1 Tuesday, 6 April 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
8 number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Could we have the appearances for the Prosecution.
12 MR. WITHOPF: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
13 Your Honours. For the Prosecution, Chester Stamp, Ekkehard Withopf, and
14 Ruth Karper, the case manager. And I extend my greetings to the Defence
15 counsel as well.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 And the appearances for the Defence, who aren't all present
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Good
20 day, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic, Edina
21 Residovic, counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and Muriel Cauvin, our
22 legal assistant. Thank you.
23 MR. DIXON: Good afternoon, Your Honours. On behalf of
24 Mr. Kubura for today, Mr. Rodney Dixon. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Dixon.
1 The Trial Chamber would like to greet everyone present in the
2 courtroom, members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused, and
3 everyone else present. And the Trial Chamber would like to greet
4 Madam Registrar, who will help us in the course of our work. And I don't
5 want to forget the court reporter or the interpreters either.
6 We have to continue with the hearing of a witness today, but
7 before we do so, the Trial Chamber will render a decision concerning the
8 documents. I have provided the interpreters with a copy of this
9 decision, and please pay careful attention to the decision. The decision
10 relates to the documents.
11 The Trial Chamber hereby renders the following decision: Last
12 Friday the Trial Chamber rendered an oral decision in which it asked the
13 Prosecution to provide the Trial Chamber with a copy of the documents
14 that are contested as soon as possible. The Trial Chamber asked the
15 Defence to provide a written explanation for which they were contesting
16 individual documents, and they were asked to set forth arguments that
17 concern the relevance, the authenticity, and the chain of custody
18 relating to the documents.
19 The Defence was asked to provide by the 8th of April or at a
20 subsequent date, if this was necessary for the Defence, a response to the
21 questions put to it by the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber also asked
22 the Prosecutor to respond to the written submissions of the Defence by
23 the 19th of April. The Trial Chamber stated that following the exchanges
24 between the Prosecution and the Defence, the Trial Chamber would hold a
25 particular hearing concerning these documents, and we indicated that
1 these documents would be marked for identification.
2 The Trial Chamber took this decision in order to structure the
3 debate on the admissibility of documents, given the vast amount of
4 documents that are contested by the Defence. There are over 600 such
6 Following this decision rendered on last Friday, the Defence
7 stated yesterday that the explanations that they had been requested to
8 provide would make it necessary for them to draft a document of 2 or
9 3 hundred pages and that that would require at least six weeks of work.
10 In addition, the Defence stated that it would be difficult for them to
11 set forth their arguments for each document because the Defence claimed
12 that the Prosecution had not yet claimed how they were going to use these
13 documents. The Trial Chamber then demanded that the Defence should state
14 its position on Monday; that is to say, yesterday. The Defence presented
15 its arguments in detail, and the Prosecution responded to the arguments
16 set forth by the Defence.
17 The Trial Chamber would summarise the debate as follows: In the
18 Defence's opinion, they can't be requested to provide detailed
19 explanations regarding the contested documents at this point in time,
20 since such explanations, in the Defence's opinion, should be provided
21 after the Prosecution has finished presenting its case. The Defence
22 pointed out that it was possible to tender documents into evidence
23 without doing so through a witness, but in the Defence's opinion the
24 jurisprudence of this Tribunal and the practice of this Tribunal to date
25 is in favour of tendering documents through witnesses. By following this
1 procedure, in the Defence's opinion, the Prosecution could indicate,
2 after it has concluded its case, they could indicate whether they intend
3 to use all the documents that haven't been tendered and they could
4 indicate category by category what the relevance and the source of these
5 documents are. This would then make it possible for the Defence to
6 respond to the arguments set forth by the Prosecution.
7 In the Defence's opinion, the rights of the accused would be
8 better protected in such a case because it would be possible for the
9 Defence to cross-examine witnesses through which documents would be
10 tendered, and thus the burden of proof would still be placed on the
11 Prosecution. The Defence pointed out that only 222 documents are
12 referred to in the pre-trial brief, and the Prosecution provided
13 indications as to how 127 documents would be used, 127 documents which
14 were contested, and this is one of the reasons for which it would be very
15 difficult for the Defence to express its position and, naturally, to set
16 forth its arguments concerning the vast majority of the documents.
17 Following the arguments presented by the Defence, the Prosecution
18 stated the following yesterday - and the Trial Chamber would like to
19 remind you of the arguments presented: Tendering documents directly into
20 evidence, without having recourse to a witness, is a well-established
21 practice. The two main reasons that the Defence presented for contesting
22 documents, in the Prosecution's opinion, are relevance and authenticity.
23 The Prosecution stated that the Defence also identified 12 other factors
24 that affected these two criteria. According to the Prosecution, the
25 Defence did not indicate which of these criteria would be applicable to
1 each document.
2 The Prosecution also stated that the majority of the contested
3 documents came from the Sarajevo archives and that among these documents
4 there were many documents that came from the BH 3rd Corps or from the
5 7th Brigade. They also stated that about 100 or 50 documents were signed
6 either by one or the other of the accused. If the Defence contests
7 these documents for reasons of authenticity, it is the opinion of the
8 Prosecution that it would be useful to know as soon as possible whether
9 this is the case because resolving this question, in the opinion of the
10 Prosecution, might require an expert evaluation of the signatures on the
12 We believe that the burden of proof has not been reversed,
13 because the Prosecution still has to demonstrate to the Trial Chamber
14 that the documents are relevant and authentic.
15 Following the observations made by the Defence and by the
16 Prosecution, the Trial Chamber on this day sees no reason to reconsider
17 the decision it rendered last Friday. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber is
18 of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to clarify its
19 decision and to add certain other elements to it.
20 On the basis of the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and
21 Evidence governing this Tribunal, the Trial Chamber has to ensure that
22 the proceedings are expeditious and that the proceedings are fair with
23 respect to both parties, and naturally, it is necessary for the rights of
24 both accused to be respected.
25 The Trial Chamber must ensure that the evidence is efficiently
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 presented for the sake of determining the truth, and at the same time it
2 is necessary to avoid wasting time. This is the Trial Chamber's
3 obligation pursuant to Rule 92(F) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4 The Trial Chamber would also like to state that according to
5 Rule 65 ter of the Rules concerning the pre-trial stage of the
6 proceedings provides, and I quote, "The Prosecutor must on each occasion
7 state whether the Defence contests or not the authenticity of exhibits."
8 As a result, it is the Trial Chamber's opinion that the Defence should be
9 requested to set forth the grounds for which it is contesting the
10 documents presented by the Prosecution. These are documents that they
11 have had in their possession for a number of months now.
12 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that the burden of proof has
13 not been reversed, given that pursuant to Rule 89 it is still for the
14 Prosecution to convince the Trial Chamber that a document should be
15 admitted into evidence, and they should do this by demonstrating the
16 relevance and authenticity of the documents concerned. Naturally the
17 Defence is not requested to provide proof that the Prosecution's
18 documents should not be admitted into evidence. The Trial Chamber is not
19 of the opinion that a document can be admitted into evidence for the sole
20 reason that it has not been sufficiently contested by the Defence. The
21 Defence is simply requested to state its position with regard to a given
22 document. The Prosecution has to demonstrate that there is no reason for
23 not admitting a document into evidence.
24 As a result, the Trial Chamber - and please pay careful attention
25 to what I'm going to say now - as a result, the Trial Chamber orders that
1 the Defence submit a written document to the Trial Chamber by the 19th --
2 on the 19th of April, 2004. First of all, the contested documents should
3 be placed into categories, and the reasons for which they are being
4 contested should be set forth, reasons such as relevance, authenticity,
5 and also the 12 other factors mentioned that may affect these two
6 criteria. The Defence should state in one or two lines the reasons for
7 which they are contesting each document. And thirdly - this is
8 important; please pay attention - the Defence should indicate which
9 documents in their opinion can only be tendered into evidence through a
10 witness. And they should also indicate in which cases it's absolutely
11 necessary to cross-examine a witness.
12 So I'll summarise what I have just said. The Defence has three
13 obligations to comply with: Firstly, with regard to the 600-odd
14 documents that are contested, the Defence has to set forth the categories
15 that these documents belong to. These categories could be based on
16 relevance or authenticity or on the 12 factors that you have mentioned.
17 In addition, to respond to your argument concerning the 300 pages, we are
18 only requesting that you write one line for each document, so that won't
19 amount to 300 pages. Thirdly, you should inform us -- with regard to the
20 655 documents, you should inform us which documents are absolutely
21 necessary and which documents can only be tendered into evidence through
22 a witness.
23 So these are the three points that I wanted to indicate with
24 regard to the Defence.
25 As far as the Prosecution is concerned - and I can see that
1 Mr. Withopf has a pen in his hands. He will pay careful attention to his
2 obligations - the Trial Chamber requests that the Prosecution present to
3 the Trial Chamber a written submission by the 19th of April. In this
4 submission, the Prosecution should indicate on the basis of the
5 categories concerning the documents, they should indicate the source and
6 information concerning the chain of custody.
7 Secondly, the Prosecution should provide the Trial Chamber with
8 more detailed information about the source or the origin of the listed
9 documents, if they are from unknown sources, because in the consolidated
10 list there are documents for which no source has been indicated. The
11 Trial Chamber would like to know what the origin and source of these
12 documents are. So the Prosecution should indicate the source of these
13 documents when the source hasn't been indicated.
14 Thirdly, the Prosecution should indicate to the Trial Chamber the
15 reason for which the transcripts of testimony of witnesses in other cases
16 before the Tribunal are included in the list of the Prosecution's
17 exhibits, and it -- they haven't followed the procedure pursuant to Rule
18 92 bis(D) and (E).
19 And fourthly, the Prosecution is requested to indicate in rough
20 terms what the relevance of the documents that haven't been referred to
21 in the pre-trial brief is, documents which have not yet been admitted.
22 Because we note that there are several hundred documents that aren't
23 referred to in the pre-trial brief, so we would like some information
24 from the Prosecution about this matter.
25 Having received written submissions from the Defence and the
1 Prosecution, it is the intention of the Trial Chamber to have a hearing
2 in order to discuss the subject of the admissibility of documents into
3 evidence. This particular hearing relating to these documents could be
4 held either one week before the expert witness General Reinhardt is heard
5 or one week after his hearing. The written submissions provided by the
6 parties, as we have mentioned, before this hearing would make it possible
7 to structure the debate and to proceed in a more efficient manner, and it
8 would allow the Trial Chamber and the parties to prepare themselves in an
9 appropriate manner.
10 As a result, the hearings would be structured. This would be
11 done by following the most logical categories in the light of the written
12 submissions of the parties. And during these hearings, the duration of
13 which will be determined after having taken note of the written
14 submissions, these hearings will last for a number of days, for one week
15 at a minimum. In the course of these hearings, the Prosecution, in order
16 to avoid wasting any time, the Prosecution will indicate document by
17 document the reasons for which documents in a given category should be
18 admitted. The Defence will then be requested to make a response and to
19 set forth its arguments relating to the Prosecution's arguments.
20 So this is our decision. Please reread the transcript carefully.
21 Both parties should inform us about the request by the 19th of April.
22 There are three points for the Defence and four points that the
23 Prosecution has to address. This will make it possible for us to advance
24 with the examination of these documents in a more efficient manner. And
25 as you have understood, we believe that it is necessary to have a hearing
1 dedicated to the discussion of these documents. In order to be able to
2 hold this hearing, we need to know what the categories of documents are.
3 So both parties are requested to provide us with this information.
4 Naturally, if you are not in a position to do this, the Trial
5 Chamber will do this. But as the parties make the proceedings advance,
6 this is your obligation. But if you are not in a position to do so, the
7 Trial Chamber will intervene. It is for the parties to tell us what the
8 categories of documents are. Naturally we aren't requesting that you
9 draft 300 pages. We only ask that you write one line for each document.
10 So that should be sufficient time -- you should have sufficient time by
11 the 19th of April. We will then have a hearing and we will discuss each
12 individual document.
