1 Wednesday, 19 January 2005
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Case
8 number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the appearances
11 for the Prosecution, please.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,
13 Your Honours, Counsel, and to everyone in and around the courtroom. For
14 the Prosecution, Tecla Henry-Benjamin, Mathias Neuner, Stefan Waespi,
15 Daryl Mundis, and our case manager, Janet Stewart. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
17 Could we have the appearances for Defence counsel.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.
19 Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of General Enver Hadzihasanovic,
20 Edina Residovic, counsel, and Alexis Demirdjian, legal assistant. Thank
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we have the
23 appearances for the other Defence team, please.
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On
25 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin
1 Mulalic, legal assistant.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber greets
3 everyone present. Today on the 19th of January, I greet all the
4 representatives of the Prosecution, who are present. I greet Defence
5 counsel, though one member of Defence counsel is missing; as well as the
6 other Defence team. I also greet everyone else in the courtroom and those
7 who are around the courtroom and providing us with assistance.
8 We will be resuming with our work today, and we will be hearing a
9 witness who I expect is ready to testify.
10 I will now ask the usher to call the witness into the courtroom.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the Defence.
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I think we have a technical
14 problem. Our computer with the LiveNote is not functioning.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we try to
16 deal with this technical problem.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apart from the technical
19 problem with the computer, can we continue working?
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
22 Good day, sir. You have been called as a witness for the
23 Defence. I would first like to make sure that you are receiving the
24 interpretation of what I am saying into your own language. If so, please
25 say that you can hear and understand me.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you and I
2 understand you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could you please
4 tell me your first and last names, your date of birth, and your place of
5 birth so that this can be entered into the transcript.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Mustafa Poparic. I was
7 born on the 30th of September, 1942 in Travnik.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What current position do you
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm retired.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and 1993, did you hold
12 a position of any kind? And if you were in the army, what sort of
13 assignment did you have?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was a member of the Territorial
15 Defence until 1991. I then retired for a few months, and as of April 1992
16 I was in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, also in the Territorial
17 Defence in Zenica.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You remained in the Territorial
19 Defence or at any point in time were you assigned to an ABiH unit?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In November 1992, when the 3rd
21 Corps was formed, I moved over to the corps command, and that is where I
22 finished my career. Because in 1992 and 1993, the Territorial Defence was
23 disbanded and ceased to function.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Defence counsel
25 will further clarify the nature of your position within the 3rd Corps when
1 it commences with its examination-in-chief.
2 Have you already testified before an international or a national
3 court with regard to the events that took place in your country in 1992
4 and 1993, or is this the first time?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time I'll be
6 testifying before a court of any kind.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could you please
8 read out the solemn declaration that the usher will show to you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
10 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.
12 WITNESS: MUSTAFA POPARIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
15 Defence counsel, who will start with their examination-in-chief, I'd like
16 to provide you with some information about the procedure we'll be
18 You'll be testifying this morning about the events that took
19 place in your country in 1992 and 1993. You will have to answer questions
20 put to you by Defence counsel, who are to your left, and whom you have
21 certainly met -- whom you certainly meant before this hearing.
22 After this stage has been completed, the members of the
23 Prosecution, who are very numerous today - they're sitting to your right -
24 will conduct their cross-examination. They will have the same amount of
25 time to ask you questions as the Defence. You will notice that the
1 questions are of a different kind. Defence counsel may not put leading
2 questions to you; however, the Prosecution when conducting its
3 cross-examination may put leading questions to you.
4 After this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may put
5 additional questions to you if they so wish. These questions will
6 directly or indirectly relate to the questions put to you by the
8 After the parties have examined you, the Judges, if they believe
9 it is necessary, may also put questions to you. Sometimes they ask
10 witnesses questions and sometimes they do not. The questions put to you
11 by the Judges are put to witnesses in the interest of justice in order to
12 determine the truth. The Judges may ask you to clarify certain issues
13 raised in the course of your testimony, or the Judges may ask you for your
14 opinion on certain documents that have already been admitted, or the
15 Judges may ask you about statements that have already been made and that
16 seem to contradict your testimony.
17 Generally speaking, this is the procedure we will be following.
18 I should also add that after the Judges have put their questions
19 to you, the parties may take the floor again, ask you additional questions
20 and ask you additional questions that relate to the Judges' questions.
21 There is an adversarial debate that concerns the answers you have
22 provided to all the parties concerned.
