colonel.
5 A. Dragan Marcetic, the deputy commander of the SRK.
6 Q. From whom did he probably receive these orders? From which level
7 did he receive these orders?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, this is really -- I just told you
9 to what extent and for what reasons it was allowed that other parts would
10 be read, but you're now entering a totally new area that's -- although,
11 you do it on the basis of this document, but that goes beyond what the
12 Chamber allowed you to do, apart from that it's also speculation. So
13 would you please move to your next subject.
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Gladly.
15 Q. Witness, I'd like to go back to the issue of snipers. You were
16 asked a certain number of questions about snipers, rifles, your personal
17 notes that you showed on the screen, et cetera. My question is: Did you
18 often see or did you rarely see orders, specific orders coming from the
19 corps or from the SRK that concerned opening fire on the line? And I
20 mean -- I'm referring to infantry weapons in particular.
21 A. I have come across documents governing the opening of fire.
22 Restrictions related to the use of opening -- or opening of mortar fire or
23 calibres upward of 7.6 millimetres. In documents there is no mention of
24 imposed restrictions because fire is opened when the situation requires
25 it. That is, when there is fire from the opposite side, fire is returned
1 from the contact line, the separation line. So restrictions are imposed
2 exclusively during truces or cease-fires, when appropriate agreements
3 exist, and it is the obligation of immediately superior officers on the
4 front line to regulate the return of fire when there is fire from the
5 opposite side. That is the obligation of officers on the spot.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to
8 show this witness a document that was examined at length yesterday. It
9 was also produced as D10, but this document includes five points, P10413.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Or P3413, correction.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] This document that was shown
12 yesterday to this witness exists, therefore, in several versions, but we
13 want to take the one we saw yesterday and to save time, to save time I
14 would like to ask this witness from page 3. I would like him to read from
15 page 3.
16 Q. Do you have this document? I think so.
17 So from page 3 -- sorry, page 4. Would the witness kindly read
18 item 2.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Has this text been placed
20 before the witness?
21 Q. Item 2 of the summary of the conclusions.
22 A. You mean "At the end of the meeting Colonel Galic proposed the
23 following conclusions"?
24 Q. Thank you. Now item 2.
25 A. "To implement the conclusions from the Banja Luka meeting, which
1 conclusions should be delivered to unit commands and municipalities."
2 Q. Now bullet 2, please.
3 A. "To preserve the current positions and to defend them without
4 waging war."
5 Q. General, isn't there a contradiction in terms between the
6 requirement to defend without waging war and what we heard yesterday,
7 namely that the town should be razed to the ground?
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we would like
9 to present 1926 now, and we would like to witness to read it.
10 A. To your question, of course. These two things are diametrically
11 opposite. If you defend your positions peacefully, then you can't at the
12 same time raze the town to the ground.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, the Prosecution objects to this
14 document being shown to the witness, again on the grounds that it could
15 have been put to him in direct, it doesn't arise out of cross-examination.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, I don't know whether this is a
17 matter that should be discussed in the presence of the witness, but ...
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] It would be better for the
19 witness to withdraw.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, I'll ask you to escort the witness out
21 of the courtroom.
22 I'm sorry for you, General Radinovic --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is something I have to do more
24 often than anything else.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. To be
3 quite honest, it is not quite true. We ourselves spent some time on it.
4 And thank you for this additional hour. We selected our questions
6 As for the Prosecution, they decided themselves to intervene and
7 to ask questions about the alleged fifth objective of the Serb side.
8 We have here a document which is not a transcript a posteriori,
9 which is a summary of the conclusions of the meeting. It is dated not the
10 14th but the 12th from that notorious meeting. And now considering what
11 is item 5 here, we see clearly that the necessity to raze to the ground
12 the city of Sarajevo is not in question here. We have opposite evidence,
13 evidence to the contrary, namely that Sarajevo was a very important place
14 in the strategic game that was going on. But we would like to show this
15 witness other documents. And if we didn't do it before, it's because that
16 we didn't know that the Prosecution was going to raise this issue. Of
17 course we cannot know in advance everything that may be raised here as an
19 JUDGE ORIE: Did I understand the questions of the Prosecution
20 well that it was not -- whether it was true or not what item 5 said, but
21 whether the expert considered it worth mentioning it, since true or not it
22 is at least a document which casts a different light -- true or not but
23 casts a different light, compared to other documents, on the events and
24 that it was not mainly the issue of exploring whether it was true or not?