13 So there are two possibilities: Either we will have this hearing
14 one week before General Reinhardt is heard, or one week after.
15 Naturally, the Prosecution is in charge of scheduling witnesses. It is
16 for them to see when this might be possible. But roughly speaking, one
17 week should be quite sufficient.
18 Please reread the decision very carefully, and we will then
19 follow it.
20 We'll now ask the usher to bring the witness into the courtroom,
21 because as you know, we have to have a break between 5.00 and 6.00. We
22 will resume at 6.00, and I have asked the legal officer to see with the
23 registry and the other relevant services whether we could continue after
24 this hour in order to finish hearing the witness. As we have already
25 said, the Trial Chamber also has some questions that it would like to put
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 to the witness.
2 Regarding the witness, the hearing will be resumed by the
3 re-examination by the Prosecution, who asked to have overnight to prepare
4 their questions.
5 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Mr. President and Your Honours.
6 Good afternoon.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But we need to wait
8 for the witness to arrive, Mr. Stamp. I know you don't want to waste any
9 time, but let's wait for the witness to come.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Can you
13 hear the interpreters?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sit down, please. The Chamber
16 greets you and thanks you for staying overnight to be able to answer
17 additional questions that will be put to you by Mr. Stamp, who represents
18 the Prosecutor.
19 Mr. Stamp, you have the floor.
20 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 WITNESS: SEAD ZERIC [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
24 Q. And good afternoon, Mr. Zeric.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. You said yesterday in answering a question put by my friend for
2 the Defence that there was a basic prosecutor's office in Travnik as well
3 as a basic prosecutor's office in Bugojno. Just for clarification, if
4 there were reports of offences committed by ABiH or Bosnian government
5 army personnel in Bugojno, would those reports go to your office?
6 A. If a report was filed against a member of the army, every
7 prosecutor's office is obliged to pass on the case to the competent
8 prosecutor's office. And if it feels that it is not within a
9 jurisdiction, it would pass it on to another prosecutor's office. So if
10 it was filed with the basic prosecutor's office in Travnik or Bugojno and
11 if they were army personnel, it was their obligation to pass on that case
12 to us for further processing, and vice versa. If it was a question of
13 civilians, we would pass on the case to the basic prosecutor's office in
14 Travnik or Bugojno.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. Which brings me - and that's a very
16 good segue - to another answer that you gave in respect to civilians.
17 You said that when there was a mixture of civilian and military personnel
18 accused of having committed an offence, according -- or in accordance
19 with Article 9 of the -- I forgot my glasses, but it -- Article 9 in
20 respect to district military courts. The civilian court in Travnik would
21 have responsibility where there was an admixture of civilian and military
22 accused. You said that. Can you elaborate upon that a little bit
24 A. Yes. If a crime was committed by two persons as co-perpetrators,
25 or several persons some of whom were military and others civilian, in
1 that case according to the provisions of that decree which was in force,
2 had the force of law, the case would be dealt with by regular civilian
3 courts or prosecutor's offices.
4 Q. Very well. You were presented with quite a few documents, which
5 I don't propose to review or have you review unless you really need to
6 see one. The documents that you were shown, in particular those reports
7 that you made, indicate that you operated under very difficult
8 conditions, particularly lack of funding. That is so?
9 A. Yes, that's true.
10 Q. Notwithstanding those difficulties, yourself and other members of
11 your office, as indeed the court, the military court quite laudably
12 continued to function effectively during the period 1993 to 1996. Would
13 you agree that that is evident from those reports that you sent?
14 A. I think so. We did carry out our basic tasks and duties. I have
15 to emphasise that at the time in the prosecutor's office of which I was
16 in charge there were two deputies in addition to myself and two
17 administrative clerks. The whole body consisted of five staff members.
18 And as you were able to see, there were years when we had up to a
19 thousand cases. But in most cases, we worked well in view of the
21 Q. Indeed you said at page 44 -- well, you said yesterday - you
22 wouldn't really know the page number in the transcript - that --
23 actually, it's not even page 44.
24 You said yesterday, though, that the court and the staff members
25 sometimes went as far as to investigate crimes in the vicinity of the
1 confrontation lines. That is how seriously you took your tasks.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon.
3 MR. BOURGON: [Microphone not activated]
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] My friend mentioned page 44. I
6 don't see that line. Maybe the pagination is not the same, because
7 there's the official and non-official version. I would just like to know
8 where we are, on what page.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stamp, you mentioned
10 page 44. Are you sure of the page, or is it according to your memory?
11 Because Mr. Bourgon, who doesn't need glasses, can't find it on that
13 MR. STAMP: As the today's transcript reveals at page 13, I did
14 say immediately that it's not page 44, as a matter of fact. Indeed, it's
15 page 55 of the English transcript.
16 Q. Yes. You said --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Page 55, then.
18 MR. STAMP: 55 to 56.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 55 and 56.
20 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
21 MR. STAMP:
22 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... "although in a larger number
23 of cases we actually had to go into the field, where we instigated
24 investigations. For example, Bugojno and Vitez, we investigated
25 investigations in the immediate vicinity of the front lines." That
1 surely that is an indication of how you took your responsibility
2 seriously. Agreed?
3 A. Yes, we did investigate. And there were even trials sometimes,
4 if conditions permitted, if we had the minimum technical requirements for
5 a trial. In view of the shortage of means of transport and everything
6 else, we actually had to go towards the suspects and the accused, instead
7 of them coming to us.
8 Q. Very well. Now, you were presented yesterday with a few batches
9 of documents involving reports made by various military police
10 departments, requests for investigations that your office made, and even
11 judgements by the court itself. And I perused most of them; almost all
12 of them related to crimes against property, like theft. Did you see any
13 of them related to crimes involving the burning of Croat houses by ABiH
15 A. I was shown yesterday one such document, when a person in
16 addition to theft also burnt a Croat house. I even remember the name,
17 Mujicic Serif [phoen]. I remember that event. And this offence at the
18 time was qualified as one of the graver offences, and that person, as far
19 as I remember, was held in detention for quite some time, and he was
20 sentenced to a higher term. I think that at the time and even pursuant
21 to current laws any burning of facilities or provoking a general danger
22 is qualified as an offence of general danger, a threat to property or a
23 threat to body and limb of other persons.
24 Q. Very well. Thank you. My real concern was the number of such
25 reports among the batches you saw. You said you saw just one such
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 A. Yesterday. Yesterday I saw one. But in relation to the general
3 situation? Is that what you're referring to? You mean in relation to
4 all the reports I received?
5 Q. No, no. You did, in answer to me, say yesterday - and I'll just
6 quote it - and this is at page 36:
7 "Q. Can you recall if you received any reports from ABiH military
8 units about ABiH soldiers being involved in burning Croat
10 And your answer was:
11 "A. I never received such reports."
12 And that is what -- that is not exactly what I'm asking you now.
13 I'm really asking you about the documents. Basically the document that
14 you were shown by the Defence yesterday related only in one instance to
15 the burning of a Croat house. You agree with that?
16 A. I do agree with that. And I think that reports of that kind and
17 documents of that kind were very rare. And I didn't recall them when you
18 asked me the question, and it was only when I saw the document that I
19 remembered the event, because this was a long time ago, and that those
20 reports with such offences were very, very rare.
21 Q. Thank you. That is precisely what I wanted to clarify.
22 However, among the batch of documents that you received from the
23 Defence or you were shown by the Defence yesterday - and that is all I'm
24 asking you about now, those documents that you were shown by the Defence
25 yesterday - you didn't see any relevant to the killing of Croats who were
1 detained in any prison or detention facility, did you?
2 A. I didn't see any such document.
3 Q. You didn't see any documents among those batches that related to
4 the killing of Croats on any of the following dates, the 26th of January,
5 1993, the 24th of April, 1993, and the 8th of June, 1993, did you?
6 A. No, I didn't. I didn't pay attention to the dates, but I think
7 that there weren't any detained civilians killed by members of the
8 BH army.
9 Q. Of course being a prosecutor yourself you would go by reports you
10 received; well, withdrawn. That is an argument, not so much of a
12 You didn't among the batch of documents you received yesterday
13 see any of them in relation to the damaging of Croat Roman Catholic
14 churches or monasteries, did you?
15 A. I have to say that I didn't review all those documents in detail,
16 but just leafing through them superficially I don't think I did notice
17 any such document.
18 Q. Neither among those documents that you were shown, you didn't see
19 any relevant to any Croat prisoner who was severely beaten or mistreated
20 in any detention facility, did you?
21 A. As far as I can remember, I didn't, except that one woman -- no,
22 I don't think I did see any such document.
23 Q. Interestingly, some of the documents you were shown - and just
24 for the record and the Court I am speaking primarily but not exclusively
25 to the batch of documents comprising D121 - involved reports that were
1 made by various officials from ABiH military police to your office, and
2 some of these reports involved or included among them statements taken
3 from witnesses by these military police units. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Some of these reports even included references to offences
6 committed by persons who were unidentified. Do you recall seeing some of
7 those yesterday?
8 A. Yes, there were reports against unidentified perpetrators.
9 Q. Sir, am I correct in understanding, then, that the military
10 police were not only expected and duty-bound to simply make a report to
11 you but it was a practice, perhaps even their duty, to also do some form
12 of preliminary investigation, perhaps even just taking a statement,
13 before a report was made? Is that conclusion a reasonable and fair one,
14 having regard to those documents that you were shown?
15 A. Yes. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure, it was the duty
16 of the police to collect a minimum of evidence and to attach them to the
17 criminal report, because just to file a criminal report wouldn't mean
18 anything for us. So they were obliged to take those statements. But we
19 didn't use those statements after that. This was just a basis for the
20 criminal proceedings to continue.
21 Q. Thank you. Which means, if I could take it a step further - and
22 tell me if you agree with this - that should a commander receive
23 information that persons, many persons have been murdered or killed, or
24 that many persons held in detention have been severely beaten, it would
25 be the responsibility of the commander to at least instigate a
1 preliminary investigation of those allegations.
2 A. Having learnt of any offence being committed, it is normal for
3 the person - and that is the military police, the security organs -
4 should undertake the steps proscribed by the law, and that means first of
5 all to try and discover the perpetrator so that we as the judicial body
6 could continue our proceedings.
7 Q. And certainly, in respect to serious offences like murder,
8 especially mass murder or murder of more than one person, your office
9 could receive, if a commander was, interested, a report, even if the
10 perpetrators were not precisely identified.
11 A. Yes, that was the practice. The prosecutor's office would
12 receive a report even if persons were not identified, with a description
13 of the event and the basic elements that the police collected about that
15 Q. So just to wrap up on this section, the basic responsibility of
16 the commander is not only to report these offences to you, as you
17 indicated in your evidence in chief, but also to start some type of --
18 MR. STAMP: Excuse me, Mr. President, I'm quite sure it's
19 harmless, but since I don't speak the language, I don't think it should
20 be -- counsel should speak so loudly that, you know, I could hear from
21 across here. I'm quite sure, you know, it's nothing really for the
22 witness, but just as a matter of appearances one should be careful.
23 I'll move on.
24 Q. Now, having gone to investigate offences reported in the facility
25 of the front lines -- withdrawn.
1 Had you received reports in respect to murders and savage
2 beatings of prisoners and had you therefore investigated, would you agree
3 that those reports might have, assuming that these things were happening,
4 prevented the continuation of these offences?
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to ask the
6 witness to make conclusions of this kind and express an opinion of this
7 kind I feel is absolutely inappropriate. This is a fact witness who has
8 provided all the relevant facts, and I think it is absolutely
9 inappropriate to ask the witness to comment on conclusions that are being
10 offered to him.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, without making any
12 conclusions, the questions put by Mr. Stamp are quite precise. In view
13 of your position as a military prosecutor, did you have any knowledge of
14 murder committed of persons who were detained by soldiers of the
15 BiH army? So we are not asking you an opinion. Do you have any
16 knowledge of this type of event or not? It's a very precise question.