25 The expert, when asked about whether he found it useful to mention it
1 didn't say, "No, I did not use that because it is contradicted by another
2 document I reviewed," but -- so would you please give us the questions you
3 would like to put to that witness -- to the expert witness so that we can
4 consider whether this would arise from cross-examination or deals with
5 another subject. Yes.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will take the
7 liberty of specifying certain things, in fact adding to what you said. I
8 have in mind the context because two types of questions were asked of this
9 witness: The first had to do with this item 5 and the purpose of this
10 item 5; and the second that links up with the first is to read out to this
11 witness that General Galic, who was colonel at the time, asked that these
12 five points from the other meeting be accepted, be adopted. Thus the
13 question was formulated in such a way as to infer the possibility that
14 General Galic asked the participants to adopt something which amounted to
15 the strategy of destroying Sarajevo. That is how the questions from the
16 Prosecution were formulated.
17 What we want to show is that the minutes from this notorious
18 meeting do not mention anywhere the destruction of Sarajevo in item 5.
19 There is mention of division but not the intention to raze Sarajevo to the
20 ground. It is a basic distinction that we would like to have the
21 opportunity of making.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, the issue of what the facts are
24 and whether the expert should have explained on the basis of this document
25 that it was not correct what the other document says is -- there's a very
1 thin line between dealing with the facts and dealing with the methodology
2 used by the expert witness. And since in my consultations with the other
3 Judges I found that one of the Judges had already in mind to ask some
4 questions about it, I would prefer that these questions first be put to
5 the expert witness.
6 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Who is going -- I don't know
12 for sure that I have followed correctly. Who is going to ask questions?
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous interpretation continues] ...
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now I've got your
16 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia.
17 Yes. General Radinovic, you've just been presented with a
18 document and one of the Judges, Judge Nieto-Navia, has one or more
19 questions to you in relation to that.
20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President. I am taking
21 advantage of the fact that you have the document there.
22 Yesterday a document was shown to you which supposedly contains
23 the report on a meeting of military commanders and the presidents of
24 municipalities. That document mentions a meeting in Banja Luka where
25 strategic goals were formulated.
1 My first question is: Is that session in Banja Luka the same one
2 that you mentioned in page 50 - I am talking of the English version of
3 your report - item 102 under number "1"? Do you have your report there?
4 Please look at number 102.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: There you say that "such allegations are not
7 true for several reasons: 1." And you mention a session of the Assembly
8 of the Republika Srpska in Banja Luka. So my question is whether the
9 mention made in the second report, the one that was shown to you
10 yesterday, page 3, according to which some strategic goals were formulated
11 in Banja Luka is the same meeting that you are referring to here.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you mean the session of the 12th
13 of May, 1992, which is the sixteenth session of the Assembly of the
14 Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, then yes. But I was also
15 shown yesterday a document related to the meeting in Mrkonjic Grad, and
16 I'm not sure, maybe you mean that document.
17 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: [Previous interpretation continues] ... The
18 document that we saw yesterday. I don't have an exhibit number, but it's
19 the one related to a meeting of the --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] 259, I believe,
21 Mr. President.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: 259. Okay.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] 3413.
24 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: This one, yes.
25 These go to page 3. I think that it is the same in both versions.
1 The second full paragraph mentions the strategic goals formulated at a
2 meeting in Banja Luka.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A crucial difference is between the
4 formulation of objective 5 in this document compared to the objective --
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: No, no, no. My question is: When you make a
6 reference to the meeting in Banja Luka in your report --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: -- Is it the same meeting referred to in that
9 document? Do you think so? When we are talking about strategic goals
10 formulated in Banja Luka, is it the same meeting you are referring to in
11 your report in the part that we have looked at a moment ago?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my report I referred to the
13 minutes of the session of the Assembly of Republika Srpska, that is, in
14 item 102 of my report. On the second page of this paragraph 102 I
15 mentioned this document, showing how the objective adopted at the Assembly
16 of Republika Srpska was misrepresented in this document. The objective
17 was rephrased in a very important manner and therefore this document is
18 absolutely useless for this purpose.