17 Perhaps the question could be a bit confusing, which explains the
18 opposition of the Defence, but by rephrasing the question, as I am doing,
19 that is: As a military prosecutor, did you have any knowledge of events
20 linked to murder, murder of victims by BiH soldiers? It's a very precise
21 question, a technical question, and it's being addressed to a
22 professional. So what would you say?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I answered a similar question
24 already yesterday. I think that during the war and while I was the
25 district military prosecutor, I had not heard of the murder or torture of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 civilians by members of the BiH army. Because if I had heard about them,
2 it would have been my official duty to instigate proceedings, regardless
3 of whether I had received a report or not.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So your reply is
5 very precise.
6 Continue, Mr. Stamp. That was the gist of your question, wasn't
8 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President. There is just one last related
9 to it.
10 Q. And had you so proceeded to initiate proceedings in respect to
11 these reports, if you had received them, would you expect that your
12 initiation of proceedings might have prevented or led to the punishment
13 of some of the perpetrators?
14 MR. STAMP: Mr. President, I withdraw the question. We will
15 address it another time.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] He's withdrawing it, so please
17 sit down, Mr. Bourgon.
18 As far as I am able to understand, the re-examination is over.
19 Has the Defence following the re-examination any additional
20 questions? If not, the Judges have some questions. But only questions
21 related to the replies given to the additional questions of the
22 Prosecution. Do not go beyond that scope, Madam Residovic.
23 Yes, Mr. Stamp.
24 MR. STAMP: It's within the veiling of the court to decide how
25 these proceedings should be conducted, but earlier the court had decided
1 that we would cut it according to the basic Rules: Direct examination,
2 cross-examination, redirect. The counsel seeks a second bite of the
3 cherry, to cross-examine again. And then she might ask questions about
4 the documents which might require another late-night stint on behalf of
5 the Prosecution trying to get to it. I don't think it ought to be
6 allowed. When she indicated that her cross-examination was sufficient, I
7 tried to assist by offering her documents not 6/5:56 whether wanted to
8 put in. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. The Defence is not allowed
10 to ask questions following the re-examination of the Prosecution except
11 if those questions have produced new elements. That's all. That is the
13 Madam Residovic, only on questions that were put and that might
14 have led to new elements. You have the floor.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President, for
16 giving us an opportunity to ask a few questions in connection with the
17 re-examination by the Prosecution.
18 Further cross-examination by Ms. Residovic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zeric, the Prosecutor asked you some
20 questions regarding reports of burning of houses. You said that there
21 were few such reports to the best of your recollection. Is it true,
22 Mr. Zeric, that out of 1.000 cases that you had to deal with your two
23 deputies shared your work with you on an equal footing?
24 A. Yes. Actually, each one of us took care of one-third of the
25 load, but it was me who mostly received those criminal reports. I would
1 assign those cases to my deputies and myself.
2 Q. Is it possible, Mr. Zeric, that after all you may not remember
3 each and every case that you had in your hands in 1993?
4 A. I would need to review all those cases to be able to remember,
5 because since then at least 10 to 15 thousand criminal reports have
6 passed through my hands.
7 Q. Mr. Zeric, I will show you another report of the burning of a
8 house for you to confirm whether this is another one of those that you
9 didn't recollect. And, of course, it is to be found in the archives of
10 the cantonal prosecutor's office, which contain all the 1.000 cases that
11 you processed in 1993.
12 So as not to take too much time, I'll come back to that case. I
13 just want to ask you first whether it is true that the military police
14 and the security bodies of the BH army in accordance with the law had the
15 duty to investigate and report criminal offences committed by members of
16 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina only.
17 A. Yes, that is true. Everything else was done by the civilian
18 police and the judicial civilian authorities that existed parallel with
19 the military ones.
20 Q. If army authorities were to find out that certain offences might
21 have been committed by persons who were not members of the army, then the
22 obligation to investigate the event fell upon the civilian police.
23 A. Yes. This was taken over by the civilian police, except it
24 was -- if it happened in the combat zone area. Then the military
25 authorities would investigate and pass on the case to the responsible
1 civilian body.
2 Q. Mr. Zeric, do you know that the army exerted exceptional efforts
3 to protect the monastery in Guca Gora?
4 A. Yes, I do know that the monastery was protected. It was one of
5 the few facilities that was well protected, as compared to other
6 facilities in the area -- combat area.
7 Q. Is it also true, Mr. Zeric, that a criminal report was filed
8 against an unknown person who broke into the church in Travnik and that
9 it was never possible to find out who the perpetrators were, that is, the
10 people who entered the church and damaged it?
11 A. Yes, I know that there was a criminal report against an
12 unidentified perpetrator. I think that some furniture was broken and
13 that a cross was damaged. I remember those details now. But I don't
14 think the damage in that Catholic church in Travnik was extensive.
15 Q. In the area of your district prosecutor's office, would it be
16 correct to say that there weren't any cases of religious facilities being
18 A. As far as I am aware, not a single religious or holy building in
19 Travnik and beyond - that is to say, in all the municipalities that we
20 covered - no such building was blown up or destroyed.
21 Q. And one last question before I show you this document is:
22 Mr. Zeric, are you aware in 1993 the army that you cooperated with, the
23 organs of security and the military police, they set aside particular
24 units in order to provide protection for religious buildings and for the
1 A. Yes. In the area of Travnik and beyond, from the very beginning
2 of the war we received reports according to which religious buildings
3 were being protected, because there were individuals who would have
4 destroyed or damaged those buildings. So in fact, most of those
5 buildings were completely preserved.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I will now ask the usher to show
8 the witness a document that we have.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Residovic, could you tell
10 us where you got this document from. What is its source?
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This document was found in the
12 archives of the cantonal prosecutor's office in Travnik. The witness in
13 response to a question put to him by the Prosecution told us where the
14 prosecutor's office archives was located, and the Defence examined all
15 the archives of the court and of the prosecutor's office and found this
16 document in Travnik.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead with your question.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Zeric, yesterday you explained the procedure followed by the
20 prosecutor's office. I showed you a number of documents, requests for
21 launching investigations into certain acts that -- for which reports had
22 been filed with you. After your requests, would it be correct to say
23 that courts took decisions about conducting investigations and this in
24 fact amounted to the initiation of criminal proceedings? Is that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is this one of the decisions taken on the basis of a request
3 submitted by the district military prosecutor's office?
4 A. Yes. On the basis of our request to the judge, he took a
5 decision on conducting an investigation. And in fact, the person
6 mentioned thus no longer -- was no longer a suspect; he was an accused.
7 Q. Was this a request to establish whether abandoned houses had been
8 torched, the houses of local Croats, and this was committed by the
10 A. Yes. The court took a decision on the basis of this report, that
11 there was a danger posed. I can't tell you exactly what this concerns,
12 that it's a crime.
13 Q. It says: "In the early morning hours on the 14th of July in a
14 drunken state --" and then you can't see something. It says: "In
15 Travnik he set fire to the abandoned houses of local Croats owned by Ante
16 Janjic [phoen], et cetera."
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Given that the witness has
18 identified this document as a document from his prosecutor's office and
19 it was a document adopted -- issued on the basis of a request from his
20 prosecutor's office, could this document be admitted into evidence.
21 A. This was a document from the court. It was preceded by a
22 document from the prosecutor's office.
23 Q. Can this be seen in the statement of reasons, where it says that
24 this decision was taken on the basis of a request conducting an
25 investigation from the district prosecutor's office in Travnik? The date
1 is the 22nd of June.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You received this court document, and there is a stamp from your
4 prosecutor's office.
5 A. Yes. It was forwarded to the military district prosecutor's
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Given the additional
8 explanations, I suggest that this document be admitted into evidence.
9 MR. STAMP: The problem is --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.
11 MR. STAMP: -- a lot of the original is obliterated. That's the
12 first problem. I don't know if there's a copy -- whether the words of
13 the B/C/S copy are a little bit clearer.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Prosecution has said
15 that the B/C/S document has parts that have been deleted. So was a
16 marker used? Was the intention to conceal some of the sentences? What
17 can the Defence say?
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We've heard about the conditions
19 in which the prosecution and the court in Travnik had to work. A
20 document of this kind is in the archives because the deputy or the judge
21 who worked on this made a note of this in those conditions. But if you
22 use a good pair of glasses, you can see everything in the document. And
23 the document was translated by CLSS, and the translation contains
24 everything contained in the original.
25 MR. STAMP: I don't know if counsel --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stamp.
2 MR. STAMP: I don't know how counsel could say that it contains
3 everything in the original if she does not have a clear original with all
4 the words here to show us.
5 However, we could receive it provisionally, pending a good and
6 accurate copy. I think the fact that a translation was done by CLSS
7 indicates that somewhere around there is a copy that can be read. So I
8 wouldn't have any objections to the document.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you don't have
10 any objections.
11 Madam Registrar, could we have a number. Could we have an
12 exhibit number.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This would be marked Exhibit
14 DH123 and DH123/E for the English version.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Mrs. Residovic, could you please hurry up a bit.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
18 Mr. President.
19 MR. STAMP: I think there might have been a 123 yesterday.
20 Perhaps an inquiry could be made -- D123 -- DH123.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam Registrar, could
22 you check that. Perhaps it's 124.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. You're correct. Thank you for
24 the correction. So it would be DH124, and the English version, DH124/E.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, did you want to
1 carry on?
2 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just wanted to
3 clarify something. This will certainly be of assistance to the Trial
4 Chamber. You saw a document here, a part of which had been effaced. In
5 the course of the previous debate, we spoke about technical shortcomings
6 of certain documents.
7 Mr. President, a number of documents that were obtained from the
8 archives have either parts that have been underlined or that have been
9 marked over. We can't see who has highlighted certain documents or who
10 has underlined certain documents. That's why the translation service,
11 when it receives a document, tries to the best of its ability to
12 reproduce the original and to highlight the parts in the translation if
13 they are highlighted in the original. So when we talk about technical
14 shortcomings that certain documents have, we think that this is something
15 that could be a difficulty when trying to assess documents.
16 I just wanted to clarify this matter. Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. There can only be two
18 explanations: Either the document was underlined by someone with a
19 felt-tip, a colour felt-tip used to highlight certain phrases, or perhaps
20 there was an amnesty or a law which made it possible for persons who had
21 previously been prosecuted -- made it possible for these people to be
22 amnestied. So perhaps the judicial services was required to efface all
23 elements that might identify the person concerned in these documents. In
24 this B/C/S document, the name appears nevertheless in a number of places.
25 So we don't have a precise answer to this question at the moment.
1 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if you have a look
2 at the bottom of the document to the left, there is a number which comes
3 from the translation service of this Tribunal, and we could obtain the
4 document that they worked on, since they have managed to translate the
5 document. My colleague is quite correct; it's very difficult to
6 translate a document such as the one presented today. But the
7 translation service managed to do so. So we could produce the document
8 that they used.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At this point in time,
10 Mr. Stamp are you requiring that the document be marked for
11 identification, or regardless of the problems you don't raise any
12 objections? Or what does this document actually state? It say that is a
13 judge from the military Tribunal ordered the launching of an
14 investigation into Mr. Razic, who in a drunken state set fire to houses
15 abandoned by Croat owners. That's all it contains.
16 MR. STAMP: I have no objections to it. It having been
17 translated by the CLSS, I'm quite sure they had a copy that they could
18 read. And I'm quite sure that they gave us a faithful reproduction of
19 what they had. So I have no objections.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So that will remain
22 Does the Defence have any other questions, Mrs. Residovic?
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] No. Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 The Judges have some questions for the witness. I'll now turn to
1 the Judge sitting on my right.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE RASOAZANANY: [Interpretation] Witness, as prosecutor you
4 had the power to maintain public order and peace in the area under your
5 jurisdiction. When performing your duties, did you have any working
6 meetings with the BH command? Naturally, in 1993.