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: If I understand you well, when you mentioned
20 here the meeting in Banja Luka and the strategic goals of that meeting,
21 you are referring to this document, to the one that you have there. Is
22 that true?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not this one. Not this
24 document. The minutes from the session of the assembly, as published in
25 the Serbian gazette, in an official document.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Let me say something. We have a meeting of
2 the assembly that was held on the 14th May 1992.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not the 14th. The 12th of May,
4 1992 is the date when the assembly session was held.
5 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: That's correct. Then we have another document
6 dated the 14th May 1992, which is supposed to be a meeting between the
7 presidents of municipalities. That's the one that you have there. Okay?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In that second meeting, a reference is made to
10 the strategic goals formulated at the meeting in Banja Luka. That
11 reference is made to the document of 12th May?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Okay. Now we have -- the second issue is that
14 in number 5 of the second document, the one of the 14th of May, it says
15 that it was said that Sarajevo must be either divided or razed to the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what's written.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Then the question is whether that statement
19 was in fact one of the strategic goals formulated in Banja Luka on the
20 12th of May. If you want, you can have a look on the minutes of the
21 session held on 12th May. I don't know which is the page in B/C/S.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Page 8. It's on page 8.
23 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: In page 14 of the English version, mention is
24 made to the fifth strategic goal.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: That paragraph, please have a look on that
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have it before me. Shall I read?
4 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: You have it before you. Can it be summarised
5 as it was summarised at the meeting of the 14th May, that is, it was said
6 that Sarajevo must be either divided or razed to the ground?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not in this paragraph. In this
8 paragraph it says that the fifth strategic objective is to divide the city
9 of Sarajevo into the Muslim and Serbian parts and to establish efficient
10 governments in each of these parts of town with elements of constituent
11 states. That's what's written in the original minutes of the original
12 meeting. There is no mention whatsoever of razing the city to the ground.
13 It is precisely that bearing in mind this objective Sarajevo was
14 designated in the constitution of Republika Srpska as its capital. There
15 was no mention of ever destroying Sarajevo. Why would they otherwise
16 designate it as their capital? Sarajevo was seen as Serbs -- by Serbs as
17 a town which historically belongs to them.
18 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Is there any mention in this document, the one
19 of the 12th May, to the possibility of razing to the ground the city of
20 Sarajevo at all?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
22 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Witness, I would like us now to come back to the map, the infamous
2 map that you yourself developed and presented here, the map of targets.
3 You have been asked questions about the chronological relationship of that
4 map with the document you've seen. My question is as follows: Could you
5 give us an idea of the number of legitimate targets in the city of
6 Sarajevo? Could you briefly tell us the number of brigades, the number of
7 battalions, the number of companies, and so on and so forth, present there
8 so that we have a clearer picture how your map would look like if you had
9 had the time or the relevant information?
10 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. MUNDIS: It's beyond the scope, and it was an issue that
13 should have more properly been addressed in direct examination when they
14 first took the witness to this map.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, is my recollection well when I
16 have in mind the witness said that 1500 targets would be in the city, or
17 is it an incorrect recollection?
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. That
19 is quite correct. I wanted him to say this differently. But anyway,
20 thank you for this intervention.
21 Q. Regarding the map, witness, and regarding the chronological
22 aspect, that is, the time aspect, I want to ask you the following: What
23 could you tell us regarding not only the chronological aspect but also the
24 mobility of weapons? This mobility, could it have had an impact on the
25 targets, or would they have had to be static?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What would be the impact?
3 A. There are static targets. In terms of space, a static target
4 means that brigades did not leave their areas of responsibility, and I
5 have shown the areas of responsibility of various brigades on the big map
6 shown here on the board and you could see from that map that the 1st Corps
7 in Sarajevo had 10 to 15 brigades throughout the war with minor changes in
8 the volume of brigades.
9 The areas of responsibility of brigades were fixed throughout the
10 war. It could therefore be said that the position of sections as military
11 targets and battalions as military targets were relatively static
12 categories. However, weapons, sniper positions, firing positions of
13 mortars, firing positions of cannons changed, shifted, but only within
14 that zone of responsibility. Therefore, it could certainly happen that
15 within one and the same brigade one target appeared as a potential target
16 in several places.
17 For instance, a battalion firing group, when changing the position
18 of its mortar, could have been recorded three or four times as a target,
19 although objectively it remained one group. But by shifting positions,
20 the number of potential targets within one brigade changed.
21 You have also to bear in mind another fact: When considering the
22 total number of military targets in Sarajevo, according to the doctrine of
23 All People's Defence that was in force and applied to all the three
24 warring parties, all trailer trucks, cisterns, engineering machines,
25 construction machinery, all vehicles for special purposes had their own
1 wartime assignment. In times of war, they were requisitioned. And I did
2 not consider them as military targets at all. So one has to know it is a
3 certainty that there were many more military targets in Sarajevo than I
4 depicted on my map.
5 Q. General --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, as you correctly indicated at the
7 beginning of your question that your question was not about the
8 chronology, the only thing I think that was raised in cross-examination
9 that was raised was the chronology. So I let you go, and the witness's
10 answer, and the mobility that could have been dealt with easily also in
11 examination-in-chief has been now answered. It's not the way of doing it
12 to go through the whole map again, as you more or less were about to do.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
14 Mr. President, I would like to ask another three questions, and I'm going
15 to finish very soon.
16 Q. One question of methodology: If you had found documents which
17 would have been obviously contrary to what you described as conclusions in
18 your report, documents which are certain and dated, would you have used
19 them or reacted to them in your report or what?
20 A. Yes, of course. Certainly. And there were a lot of such
21 documents. In fact, the majority of documents from the documentation of
22 the 1st Corps of the BH army were in contradiction with the main claims
23 made in the documents of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. I analysed both
24 categories of documents, looking for things which in my experience and in
25 my view and in my knowledge could be true. I did not ignore a single
1 piece of evidence from the Prosecution whose tapes I listened to, and I
2 didn't ignore a single fact they asserted.
3 Q. Thank you. In fact, I have just one or two more questions. The
4 last would have to do with protests, and this has to do with the claim of
5 the Prosecution.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] And we'll deal with it very
7 soon, Mr. President.
8 Q. In view of the elements that you were able to examine, documents,
9 sources, primary or secondary, was there a contradiction - and if yes,
10 what contradiction - between the fact that, as you said, from the
11 beginning the Serb side wanted peace or strived for peace, specifically
12 non-use of heavy weapons, and what is alleged in item 5 recently under
13 examination? What can you tell us about this?
14 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. This does not arise out of
15 cross-examination, Mr. President, and the issue of which side wanted peace
16 was thoroughly covered in the direct examination of this witness.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Mr. President.
20 This does arise because it's not only the claim of the Prosecution who
21 dealt with this matter at length but since a certain number of questions
22 were put by the Trial Chamber, I think that I am in a position to ask this
23 witness to confirm what the attitude was of General Galic. This is what
24 interests us, what the attitude was during the war with regard to the
25 alleged claim that there was a desire to raze Sarajevo to the ground. And
1 I think this is essential for everyone.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, in Mr. Piletta-Zanin's response he
3 raises issues that may call for the witness to speculate and also a lack
4 of foundation as to the accused's knowledge or state of mind.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is sustained.