7 A. Well, in 1993 -- I can't remember exactly whether it was in 1993
8 or whether it was at some other time, but we did have working meetings
9 with people from brigades. Above all, this had to do with helping them
10 in their work.
11 JUDGE RASOAZANANY: [Interpretation] So what were these meetings?
12 What were the purposes?
13 A. Well, the purpose of these meetings was to improve the quality of
14 the material that we were provided with and to take additional measures
15 in order to discover who the perpetrators of certain crimes were. Quite
16 a lot of criminal reports had been filed against unidentified
17 perpetrators of crimes.
18 JUDGE RASOAZANANY: [Interpretation] Witness, you have certainly
19 heard about foreign combatants, about the Mujahedin. Did you receive any
20 reports from the BH command that concerned the actions of these foreign
21 combatants, of the Mujahedin?
22 A. As far as I can remember, we didn't receive any such reports. We
23 didn't receive any criminal reports against such combatants either.
24 JUDGE RASOAZANANY: [Interpretation] And my last question: Did
25 you receive any files, any documents from the BH command that concerned
1 war crimes committed by soldiers and violations of the Geneva Conventions
2 and of humanitarian law?
3 A. We didn't receive any such reports. We didn't receive any
4 reports that referred to violations of the Geneva Conventions and
5 violations of the way in which a war should be conducted.
6 I should also add that at that time we used the Geneva
7 Conventions to a very slight extent and almost not at all in the course
8 of performing our law enforcement duties.
9 JUDGE RASOAZANANY: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will now ask the Judge who is
11 sitting to my left to ask the witness some questions.
12 JUDGE SWART: Good afternoon, Witness. I would like to put to
13 you a few questions on your activities as a prosecutor in Bosnia in 1993.
14 The first questions I have are very simple, have to do with our
15 ignorance of the situation there. You told us yesterday that there was a
16 military tribunal in Travnik, there was another one in Zenica. And my
17 first question is: Where would the demarcation line between the two be?
18 Where would your responsibilities end and those of the prosecutor in
19 Zenica begin? Could you indicate where the line was?
20 A. Well, the demarcation line depended on the territorial
21 jurisdiction of those two courts. The Travnik was responsible for the
22 Travnik area, and the territorial jurisdiction of the other court was for
23 Zenica. So naturally the line of demarcation between those two
24 municipalities was the line of demarcation for the jurisdiction of each
25 of the courts.
1 Sometimes this line would change. It wasn't fixed as it is now
2 in peacetime. Sometimes the line would change. That depended on the
3 combat operations of various units at the time. So the demarcation
4 line -- well, for example, the combatants from the Zenica Brigade were
5 usually dealt with by the Zenica court, whereas combatants, soldiers from
6 Travnik or the 7th Corps, were dealt with by the Travnik court. But this
7 was a sort of geographic line as well.
8 JUDGE SWART: So there was a huge difference between territorial
9 jurisdiction in theory or on paper and territorial jurisdiction in
10 practice; is that correct?
11 A. Well, I don't think that the difference was very significant.
12 This happened very seldom. On the whole, the territorial jurisdiction
13 that had been established by a decree law was respected. Sometimes we
14 would refer these cases to courts or prosecutor's offices elsewhere. We
15 did this gladly because we had a lot of work, so we were very happy to
16 refer cases to other courts or other prosecutor's office.
17 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ... Could you then
18 answer me whether these places were in the territorial jurisdiction of
19 the Travnik military court or in that of the Zenica military court or
20 maybe even a third military court. I'm going to mention a few names of
21 places, and if you could please indicate to what court -- what court had
22 territorial jurisdiction over that place. The first name and I would
23 mention is Brajkovici. Was that under your jurisdiction?
24 A. Yes, we had territorial jurisdiction over Brajkovici, because
25 that is part of the municipality of Travnik. It's a village in the Bila
1 area, and it was under the control of the 306th Brigade of the BH army.
2 JUDGE SWART: And the place the village of Cukle? Was that
3 yours --
4 A. Yes, Cukle too.
5 JUDGE SWART: Guca Gora.
6 A. Yes, likewise.
7 JUDGE SWART: Dusina.
8 A. I don't think Dusina was under our jurisdiction. That was the
9 area of the municipality of Zenica.
10 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
11 A. Grahovcici is in the area of the municipality of Travnik.
12 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
13 A. Maljine is also in the area of the municipality of Travnik.
14 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
15 A. Mehurici is also in the area of the municipality of Travnik.
16 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
17 A. Miletici, that's in the municipality of Travnik.
18 JUDGE SWART: Orasac?
19 A. That's a small place, though I know that area very well. But I
20 think that is in the municipality of Travnik.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could Judge Swart please wait for the
22 translation to finish.
23 JUDGE SWART: The reporting system is --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We've been informed that there
25 is a problem with the system.
1 As it was time for a break, in any case we will now have a break.
2 But we will resume at 4.00. It's twenty to 4.00. We will have a
3 20-minute break, but at five to 5.00 we will have to adjourn.
4 We'll now adjourn and we will resume at 4.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.03 p.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. And we
8 will adjourn at five to 5.00 and resume again at 6.00 p.m.
9 We will continue with the questions for the witness.
10 JUDGE SWART: Witness, we were discussing the places that fell
11 under your jurisdiction in Travnik, and I was progressing to Miletici. I
12 did already ask you whether Miletici was under the territorial
13 jurisdiction of the court in Travnik; is that right? Have you answered
14 that question?
15 A. Yes. Yes, it was.
16 JUDGE SWART: So I'll proceed now to Orasac.
17 A. I think Orasac was also under the court in Travnik.
18 JUDGE SWART: And the place or the municipality of Ovnak, is that
19 also ...?
20 A. Ovnak is on the border between the Travnik municipality and
21 Zenica municipality. It's actually a pass, so that a part of Ovnak
22 belongs to the territory of Travnik municipality and another part to
23 Zenica municipality.
24 JUDGE SWART: So am I right in concluding that the boundary
25 between the Travnik district and the Zenica districts is east of the
1 River Bila? Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE SWART: Finally, the place of Vares. Would that be in the
4 jurisdiction of Zenica or any other place? Do you recall?
5 A. It wasn't within the jurisdiction of the Travnik, and I don't
6 know which jurisdiction it belonged to. Possibly Zenica in those days.
7 JUDGE SWART: Thank you. Now, you were a prosecutor in a time of
8 war. You were a military prosecutor, and you of course had to apply the
9 criminal law of Bosnia where common offences were concerned. And I
10 understand from what you said yesterday also that you had to apply or
11 could apply the Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the former Yugoslavia,
12 where international crimes are concerned. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. Only it was taken over and became the law
14 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 JUDGE SWART: Were there other provisions with regard to
16 international crimes in the law of Bosnia, apart from Chapter 16?
17 A. I can't tell you offhand, but I have already said, and I wish to
18 confirm, that we were responsible for all criminal offences from the
19 former law of the SFRY, that is, of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
21 JUDGE SWART: Well, I'll come back to that question later on. In
22 applying Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the former Yugoslavia, which
23 you said became part of the law of Bosnia, were you in any way
24 instructed by books or by courses or in other ways on the content of
25 international humanitarian law? Did you have any solid knowledge of it?
1 A. We hardly had any knowledge of it, because the courts in the
2 territory of Travnik municipality never tried those criminal offences.
3 I must also add that most of the judges and prosecutors were
4 beginners in law. And I can also say that it was difficult for us to get
5 hold of the basic laws, never mind legal textbooks.
6 JUDGE SWART: So that made it very difficult for you to decide
7 whether to charge a person with a common offence or possibly with an
8 international offence under Chapter 16.
9 A. To be quite frank, for me and my colleagues it wasn't difficult
10 to make such a decision, because we really worked on the basis of our
11 conscience and pursuant to the laws to the extent we knew them.
12 JUDGE SWART: You said that you had never prosecuted any person
13 on the basis of the provisions on international crimes because the cases
14 simply were not there, if I reflect your words correctly as spoken
15 yesterday. In this respect, I would like to ask you a question, on the
16 basis of the example of the decision that has -- of the text that has
17 been given this afternoon. The document you saw this afternoon was a
18 case of looting a deserted Croatian house. And if I remember well, you
19 said this is a property against the safety -- against public safety or
20 something like that. Is that correct?
21 A. No. No. Looting of a Croat house, like the looting of any
22 house, was considered a theft, depending on how serious it was, whether
23 it was aggravated theft or burglary or armed robbery, but not a threat to
24 public safety. It was burning or the use of explosives that was
25 considered a threat to public safety.
1 JUDGE SWART: Quite right. I see in the text that it is a case
2 of setting fire to an abandoned home of local Croats. I apologise for my
3 mistake. But to take this example, which you considered to be an offence
4 causing a public danger under Article 122 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia,
5 you must have assumed, then, that it could not -- this behaviour could
6 not constitute an international crime under the Chapter 17, then. Is
7 that your assumption?
8 A. That was our assumption, and that is how we qualified it.
9 JUDGE SWART: Why would you think so?
10 A. Because this description of the act was identical with the
11 provisions of the law. I think it was Article 304 of the Criminal Code
12 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think it was a criminal
13 offence envisaged by Article 304. Every burning of property was covered
14 by this provision of the law.
15 JUDGE SWART: I understand that. But at the same time, it could
16 be a war crime, or is that not the case?
17 A. It depends on the time period and the point of view. If now from
18 this -- since the time has lapsed, I might consider it in that vein. But
19 when half of Bosnia almost was burned, it would be difficult to qualify
20 it as a war crime.
21 JUDGE SWART: Did you at that time have criteria for saying
22 destruction of abandoned Croatian houses in time of war is only an
23 offence against public danger, or to say well, this is more than that,
24 this is a crime under Chapter 16?
25 A. The legal practice in those days treated those acts as such an
1 offence, and this applied not only to our own prosecutor's office but to
2 most prosecutor's offices in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We had certain
3 consultations when things were not clear in qualifying an offence or
4 certain activities that we undertook. We would consult with the
5 republic's prosecutor or the department of the public prosecutor's
6 office, which was working in Zenica. Dzemaludin Mutapcic, who was an
7 experienced prosecutor, headed that department at the time and we
8 frequently consulted with him to clarify certain offences.
9 JUDGE SWART: But -- so I'm not mistaken; you more or less
10 spontaneously assumed that this case or cases of looting abandoned houses
11 were common offences and not international offences. Or am I mistaken?
12 A. We considered all those acts as being common offences, looting of
13 abandoned houses and burning of abandoned houses as well. Though I have
14 to say that as far as I know, there were many cases of theft of abandoned
15 and non-abandoned houses, but there were not many cases of burning. And
16 these two examples of a house set on fire that was shown to me yesterday
17 and today were in the area of Dolac and Slimena, where in 1993 and after
18 that the separation line was between the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
19 and the HVO, during 1993 and after 1993. That is where the separation
20 line was, in fact right up until the conflict between the army and the
21 HVO ended. So that we didn't really dare to go there to carry out an
22 on-site inspection or anything else. It is below Travnik.
23 JUDGE SWART: Yesterday there was a discussion - and this is the
24 reason why I'm asking this - on the freedom of the court to qualify any
25 act as the court thought fit. And you said If I get a report of the
1 police, I will sometimes change the qualification, and on the other hand,
2 the court may also change -- give a different qualification to the
3 offence, to the act than I have proposed in my indictment. And there was
4 presented an example of such a case. You recall that?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE SWART: My question would be in this respect: You have
7 never seen, or have you, any verdict of the military court putting a
8 different legal stamp on an offence in the matter of looting houses, of
9 putting fire on houses or similar offences?
10 A. There were changes of the legal qualifications of acts, but I
11 didn't see them change anything of substance, really, in the
12 qualifications. Though I must repeat: Our qualifications were not
13 binding for them. There were changes of the factual state and
14 subsequently a change of the legal qualification; however, the legal
15 qualification in most cases remained the one that we had proposed, as it
16 was correct.