7 Please put your last question to the witness, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well.
9 Q. Witness, General, following an intervention from the Prosecution
10 you said that you hadn't found any documents that might show -- anything
11 that might contradict your conclusions. My question is as follows: With
12 regard to the documents about which the Prosecution asked you, were there
13 any protests lodged by UNPROFOR, and if so what sort of protests and how
14 were they processed?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. That mischaracterises the
17 nature of the cross-examination and the question which I put to the
18 witness. The question wasn't whether he found any documents but what use
19 he made of any such documents in his report.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It was also a question of methodology and not a
21 question to enter into the area of -- you're going to the subject of the
22 matter rather than to the methodology. If you'd have one final question,
23 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I'll confer, but I think that
25 the response will be negative.
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I have one last question.
3 Ms. Pilipovic has asked for one last question. It concerns the
4 methodology and perhaps the Trial Chamber. We have a tape we would like
5 to have viewed. The witness on several occasions made reference to it. I
6 don't know whether it would be a matter of interest for this Trial Chamber
7 to view this cassette to see the elevated points around Sarajevo.
8 JUDGE ORIE: No. Questions have been put in respect of elevated
9 points. The witness has -- first of all, there's something played on the
10 screen at this moment without my permission, so I would like that nothing
11 would be played on the video evidence channel at this very moment.
12 The matter has been raised in examination-in-chief. The Defence
13 has chosen to do that without playing the tape. So therefore, it's not
14 something that arises from cross-examination.
15 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I agree with you absolutely,
16 Mr. President.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Judge Nieto-Navia has one or more questions to you.
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 I think that the day before yesterday a reference was made to the
22 4th JNA Corps and it was said that it was renamed as the new SRK. You
23 said that they were not the same thing, that they were different troops,
24 different corps. My question is: How were the relations, if any - if
25 any - between the JNA and the VRS or the SRK in this case after the
1 withdrawal of the JNA from Sarajevo in May 1992?
2 A. At the time that was already the Army of Yugoslavia. It had been
3 renamed as the Army of Yugoslavia. And after the withdrawal from Bosnia
4 and Herzegovina, not a single regular unit of the Army of Yugoslavia
5 participated in the combat on the side of the SRK. Unfortunately, at the
6 time in Sarajevo other parts of the school centre, Marsal Tito, these were
7 cadets and they had been withdrawn. That only succeeded in the month of
8 June. They remained there, but this was not a combat section and they
9 didn't participate in the fighting. And furthermore, the general staff
10 and the Supreme Command of the Army of Yugoslavia certainly didn't have
11 any direct or indirect influence on the command in the Republika Srpska,
12 apart from the fact that attempts were made to achieve peace. This was in
13 the framework of the Geneva negotiations and the contact established
14 between delegations. The Yugoslav People's Army had influence on the Army
15 of Republika Srpska in the sense that it assisted in taking care of the
16 families of officers and non-commissioned officers who were members of the
17 JNA and who had remained in the Army of Republika Srpska. They would
18 receive salaries because the families would live from these salaries.
19 They didn't have anything else to live off.
20 And furthermore, they were provided with medical treatment in
21 medical centres of the Army of Yugoslavia.
22 The Army of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia behaved as if it were a
23 friendly country towards the Army of Republika Srpska and towards
24 Republika Srpska, which was the political entity of the Serbian people.
25 They behaved as a friend, not as allies, because being an ally involves a
1 lot more than friendship does. And naturally it's a tradition -- there's
2 a volunteer tradition among the Serbs and there were volunteers from all
3 over the place. In all the wars that were waged by Serbs, there were
4 volunteers. In the Second World War, 10.000 Serb volunteers came to fight
5 for the liberation of Serbia, they came from America.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Correction: In the First World War.
7 A. I didn't manage to find a single document, a single indication,
8 single decision that would show that there was any kind of direct
9 influence of the Army of Yugoslavia on the Army of Republika Srpska after
10 the withdrawal had taken place. In fact, this army was almost thrown out.
11 They were left to the mercy of all those who wanted to disturb them, to
12 interfere with them, because it's impossible for such an army to withdraw
13 in 15 days in this manner from Bosnia.
14 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. Yesterday when you were referring
15 to the relations between the SRK, between the commander and the officers
16 of the SRK, you said that the commander was very well regarded by his
17 subordinates. I would like you to have a look again on document
18 D59 -- sorry, D259, the first paragraph. Could you read that paragraph
20 A. Yes. "In spite of several orders and warnings issued by SRK
21 commanders to the effect that fire shouldn't be opened on the city of
22 Sarajevo from weapons of a large calibre, they are continuing to do so.
23 Certain commanders, especially those of battalions and divisions, wilfully
24 violate this order from the SRK commander and fail to take into account
25 the consequences."
1 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Does this paragraph show the consideration and
2 obedience from battalion and division commanders to his chief, as you
3 mentioned yesterday?
4 A. This says that certain commanders did not respect this. It
5 doesn't say that the entire commander system was not functioning. I said
6 that Galic, the corps commander, did have certain problems with certain
7 commanders, with the commander of the Igman Brigade, to an extent with the
8 commander of the Ilijas Brigade, with certain paramilitary formations, and
9 this shows that it was correct for the corps commander to repeat in his
10 orders that fire should not be opened on the city without his
11 authorisation or the authorisation of the operative centre or the system
12 of command according to his decisions.
13 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you. When you were referring to your
14 handwritten notes and you made -- well, reference were made to snipers,
15 ask you said, answering a question of the Prosecutor, that sniper squads
16 were established in the second half of 1994. Do you recall it?
17 A. Yes, sniper groups, sniper units. People called them in various
19 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Could you elaborate a little bit on that.
20 That is, when, where, how were those squads established and whether they
21 were established more or less at the same time by the SRK and the BiH army
22 or not, something about that.
23 A. In the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sniper units existed a lot
24 earlier. I mentioned a number of documents which show that the battalions
25 had sniper units and the brigades had sniper platoons, but the 1st Corps
1 as early as 1993 set aside snipers and formed sniper units at the level of
2 a corps, and this was to be -- these were to be units that would be under
3 the command of the 1st Corps commander. The Sarajevo Romanija Corps
4 didn't do this and it didn't have sniper units during the relevant period
5 of time that I analysed, during General Galic's mandate. I didn't come
6 across any documents showing that sniper units had been formed as part of
7 the corps or as part of his -- of its subordinate units. And
8 afterwards -- after that I didn't analyse any document, documents that
9 concern the period when General Galic no longer had the mandate. But
10 commanders told me that in the second half of 1994 they formed sniper
11 groups as anti-sniping units.
12 JUDGE NIETO-NAVIA: Thank you.
13 Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ORIE: General Radinovic, unfortunately we are not able to
15 finish today because it's quarter to 2.00 and Judge El Mahdi would have
16 questions for you, I might have some questions for you as well. So I'll
17 give you the same instruction as I did the last few days, that you should
18 not speak about your testimony given or still to be given in this court.
19 And we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning, 9.00.
20 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the
22 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] As there are a few translation
24 issues, could someone from the French booth come to see me. I would be
25 very grateful if they could show me such kindness. Thank you. After the
1 hearing, so that we don't waste any time.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'd prefer to have it -- how much time would it
3 take to --
4 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I can do it very rapidly.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] But there was a problem --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do.
8 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not much time at all.
9 It has to do with yesterday, above all. There was a problem. The
10 witness never said what we can see in the French transcript. He never
11 said that he had a request to make to the general. That might imply
12 something. He spoke about a general request. And on page 7 we have
13 "before" instead of "afterwards"; page 16, we're not talking about a
14 person who was accused but a person accused -- not the accused but an
15 accused; and on line 21, it's a matter of spelling that should be
16 verified. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
18 Before I adjourn, General Galic, when I am well informed today is
19 your 60th birthday. Is that correct?
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, today is my 60th birthday. My
21 61st year is about to start.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Although the Chamber is fully aware that the
23 circumstances are not such that you would wish at your birthday, we
24 nevertheless would like to congratulate you with your birthday and wish
25 you at least a pleasant remainder of the day, and we hope that you still
1 can enjoy at least a bit your birthday.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, I'd
3 like to thank you and everyone else here. Everyone has to bear their
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
7 at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,
8 the 13th day of March, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.