17 JUDGE SWART: So it never occurred that the court changed the
18 qualification from a act against public danger into the qualification of
19 an act under Chapter 16 of the Yugoslavian code?
20 A. As far as I can recollect, no.
21 JUDGE SWART: Did you ever look at those provisions from that
22 perspective? Did you ever study the various provisions in that chapter
23 in order to know whether putting fire on houses by individuals or looting
24 by individuals could amount to a crime under your law, an international
25 crime under your law?
1 A. Of course we did study what we had, and the criminal codes we had
2 and commentaries of criminal codes of the former SFRY. We worked on the
3 basis of those commentaries, and that is how we qualified the offences.
4 Let me tell you that in the practice of former courts and our own
5 practice in the territory of the former Yugoslavia such acts did not
6 exist. There weren't any such acts. So that in that area there wasn't
7 any precedent really for us to rely on. We didn't have any experience
8 with such cases.
9 JUDGE SWART: So for practical purposes that chapter was not
10 relevant to your practice.
11 A. For practical purposes, there were no such cases in our previous
13 JUDGE SWART: I have been looking at the text of Article 142 of
14 that chapter, which is concerned with war crimes against the civilian
15 population. Are you familiar with the content of that provision?
16 A. I was familiar with it. I really don't know which provision it
17 is now, but certainly, we were familiar with the provisions of the law.
18 JUDGE SWART: I would like you to look at the text of that
19 provision in your own language. I will give it to you by way of the
20 court officer. And the question I would like to put to you is the
21 following: Would you be able to tell me whether an act of violence
22 against a person or the looting of a house or the destruction of a house
23 or the ill-treatment of a person or even killing of a person on an
24 individual basis by a single soldier or by a group of soldiers would be
25 covered by Article 142 of the Criminal Code?
1 A. Of course that is how we would qualify it, but based on the
2 practice that we applied and on the description of the acts that we
3 received, I think that in those days we didn't consider it to come under
4 the provisions of Article 142 of the former Criminal Code of the SFRY or
5 as it was taken over by Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, frankly
6 speaking we never really used international conventions in that period
7 nor before that. We exclusively used the national laws. And it is very
8 difficult from this standpoint to say whether we acted properly or not.
9 JUDGE SWART: If I read the translation of Article 142, I read
10 that it deals with persons who order a number of things, and it does
11 prima facie not concern persons who simply commit offences. It seems to
12 have regard to those who incite others or order others to do these
13 things. Is that a correct translation of the text in your language?
14 A. Yes, it is. And as far as I know, there wasn't a single case
15 that would lead us to consider it to be such an act. There were no
16 orders or instigation of people to burn or loot abandoned houses, to
17 mistreat or beat up anyone, and especially not civilians.
18 JUDGE SWART: I will leave it at that for this topic at the
20 You already said that you were the head of the prosecution
21 service in Travnik and that you had a number of staff members. So the
22 main responsibility for investigating and prosecuting crimes was in your
23 hands. You were the boss, so to speak.
24 A. Yes, that's right. I was in charge and accountable for the work
25 of my colleagues in the department.
1 JUDGE SWART: And in that sense, in that capacity, you were the
2 person who had to instruct military policemen, security service members,
3 and other persons how to prosecute or how to investigate certain cases
4 and how to make choices in their work, et cetera. Was that your daily --
5 part of your daily job also, to coach the police, the security service?
6 A. Yes, it is true that I would give instructions to them, but this
7 was also done by my colleagues, my deputies. In view of the number of
8 employees in the prosecution service, it was really impossible for one
9 person only to do this work; namely, depending on our duty service, the
10 prosecutors who were on duty for one-third of the month were also in
11 charge of cooperation with units and persons who were responsible for the
12 discovery of perpetrators of criminal offences.
13 JUDGE SWART: Now, in dealing with the people in the field, so to
14 speak, who have to do the investigative work, did you -- or could you
15 perhaps, I should ask, did you set priorities to them? Did you, for
16 instance, say, "Well, concentrate yourself on that type of cases or --
17 and not on other types of cases." Or were you passive in this field?
18 A. Well, we did set priorities, and we had the greatest interest for
19 serious crimes, particularly murder and robbery. Of course for theft and
20 everything else, that was a daily occurrence; we didn't have too much
21 time. So our priority were the more serious criminal offences.
22 JUDGE SWART: You said yesterday that you received reports mainly
23 from three units under your jurisdiction, the 302nd Brigade, the -- no,
24 the 306th Brigade, the 307th Brigade, and the 17th Brigade.
25 A. 312th and 317th.
1 JUDGE SWART: 312th also? Because that is missing from the
2 transcript. Were there other units you got cases from? Do you still
3 recall which units they were?
4 A. I don't know the actual numbers by which they were known, but for
5 the whole area that we covered - and especially from Bugojno there were a
6 large number of criminal reports, from Novi Travnik, from Kiseljak,
7 Fojnica - I think from all these areas we received criminal reports, and
8 that is why, as I already said, we organised investigations in Bugojno as
9 well and we even carried out trials. We took a part of the hotel for our
10 investigations and trials to make it more effective and speedier.
11 JUDGE SWART: Given the mass of cases that you must have had in
12 those years, my colleague has already put a question in that direction.
13 Did you have regular meetings with the commanders of these units who were
14 responsible for the crimes that the military police discovered, for
15 dealing with these crimes?
16 A. Well, we were always in contact with them, and I think that
17 cooperation was quite satisfactory. They really followed up on our
18 instructions, carried out our orders. They did everything they could at
19 that time.
20 JUDGE SWART: Did they have their own powers and military law to
21 do investigations?
22 A. They didn't carry out investigations, but they gathered the
23 necessary information and evidence, but it was the investigating judge
24 who conducted the investigations. In fact, they were most active before
25 a report was filed and from the time a report was filed up until the time
1 the case was referred to the court or, rather, to the investigating
3 JUDGE SWART: You said that you acted on reports of victims,
4 reports of the police, reports of the security services, that in some
5 situations you referred the case to the investigating judge; in other
6 cases you took your own initiative within the framework of the criminal
7 procedure. My question is: Did you ever take any initiative without a
8 report or without a complaint by a specific victim or through a family
10 A. Well, naturally, sometimes we did take certain measures if we
11 knew that something had happened. But we had limited access to
12 information. It was limited to the core area of Travnik. Our movement
13 was restricted. It took place within a radius of a few kilometres. The
14 other areas were areas where the various parties in the conflict were
16 JUDGE SWART: I don't understand -- quite understand your last
17 remark. What do you mean by saying that?
18 A. I wanted to say that according to the law it was our duty to take
19 action if we found out about crimes that had been committed. This is
20 also what the law states in Bosnia and Herzegovina at present. I don't
21 know whether any other law enforcement agencies took action with regard
22 to such crimes, but we could take certain action before proceedings were
23 instituted in order to gather evidence that related to what we knew
24 about. But we had very limited knowledge at that time, because we lived
25 and worked in incredible conditions, in very difficult conditions.
1 Movement restricted to the core area of the town. It's not because
2 someone had imposed these restrictions upon us, but it's because the town
3 was shelled almost on a daily basis, that there were lines above Travnik,
4 8 kilometres above Travnik and 2 kilometres below Travnik, so that this
5 should tell you how restricted our movement was.
6 Even in the areas that you have mentioned, we sometimes went to
7 those areas and conducted investigations. That depended on the crimes
8 that had been reported. But going into such areas was extremely
9 dangerous. One risked one's life because there was fighting in the
10 immediate vicinity.
11 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm going to
12 interrupt you here because I was -- I had in mind to ask you something
13 different. But now that you have said this, you were restricted in your
14 movements and limited practically speaking to Travnik and the immediate
15 surroundings, that would not be valid for your -- for the military police
16 or the security service who were part of the army, I suppose? They were
17 much freer in moving over the area they controlled. Is that right?
18 A. Well, naturally it depended on the situation at the time, but
19 they could move around the entire area that was under the control of the
20 BH army.
21 JUDGE SWART: Could you communicate with them by telephone or by
22 radio or by whatever else you had without physically meeting each other?
23 A. We communicated by telephone, but only with the brigade
24 command -- or rather, with the place where they were deployed, and that
25 was in the area of Travnik, in Bugojno, or with the brigades outside of
1 Travnik. We didn't have any contact with certain brigades, apart from
2 contact via courier -- or rather, we didn't have any direct contact with
4 JUDGE SWART: What I had in mind to ask you is the following:
5 You acted on reports of the army, of the military police, of security
6 service. You acted upon the reports of people who came to tell you that
7 they were victims. You said also -- you implied that you had other
8 sources of information to act upon. My question is: In the situation of
9 Bosnia in 1993, did you also act on the basis of rumours or of messages
10 in the press or in -- on the stories of journalists or international
11 reporters, radio, television, which are not official channels of
12 communication for you, of course; but ...?
13 A. Well, we could take such action, but I must say that this
14 happened rarely, and the scope of the action was limited. The media was
15 almost non-existent. We didn't even have electricity, let alone
16 newspapers and magazines. There were very few lucky people who had
17 electricity and were able to listen to the radio, so you must realise the
18 situation we were in. And the information that we did receive was mostly
19 censored. As you are well aware, in wartime conditions censorship is
20 applied everywhere.
21 JUDGE SWART: I see I am too optimistic about your possibilities
22 of hearing -- receiving information from a number of sources. Did you
23 ever meet any international official in your capacity as a prosecutor?
24 A. At the time, during the war we almost never met international
25 representatives, international officials.
1 JUDGE SWART: Okay. My final question has regard to what you
2 said yesterday about prosecuting a number of offences. I have to look
3 where I have it. You said about burning Croat houses: "As far as I
4 remember, there has been no case in which there has been a prosecution."
5 Today you were shown a document which makes it likely that there
6 was at least one case in which you prosecuted the author of such an
8 As far as war crimes are concerned or crimes against humanity,
9 you said yesterday, "As far as I can recall, I got no reports from
10 anyone." And as far as ill-treatment of prisoners is concerned, you
11 said: "With regard to civilian prisoners, as far as I can recollect, I
12 never received reports." I'm now quoting from the transcript of
14 My question is more or less: If you used such expressions "as
15 far as I can recall," "as far as I can remember," "as far as I can
16 recollect," what content would you give these statements? They are in a
17 way rather vague. It may mean 60 per cent. It may mean 90 per cent
18 certain. Could you specify a little bit what you mean by "as far as I
19 can recall."
20 A. It's difficult to tell you what the percentage would be, but I
21 think it would be above 90 per cent. I think that my memory is correct
22 90 per cent of the time. Perhaps I have forgotten certain things, but
23 when houses were torched, well, I characterised this as other crimes. It
24 was only when I was given the case that I realised that it was a case of
25 houses being torched, because at that time and even today if a building
1 is torched, this represents a threat to public safety, according to our
2 law. So I focussed on another aspect of the case. But as far as the
3 other cases I have mentioned, over 90 per cent of what I said is
4 certainly correct. So that is the extent to which my memory would be
6 JUDGE SWART: Thank you. You have, I suppose - but correct me if
7 I'm wrong - before you came here had an interview with a researcher or a
8 member of the Prosecution team of the Tribunal. Do you remember that
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 JUDGE SWART: Was it a long time ago?
12 A. Well, I had a meeting in Sarajevo last year, in the autumn of
13 last year.
14 JUDGE SWART: [Previous translation continues] ...
15 A. Yes, yes, I think it was in November. I also had a meeting with
16 representatives of the Prosecution immediately prior to giving my
17 testimony; that is to say, yesterday.
18 JUDGE SWART: And that was the first time, I suppose, that you
19 meet any representative of the Prosecutors of the Tribunal?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE SWART: And when you were interviewed last November last
22 year, before being interviewed had you performed a check on your files,
23 if they still existed, or were there any other means for you of checking
24 your memory?
25 A. No, I didn't check them, and I have no intention of checking them
1 any more.
2 JUDGE SWART: How do you mean "I have no intention of checking
3 them any more"? If you would be asked to do it now, you would refuse?
4 Is that ...?
5 A. Well, I have so many other obligations. I would prefer it if I
6 could just forget that entire period. There were many things that
7 happened at the time.
8 JUDGE SWART: Okay. Thank you very much for your answers.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A few more questions. Did you
10 do your military service in the JNA, in the Yugoslav People's Army?
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you were appointed as
13 military prosecutor, what did you do in the month before you were
15 A. I worked in the municipality of Travnik. At the time, since we
16 had parallel bodies at the time - the BH army and the HVO were these
17 parallel bodies - so I was practically appointed as the Secretary for
18 National Defence. That took place a few months before I was appointed;
19 that is to say, a few months before I went to the military district
20 prosecutor's office. In peacetime, I worked for the same body, but I was
21 the second man, so to speak. There was the secretary, and I was the sort
22 of manager for the municipality of Travnik.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As military prosecutor, did you
24 wear civilian clothes or were you in uniform?
25 A. I wore civilian clothes at all times.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The military court, in relation
2 to the -- how far was it from the ex-JNA barracks in Travnik?
3 A. The military court and the military prosecutor's office were in
4 the premises of the court which exists in Travnik today. That's about a
5 distance of 2 to 3 hundred metres.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But at the time, your office
7 and the JNA barracks, how far was your office from the barracks? We're
8 talking about the period of May to December 1993.
9 A. Well, it's the same distance as today, 2 or 3 hundred metres.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 200 metres.
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The text that you
13 drafted at the time gave you a lot of power, in accordance with Article 5
14 signed by President Izetbegovic, the power to launch investigations when
15 crimes were committed or when there were offences. As part of this
16 mission, were you concerned with the detention facilities managed by the
17 army? Did you deal with these facilities?
18 A. As far as detention facilities that the army ran are concerned,
19 this was the responsibility of the court. We had a military detention
20 facility, and the president of the court had the responsibility to take
21 care of the detention facilities.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For you, the army's detention
23 facility was located where exactly in Travnik?
24 A. The army's detention facility was in the building of the former
25 railway administration building. It's in the immediate vicinity of the
1 court and the prosecutor's office.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And as far as you know, there
3 were no other detention facilities. That was the only official detention
4 facility. Or were there others too?
5 A. In the barracks in Travnik, there was a detention unit, but it
6 was for disciplinary purposes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As a military
8 prosecutor, did you as prosecutor also have any responsibilities with
9 regard to public and individual liberties? Was it part of your
10 obligations to go and visit these detention facilities to see what was
11 happening there?
12 A. At all times, at any time I could go and visit those detention
13 facilities if I wanted to do so.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you do so?
15 A. Yes, on several occasions.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were you in the former JNA
17 barracks? Did you visit the former JNA barracks?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you meet any of the
20 detainees there?
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were these members of the
23 military -- members of the military and civilians, or civilians?
24 A. Only soldiers were there.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you speak to them?
1 A. Yes, I did.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you check to see whether
3 they were legally detained there?
4 A. Yes, I did. They all had the appropriate decisions on detention.
5 None of them had been detained without there being an order issued by the
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you can remember,
8 when examining the texts that deal with the liberty or detention of
9 persons under the control of the army, it would appear that after two
10 hours of detention it was necessary to inform the judicial or military
11 authority of this. There were rules governing detention. Were these
12 rules respected by the army?
13 A. Well, let me tell you about the practice at the time. The
14 officer -- each officer of every unit, of brigades, of corps, could issue
15 a decision on disciplinary detention for 15 or 30 days. So such was the
16 practice. These soldiers would be detained for 15 or, rather, for
17 30 days when disciplinary measures were taken against them. And during
18 that period of time, we could carry out other investigations in order to
19 support the detention or justify the detention of the person concerned.
20 So everything was done in accordance with the rules in force. Unless --
21 but this wasn't the case for people who weren't members of those units --
22 or rather, if there were people from some other army present in the
23 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time. In such cases we would
24 issue urgent decisions on detention, because the officer then had no
25 right to decide on imposing disciplinary detention.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the BH army detained a HVO
2 soldier, the fact that the HVO soldier was detained by the army, would
3 that automatically mean that you would be informed of this?
4 A. In the detention facilities I have mentioned, the ones I was
5 familiar with, we were immediately informed of such cases in the case of
6 these detention facilities. As to whether there were any other cases, I
7 don't know. But as far as I do know, I don't think there were any other
8 such cases.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're telling me that if an
10 HVO soldier had been imprisoned, you should have been informed of the
11 fact that this soldier had been taken into detention. That is what
12 you're telling us, isn't it?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. They should have provided us with a report
14 and on that basis we would suggest that the court issue a decision on
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. My very last
17 question, since we have to make the break: There were a number of
18 military prosecutors in various areas. You were the prosecutor in
19 Travnik. Did you and your colleagues, the other military prosecutors,
20 have meetings? If you didn't have meetings, did you speak to each other
21 over the phone to inform each other of what you were involved in?
22 A. I only had meetings with prosecutors from Zenica. Everything
23 else was under blockade and we had no contact whatsoever.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And above you -
25 because a prosecutor always has a superior. It's just as it is in the
1 army; you always have a superior - who was your superior? Who was your
2 military superior?
3 A. My military superior? I didn't have a military superior. But I
4 did have a superior in the prosecution. The prosecutor above me was the
5 deputy of the republican prosecutor, who had a branch office in Zenica,
6 the civilian republic prosecutor. Dzemaludin Mutapcic was his name. I
7 mentioned his name a while ago.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So he was your
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have to have a
12 break now. We will resume at 6.00.
13 [The witness stood down]
14 --- Recess taken at 4.57 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So as not to waste any time, I
17 have just one question to put to the witness. Have the Defence any
18 additional questions and about how long would they take?
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Ten minutes, not more. Maybe
20 even less. I have three topics which I should like to cover.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So ten minutes.
22 And the Prosecution?
23 MR. STAMP: Probably none.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
25 And is it other witness ready to start? Mr. Withopf.
1 MR. WITHOPF: Yes, Mr. President, the next witness is ready to
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I don't understand
4 why we're wasting time. The witness should have been here. We knew that
5 we would resume at 6.00 p.m., and he should have been here. We will make
6 sure that we don't waste time in the future in this way.
7 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I just wanted to inform the Chamber
8 that we are now in a position to inform the Prosecution of the number of
9 documents and specifically which documents coming from the European Union
10 Monitoring Mission that we are ready to inform the Prosecution about
11 already today.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have one last question to put
15 to you before giving you to the Defence. In your position as military
16 prosecutor, when you received information or when you had investigations
17 conducted, but prior to the judges, was the military police the
18 institution which had to respond to your instructions or to comply with
19 your instructions?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In Travnik, what was the name
22 of the person in charge of the military police who was the person you
23 communicated with for that sort of problem, if you can remember?
24 A. Believe me, I don't know what his name was. I know that he
25 wasn't from Travnik but from the Bosnian Krajina. I really can't
1 remember his name, because he wasn't a local and that's why I can't
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I assume that you would see
4 him, call him up on the phone, you would meet with him from time to time.
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Residovic, I give you the
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Further cross-examination by Ms. Residovic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zeric, I have a couple of questions for you
11 connected to the questions you were asked by Their Honours. You were
12 asked several questions relative to the burning of houses and the
13 qualification of those acts. I am quite sure that you're well aware that
14 during combat operations and immediately after them the village of Bandol
15 was totally destroyed and burnt down by the HVO. Is this a fact you were
16 aware of in 1993?
17 A. Yes, absolutely so. One of my associates, actually an assistant,
18 an administrative clerk, came from the environs of that village.
19 Q. Is it true, Mr. Zeric, that you never saw nor learnt about any
20 event when the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina captured a village which
21 had previously been inhabited by Croats? You never learnt of the army
22 totally destroying or burning down a village?
23 A. No, I didn't have any such information that any village in the
24 territory of Travnik municipality or beyond it with a majority Croat
25 population, which they had abandoned, had been totally destroyed.
1 Q. Is it true that all the reported acts, thefts, robberies, burning
2 of houses, you received those reports after the combat operations as
3 individual acts committed by individual civilians or military persons?
4 A. Yes, these were individual cases after combat operations.
5 Q. Was that also one of the reasons why you never -- it never
6 occurred to you to qualify those acts in any other way but the way
7 envisaged by our laws?
8 A. Yes, that was the reason.
9 Q. As regards another question put to you by the Presiding Judge, I
10 would like to clarify a few things with you, namely: In answer to a
11 question from the Presiding Judge, you said that military authorities
12 could put a soldier in detention up to 30 days as a disciplinary measure
13 and this detention could be extended by a decision of the investigating
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You also said if a member of the HVO were to be detained, then
17 the investigating judge would determine the detention.
18 A. Yes, only the investigating judge had that right.
19 Q. Would you agree with me that this occurred in situations when
20 there were grounds to suspect that those persons had committed a criminal
22 A. Exclusively in those cases.
23 Q. So you will agree with me that if the Army of Bosnia and
24 Herzegovina during combat operations had captured an enemy soldier simply
25 as a prisoner of war, then you as the prosecutors and the court had
1 nothing to do with it.
2 A. Absolutely not. We had no contact with such cases.
3 Q. A third issue that I would like you to confirm for me is that
4 Her Honour the Judge, asked you a question about this and I want to check
5 whether I'm right if I say the following: Would you agree with me if I
6 say that the Mujahedin in 1993 were not members of the Army of Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina and that as a result the military police had no authority to
8 investigate --
9 MR. STAMP: Objection. Outside of the witness's --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You only started the sentence
11 and Mr. Stamp got up. What is the problem, Mr. Stamp?
12 MR. STAMP: It's not a problem. It's an objection. She's asking
13 the witness whether or not he knows whether certain people were members
14 of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He, on the basis of his testimony
15 so far, is not competent to give evidence as to who were or who were not
16 members of the army. It's not within his area of competence. He might
17 speculate. And if - and I would submit that the Court ought not to be
18 accepting or eliciting - I would submit that the Court ought not to be
19 allowing questions that seek to elicit speculation. That is the
20 objection. May it please you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But the question was put
22 to the military prosecutor at the time. In view of his position as
23 military prosecutor he should have some considerable knowledge of the
24 jurisdiction over which he had powers. And as he had military personnel
25 under his control and to ask him whether he knew - but he can tell us, he
1 knew or did not - whether among the military people over whom he had
2 control there were any Mujahedin. That is the gist of your question,
3 isn't it?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Her Honour asked a
5 question about Mujahedin, and proceeding on the basis that you suggested
6 I wanted to ask this witness that question. I can also rephrase it and
7 say: Is it right that the Mujahedin or the foreign fighters that
8 appeared in the area of Travnik, that they were not in the Army of Bosnia
9 and Herzegovina? Is that what you -- your knowledge from that time
11 MR. STAMP: The objection is the same. And I respectfully ask
12 that there be a ruling whether or not this witness is competent to
13 testify about who were members of the army. He may be competent to
14 testify about what was reported to him in respect to the charges. He
15 might be competent to testify about investigation, but he's not competent
16 to testify about who were or who were not at any particular time
17 officially or not officially personnel of the ABiH. He'd be speculating,
18 it is my respectful submission.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In view of the
20 question put and the objection made, and in view of the fact that a Judge
21 asked a question about the Mujahedin, the Chamber is going to ask the
22 witness to tell us: Within his jurisdiction in territorial terms Travnik
23 and the surroundings of Travnik, on the basis of the reports you had, the
24 knowledge you had at a given moment in time, did you know that there were
25 among the BH army members elements which could be called Mujahedin? You
1 knew that or you didn't know that. The question is a very simple one,
2 especially in view of the position that you held. If you were just a
3 farmer, of course the question would not be put to you. But you are not
4 a simple farmer. You were an important person in the life of the
5 community, and therefore you may be able to answer this question.
6 But if you don't know, tell me frankly. I must remind you that
7 you took a solemn oath to tell us the whole truth, and your answer must
8 reflect that, must be the truth.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the organisation of the
10 army is concerned and who comprised the various units, who were members
11 of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I really did not have detailed
12 information about that. But on the basis of other circumstances and the
13 overall activities in the area, I know that there were no reports against
14 foreign fighters and Mujahedin, though I do know that they did commit
15 some criminal offences in the town itself. However, we had in reality no
16 jurisdiction over them.
17 I was an eyewitness of an event when I could have easily got
18 killed in a coffee bar I was sitting in. A Mujahedin walked in and
19 opened fire arbitrarily at us and the facility but we couldn't arrest him
20 nor could we take any steps against him. Nor was I able to order anyone
21 from the military to undertake such steps. I believe that you will be
22 able to understand the substance of what I have said.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Zeric, you have answered a part of my question, but I'm
25 asking you now -- I have two more questions, actually. Is it true that
1 after combat operations in certain areas the civilian police would take
2 over the duty to take care of the safety and security of persons and
4 A. Yes, that was the duty of the civilian police, to protect people
5 and property who were outside combat operations.
6 Q. Is it also true that the military police, if it were to learn
7 that certain persons - be they nationals or foreigners who were not
8 members of the army - had committed a crime, then it was the civilian
9 police's duty to investigate that and report it to the public prosecutor
10 and not to you as the military prosecutor?
11 A. Yes. The civilian police was responsible for all the civilians
12 and everything they did in a given area.
13 Q. Even when those persons were in military uniform and carried
14 weapons, as you told us, who opened fire at you in fact, if they were not
15 members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
16 A. Let me tell you. 90 per cent of the population in those days
17 wore some sort of uniform. But in order to show whether somebody was a
18 member of the army or not, he had to have an official ID, and those
19 persons would be searched for that purpose.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zeric. I have no further questions for you.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. My colleague tells
22 me that on page 58, line 6 it was stated in French "the military police,"
23 but instead it should read "the civilian police." I have to check myself
24 what it is the witness said.
25 In the transcript, it is stated correctly that it was now the
1 duty of the civilian police, but my colleague informs me that in French
2 it was stated "the military police" instead.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 Mr. Stamp, no questions?
5 MR. STAMP: Nothing. Thank you, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
7 Well, sir, we thank you. You have been testifying for two days.
8 I can imagine that this required an effort on your part to jog your
9 memory in order to be able to answer our questions. Thank you for your
10 contribution to the establishment of the truth. We wish you a safe
11 journey home, and best wishes in exercising your current duties as
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
14 [The witness withdrew]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As we have another 40 minutes,
16 we will bring the witness in. We can ask him to take the solemn
17 declaration, and we can start with his testimony.
18 Mr. Withopf, in the written document regarding the duration of
19 the examination-in-chief, I think that you envisaged two hours. Will
20 your examination-in-chief indeed take two hours for this witness? We
21 will now have about 40 minutes, but we can continue tomorrow.
22 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, yours -- Your Honours, indeed I
23 anticipate the examination-in-chief lasting for about two hours.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In those
25 circumstances, tomorrow after the examination-in-chief we can address the
1 question of documents that would have been schedule for Thursday.
2 Mr. Bourgon explained to us a moment ago that the matter is about
3 to be resolved with the Prosecution.
4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed all the lists have been
5 provided to us by the Prosecution. We have now completed our work. We
6 are going to give them back the CDs with the numbers of the documents
7 that we haven't received and that are in the possession of the
8 Prosecution. It is now up to the Prosecution to get permission for
9 disclosing them to us, and that will be done as quickly as possible, and
10 then we will be able to proceed with the European Monitoring Mission
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Bourgon.
13 Madam Residovic.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, while waiting for
15 the witness, I should like to inform the Trial Chamber that tomorrow and
16 the day after the Defence for General Hadzihasanovic will be represented
17 by my colleague Mr. Bourgon and the legal assistants, and in accordance
18 with my client I will not be present in the courtroom, and I wish to
19 inform the Trial Chamber about this. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Can you
23 hear me in your own language?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can hear you very clearly.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You have been
1 called as a witness by the Prosecution, and within the framework of your
2 testimony I need to have your identification, so please will tell me your
3 first and last name.
4 THE WITNESS: My name is Martin Garrod.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your date and place of
6 birth, please?
7 THE WITNESS: I was born on the 29th of May, 1935 in a place
8 called Darjeeling in India.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
11 THE WITNESS: I'm retired at the moment. My career was in the
12 military in the Royal Marines.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1993, what was your position
14 at the time and within what framework did you exercise that position?
15 THE WITNESS: In the summer of 1993, I came out to Bosnia as a
16 member of the EC Monitor Mission, first of all going to Mostar in the
17 summer of 1993 just after the war between the Croats and the Bosniaks had
18 started, and then in October I moved up to Zenica, which was the
19 headquarters of the monitor mission in Bosnia as the head of the regional
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you had a
22 position on behalf of the European Community.
23 But before that, were you active in your own country? Did you
24 have a military position or rank?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I served for 37 years in the Royal Marines,
1 ending up as the head of the Royal Marines in the rank of lieutenant
2 general; in other words, a three star.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Is this the first
4 time for you to testify in an international tribunal, or have you already
5 testified in a national court about the facts that occurred in 1993?
6 THE WITNESS: This is my third attendance here in The Hague.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you recollect in which
8 cases you testified before?
9 THE WITNESS: First of all, Dario Kordic; and then secondly,
10 Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, and Vinko Martinovic, Stela.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Will you please
12 read the solemn declaration, please.
13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please be seated.
16 As you already have some experience as a witness, my information
17 will be brief. As you know, you have been called by the Prosecution to
18 testify about the facts of which you were a witness, an eyewitness, and
19 it is for that reason that the Prosecution has asked you to come. You
20 will therefore be answering questions put to you by representatives of
21 the Office of the Prosecutor.
22 Following those questions by representatives of the Prosecution,
23 who are to your right, you will be answering questions put to you by the
24 representatives of the accused, who are on your left. There are now
25 four; usually there are six, but only two of them will have questions for
1 you. And tomorrow, in fact, there will only be three, because one of
2 them will be absent. So you will be answering questions within the
3 framework of the cross-examination.
4 Also, the three Judges in front of you may, as provided for by
5 the Rules which govern the work of this Tribunal, ask you questions. It
6 is slightly different from the common-law system because we, too, are
7 allowed to put questions to you because this system is a kind of hybrid
8 between the common- and civil-law systems. And the Judges will be asking
9 you questions either to clarify certain answers that you may have made or
10 because they feel that there are certain shortcomings in your answers,
11 certain things that need to be filled in, as this is primarily an oral
12 proceedings of an adversarial type. Try to answer the questions to the
13 best of your ability, of course. If you don't remember a particular
14 fact, you will tell us so, because sometimes it is indeed very difficult
15 to remember what took place ten years ago.
16 Also, two minor additional points: You have taken the solemn
17 oath to tell us the whole truth, which of course excludes false
18 testimony. As you know, false testimony can be prosecuted by a fine or a
19 prison term. And a second point that I need to make is that should a
20 witness in answering questions provide certain incriminating elements, he
21 need not answer them. The Court may compel the witness to answer, but in
22 that case he enjoys a kind of immunity.
23 That is how your testimony will proceed. Today we will have
24 about half an hour, but we will continue tomorrow. Unfortunately, you
25 will be asked to come back again later because the Defence didn't have
1 the necessary documents in their possession and they need to study them
2 before they are able to properly conduct their cross-examination;
3 therefore, we will ask you kindly to come back probably sometime in May.
4 Mr. Withopf, you have the floor.
5 WITNESS: MARTIN GARROD
6 Examined by Mr. Withopf:
7 Q. Good afternoon, Sir Martin. Sir Martin, you already informed the
8 Trial Chamber that you after 37 years -- after serving a 37 years' career
9 within the British Army you retired as a three-star general. Would it be
10 fair to say that prior to your retirement you were the overall senior
11 officer in charge of the entire British Marine force, the British Royal
13 A. That is correct, yes.
14 Q. Would it also be fair to say, Sir Martin, without going into any
15 further detail, that over the years you served in a number of positions
16 and in a number of ranks and, of course, in a number of different
17 locations, including overseas?
18 A. Yes, that is so.
19 Q. Sir Martin, you already informed the Trial Chamber that you
20 became a member of the ECMM. Can you please tell us as to when you
21 became a member of the ECMM.
22 A. Yes. I came out to Bosnia, well, via Zagreb, in the late June
24 Q. Can you please tell us what the abbreviation ECMM stands for.
25 A. It stands for the EC - European Community - Monitoring Mission.
1 Q. In late June 1993, Sir Martin, where did you go to?
2 A. I first of all went to Zenica, which is right in the middle of
3 Central Bosnia, which was the headquarters, known as the regional centre,
4 of all the EC monitors in Bosnia. I went there for initial briefing
5 along with several other newly joined monitors who were going to Bosnia,
6 and I was there for about ten days to a fortnight being briefed,
7 having -- and getting to know the area and getting to know -- getting a
8 feel for the problems that existed in Bosnia.
9 After that, I was then sent down to Mostar to take over as the
10 head of the coordinating centre based in Mostar.
11 Q. Sir Martin, for how long have you been the head of the
12 coordinating centre based in Mostar?
13 A. I -- from very early July until mid-October, when I was
14 reappointed to Zenica to take over as the head of the regional centre.
15 Q. And for how long, Sir Martin, have you been the head of the ECMM
16 regional centre in Zenica?
17 A. For almost exactly six months, from mid-October to mid-April.
18 Q. Mid-April --
19 A. Mid-April 1994.
20 Q. Very well, Sir Martin. Can you please inform the Trial Chamber
21 who was your predecessor as the head of the regional centre in Zenica.
22 A. Yes. It was a French diplomat, Jean-Pierre Thebault.
23 Q. Prior to taking over your position as the head of the regional
24 centre in Zenica, did you have an opportunity to talk to Ambassador
1 A. Yes, we talked quite a lot during my initial ten days or a
2 fortnight in Zenica. And then while I was down in Mostar we were in
3 regular touch; and Jean-Pierre Thebault used to come down to visit me in
4 Mostar and I would go up to Zenica for meetings. So we were in regular
6 Q. You were already saying, Sir Martin, that you got briefings about
7 the situation in Central Bosnia already in June but later on in the
8 course of meetings and conversations with Ambassador Thebault. Can you
9 please inform the Trial Chamber what sort of issues have been discussed.
10 A. Well, we discussed the key issues on which the EC monitors
11 reported in the priority of political matters, military matters, and
12 humanitarian matters, and then any other matters of interest. But those
13 were the three key topics on which we concentrated for our monitoring and
14 for our reporting.
15 I should add that of course in Bosnia it, as very often happened,
16 that the political and the military were very closely interlinked, and so
17 one could talk to political leaders about military matters and military
18 leaders about political matters.
19 Q. Very well. Prior to going into any further detail in relation to
20 what you just stated, Sir Martin, can you please inform the Trial Chamber
21 in some detail about the mission and the mandate of the ECMM in 1993 and
23 A. Would you like me to outline the organisation?
24 Q. The organisation, its structures, but also its mandate.
25 A. Yes, indeed. The EC Monitor Mission was deployed throughout the
1 former Yugoslavia. But if I could concentrate on Bosnia. At the top,
2 one had the regional centre, which, as I have mentioned, was based in
3 Zenica, right in the centre. The regional centre would have under it a
4 number of coordinating centres, and in Bosnia there were three: Tuzla in
5 the north, Travnik in the centre, and Mostar in the south. And each of
6 those coordinating centres would be led by the head of the coordinating
7 centre, the HCC.
8 In each coordinating centre, there would be a number of monitor
9 teams. For instance, in Mostar and in Central Bosnia, in Travnik, they
10 each had four teams, four teams; and in Tuzla, there were three teams.
11 Each team consisted of two international monitors of different
12 nationalities together with a driver and an interpreter. And they were
13 really the workhorses who went out and did the basic work on the ground,
14 providing the information for our reporting system. And the reporting
15 system was that the two-man monitor teams at the end of the day would
16 provide a written report which would be transmitted to their coordinating
18 The head of the coordinating centre would then amalgamate those
19 team reports into a consolidated report and send that to the regional
20 centre. And the regional centre would then coordinate the three
21 coordinating centre reports and provide a regional centre report, which
22 would be dispatched to the headquarters of the ECMM, which at that stage
23 was in Zagreb. They in their turn would provide an overall report,
24 including those from the various different regional centres, which would
25 go off to the various capitals of the EC or EU, so that each foreign
1 ministry would have a report during the night or on their desks first
2 thing in the morning giving them hopefully a comprehensive review of the
3 state of political matters, military matters, humanitarian matters in the
4 former Yugoslavia.
5 Q. Sir Martin, may I please in following up what you just said ask
6 you a few further questions. As the head of the ECMM regional centre in
7 Zenica, what was your area of responsibility, the geographical area,
9 A. It was a large area, extending from Tuzla in the north down
10 through Central Bosnia, down to Mostar in the south. And, in fact, it
11 covered all areas of Bosnia except for the areas which was known then as
12 Republika Srpska, which was the Serb-occupied areas of Bosnia, and the
13 pockets. By "pockets" I mean the little islands of Bosniak territory in
14 a Serb sea, and those pockets were Sarajevo; the Bihac pocket, on the
15 west, and the small enclaves of Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde.
16 The main area in which I was concerned was a triangle which went
17 up from the south up round the top, over Tuzla, and then down, running
18 close to Mostar, just to the west of Mostar, and then on down to the sea.
19 Q. You were informing the Trial Chamber, Sir Martin, that you had
20 three coordination centres under your command and one of them was the
21 coordination centre in Travnik. Can you please inform the Trial Chamber
22 what was the area of responsibility, the geographical area, of the
23 coordination centre in Travnik.
24 A. Again, the coordination centre in Travnik had a large area to
25 cover with his four two-man teams. This extended from Zavidovici and --
1 up in the north and Vares in the north, down through Travnik in Central
2 Bosnia and down to Bugojno -- Gornji Vakuf and Bugojno.
3 Q. Can you please inform us, Sir Martin, who -- during the time you
4 were the head of the ECMM regional centre in Zenica, who was your deputy
5 and who was working in the coordination centre in Travnik.
6 A. Yes. My -- my deputy was a -- happened to be another former
7 British former army officer called Geoff Beaumont. The operations
8 officer was a Dane called Aage Terp. And the head of the coordinating
9 centre in Travnik was a Canadian lieutenant colonel called William Stutt.
10 Q. You already touched a bit on the following issue. Can you please
11 in some more detail inform us on how information was collected on the
13 A. The information was collected by the monitoring teams, also by
14 the heads of the coordinating centres, and also by the head of the
15 regional centre, because we also all went out ourselves and had meetings
16 and found out things. The monitors on the ground would make contact with
17 military leaders, civil leaders, international people in their area to
18 gather as much information on what was going on, as I say, in the
19 political field, the military field, and humanitarian field in that
21 The extent of how successful they were and the quality of the
22 information that they provided depended very much on the calibre of the
23 monitors themselves. Some were outstanding, but there were one or two
24 who were not quite so good.
25 Q. At the time you've been the head of the regional centre in
1 Zenica, how would you describe the ones who worked for you in the
2 coordination centre in Travnik?
3 A. Well, as I say, the ones who didn't come up to scratch were very,
4 very few and far between. I was very satisfied overall with the standard
5 of the monitors that we had throughout the whole regional centre, and
6 indeed, the monitors in the coordinating centre in Travnik.
7 Q. Sir Martin, you already touched on the issue of the reporting
8 system. I understand there were daily reports sent, if I recall
9 correctly. You said it earlier on today.
10 A. The daily reports? Yes. As I say, the monitors on the ground
11 would send up their reports to the coordinating centres. The
12 coordinating centres would send them up to the regional centre. And the
13 regional centre would then coordinate the full report which would go off
14 to the headquarters of the ECMM.
15 Q. What was the purpose of such reports?
16 A. The purpose of the reports was to enable the various nations, and
17 in particular their foreign ministries, to be fully informed of the
18 situation on the ground in the various countries of the former Yugoslavia
19 so that they could keep right up to date with the -- our assessment of
20 the political situation, the military situation, and the humanitarian
21 situation, and any other points of significance.
22 Q. Can you please briefly detail your own involvement in drafting
23 and sending such reports.
24 A. Yes. The -- the nightly report that was sent off from the
25 regional centre was initially compiled by my deputy and by the operations
1 officer. They would get the reports together, produce a consolidated
2 report, and then that would come to me. I would then -- I might query
3 one or two of the things in it, but if I was satisfied, then I might add
4 my own comments at the end, which would go under a separate paragraph
5 called "HRC's comments." And then that would be dispatched to Zagreb.
6 Q. If I understand you correctly, Sir Martin, you basically did get
7 to know about the contents of all such reports, even if you did not
8 yourself draft the reports.
9 A. Yes. I may not have read -- I may not have been able to read all
10 the coordinating centre reports in detail, which would then be included
11 into the regional centre report, but if there was anything there in which
12 I wanted more detail, then I would go to the full coordinating centre
14 Q. Did you, Sir Martin, did you have to give your approval prior to
15 sending the reports?
16 A. Yes. I would give my approval, and then it would be sent. I
17 would also produce my own reports, so-called special reports, on
18 particular items of interest or any particular important meetings that I
19 attended myself. And also on a weekly basis I would give what we called
20 the HRC's assessment of the situation, assessing points of significance
21 and trying to forecast what might happen in the future.
22 Q. From what you just told us, Sir Martin, would the conclusion be
23 fair -- would it be fair to say that you are in a position to comment on
24 ECMM reports even if you have not drafted them yourself?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Very well. Sir Martin, let's move on to a different item. Which
2 military or which armies were active in the area of Central Bosnia during
3 the time you've been the head of the ECMM regional centre in Zenica?
4 A. In Central Bosnia, it was fundamentally a war between the Croats
5 and the Bosniaks within my area of responsibility. Of course, the Serbs
6 were to either side just outside my area of responsibility, but in my
7 area of responsibility it was a war between the Croats and the Bosniaks.
8 Q. On the Bosniak side, which corps was responsible for fighting
9 this war?
10 A. In Central Bosnia, it was 3 Corps.
11 Q. And on the opposite side, on the HVO side?
12 A. It was the HVO -- they used to call it the operational zone of
13 the HVO.
14 Q. How would you, Sir Martin, describe in some detail the military
15 situation within the ABiH 3rd Corps at the time you arrived in Zenica and
16 later on?
17 A. Well, the fighting was fierce. There were a number of Croat
18 pockets in the area, in particular, Vares in the north, Kiseljak in the
19 south, and in the centre, Vitez and Busovaca. I always assessed that the
20 aims of both sides was to seize territory, bearing in mind they must
21 have known that when a cease-fire eventually came the possession of
22 territory is nine-tenths of the law, and what has actually been seized by
23 armies in war is difficult to claw back under a peace agreement.
24 Q. Which army, from what you got to know, Sir Martin, which army was
25 the, if I may use plain language, was the strong army at the time in
1 October 1993 and onwards?
2 A. Well, there are different ways of assessing strength. One can
3 assess it in terms of numbers or in terms of weaponry. Now, the arms
4 embargo placed on the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, of course which they
5 objected to very strongly, blaming in particular the British and the
6 French, because the Bosniaks said this was very unfair on them because
7 the Serbs had Serbia on their border and the Croats had Croatia, and
8 therefore the Serbs and the Croats could obtain weapons and ammunition
9 and arms across the border from their - for want of a better word -
10 parent countries; whereas the Bosniaks were not able to do so because
11 they were locked in on all sides. But -- so I would say that from the
12 point of view of weapons, the Serbs and the Croats had the big advantage.
13 But the Bosniaks' advantage was the manpower; they had a larger number of
14 men that they could call on and were slowly building up the size of their
16 Q. You were just informing the Trial Chamber, Sir Martin, that the
17 manpower of the ABiH was significantly larger than on the HVO side. Was
18 it twice as much, three times as much? How much larger was it?
19 A. Sorry, I don't have the exact figures in my head, but from memory
20 I would say that the Bosniak manpower population was well over twice that
21 of the Croats.
22 Q. Does this also apply for the situation within the area of the
23 ABiH 3rd Corps?
24 A. I would say maybe in the 3rd Corps it might have even been
25 higher, because it was -- by then a large number of the Croats had moved
1 down to the south.
2 Q. Did you, Sir Martin, did you become aware of refugees, Muslim
3 refugees from other areas coming to the area of the 3rd Corps?
4 A. Yes. There were many refugees, and in fact in Zenica in
5 particular, again off the top of my head, I think from a population in
6 Zenica of some 200.000 at least 50.000 were displaced people from
7 elsewhere in Bosnia.
8 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, if you would just allow me to finish
9 this line of questioning. It will certainly not take me longer than
10 three to four minutes.
11 Q. Among these refugees coming into the area of the 3rd Corps, were
12 there men in a military age?
13 A. Yes, there would have been men of a military age. Yes.
14 Q. To your knowledge, Sir Martin, what was considered being of a
15 military age?
16 A. I'd say it was 16 or 17 to 60.
17 Q. And to your knowledge, Sir Martin - and this would be my last
18 question for today - were refugees, Muslim refugees of a military age
19 which came to the area of the ABiH 3rd Corps, were they incorporated into
20 this 3rd Corps, into military units subordinated to the 3rd Corps?
21 A. To my knowledge, all men of military age were called up into the
23 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, Your Honours, I would suggest to for
24 today to finish.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Withopf.
1 It's now 7.00, and for technical reasons we have to adjourn. We
2 will stop at 7.00 today. We will resume tomorrow at 9.00.
3 Sir Garrod, we will see you tomorrow morning at 9.00.
4 I will now ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If there are no other issues to
7 raise - I'll give the floor to Mr. Bourgon - tomorrow we'll continue with
8 the examination-in-chief of this witness, and we will then have two other
9 stages to follow. We will tender documents that are not being contested
10 by the Defence. These documents will be given official exhibit numbers
11 tomorrow when we are provided with the eight binders by the Prosecution.
12 Tomorrow we'll have the 92 bis statements. They haven't yet been given
13 any numbers. And on the basis of a list of statements, we will give
14 these written statements, the 92 bis statements, exhibit numbers.
15 Mr. Bourgon.
16 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there was just
17 something I wanted to point out. That since the beginning of this
18 testimony we have been saying "Sir Martin," I think that Martin is the
19 witness's first name. I just wanted to point this out, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Withopf, I think that
21 his family name is Garrod, and Martin must be his first name. But
22 perhaps he has both names. I don't know. Perhaps the Prosecution could
23 enlighten us. Perhaps he has a double-barrelled name. We don't know.
24 MR. WITHOPF: Mr. President, I do not want to go in too much
25 detail about the customs how a person who has been given the "Sir" by the
1 British Queen has to be addressed. If my learned friends from the
2 Defence side and the Trial Chamber would consult -- it's custom --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. That wasn't Mr. Bourgon's
4 question. Mr. Bourgon was wondering whether his name was Martin or
5 Garrod, whether his first name was Martin or Garrod. What is his first
6 name? Is Martin the first name or not? That's the problem.
7 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my colleague has
8 told me that Sir Martin is quite appropriate, so we stand corrected, and
9 I apologise to the Prosecution.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We don't have
11 problems of any kind. We just needed to clarify this matter.
12 Mr. Dixon, thank you for helping us resolve this semantic issue.
13 I would like to thank all the parties, and I invite you to return
14 tomorrow for the hearing that will start at 9.00.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 7th day of
17 April, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.