23 As you were a member of the military, I should also point out
24 that Defence counsel or the Prosecution might present you with certain
25 documents to ask you about your opinion of the documents or to ask you to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 comment on the document. This is a possibility that may arise.
2 If you find that a question is too complicated, ask the person
3 putting it to you to rephrase it, because we don't have any written
4 documents concerning your testimony. This is why your testimony -- your
5 oral testimony, which is transcribed, is important. When assessing the
6 probative weight of your testimony, we'll be relying on the transcript.
7 On the monitor that you have before you, you will see the English
8 transcript of your testimony.
9 I should also mention two other points referred to in our Rules:
10 You have solemnly declared to speak the truth, which means that you should
11 not give false testimony. False testimony is a punishable offence and
12 could be punished by a prison sentence. The Judges will assess the
13 circumstances which false testimony might appear.
14 I should also point out that when you answer a question, you have
15 the right to refuse to answer the question. All witnesses have this
16 right. Why? Because in certain cases the answer might be used to
17 prosecute the witness at a subsequent date. In such exceptional
18 circumstances, the Judges may compel the witness to answer the question,
19 but we guarantee that what you say will not be used against you at a
20 subsequent date. This provision exists to ensure that the truth can be
21 established, but so far we have never had such a case.
22 If you encounter any difficulties, don't hesitate to inform us of
23 the fact. We are here to deal with any difficulties. As this is the
24 first time you'll be testifying, it might be stressful. But as both
25 parties will act in a courteous manner, I'm sure that your testimony will
1 proceed smoothly.
2 I'll now give the floor to Defence counsel, who will commence
3 with their examination-in-chief.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
5 Examined by Ms. Residovic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Poparic.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. The Presiding Judge has just provided you with a lot of
9 information on the procedure we will be following. I would also like to
10 add that as we speak the same language, you might want to answer the
11 questions I put to you immediately. But as it is necessary for my
12 questions and your answers to be interpreted so that the Chamber and my
13 colleagues can follow our exchanges, I would be grateful if you could make
14 a brief pause after I have put my question to you and then answer the
15 question. Have you understood me?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 Mr. Poparic, you said that you worked in the Municipal TO Staff
19 in Zenica up until 1992. What are you by profession and where were you
21 A. I'm a teacher of national defence, I graduated from the
22 University of Political Science in Sarajevo. The People's Defence
23 Department was the department I was in.
24 Q. Tell me, before the war, did you have a rank of any kind? And if
25 so, what was your rank? And before you retired, did you have a rank, sir?
1 A. I was a reserve major, a member of the artillery, and I worked in
2 the field of organisation and mobilisation throughout the period that I
3 was a member of the Territorial Defence, which was for about 20 years.
4 Q. Before you retired, did you have a rank in the ABiH? Or, in
5 fact, what is your rank today or what rank do you have today?
6 A. I am a colonel.
7 Q. You have just said that you were involved in organisation,
8 mobilisation, and personnel affairs in the Territorial Defence before the
9 war. You also said that you're retired. After the JNA and the Army of
10 Republika Srpska attacked Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 6th of April, in
11 what way did your status as a pensioner change?
12 A. Well, just like most of the inhabitants of Zenica, I reported to
13 the Territorial Defence Staff immediately. I wanted to help my people.
14 Q. Tell me, what assignment were you given in the Territorial
15 Defence Staff?
16 A. I was also involved in organisational and mobilisation matters.
17 Q. When you're performing organisation and mobilisation duties in
18 the TO Staff, did you have any problems as far as mobilising people in
19 wartime conditions was concerned?
20 A. Well, in Zenica, we didn't have major problems because you
21 couldn't feel the beginning of the war in Zenica to the same extent as in
22 other areas. So we had a lot of time and a lot of men at our disposal.
23 So we mobilised the first units, made them active in accordance with the
24 plans that we had already prepared.
25 Q. Mr. Poparic, at that time in Zenica, in addition to the
1 mobilisation carried out in accordance with the previously prepared plans,
2 were other units that hadn't previously been planned also rapidly formed?
3 And what was your attitude in the Municipal Staff towards such a
4 phenomenon, if it did occur?
5 A. Yes. Everyone was trying to form units of some kind. Every
6 building or every hamlet was trying to do this. For a certain period of
7 time this was under control. But there were also units that were
8 established without having any contact with the TO. They more or less
9 wanted to be independent and there were a number of such units at the
11 Q. In 1992, which body in fact dealt with all matters concerning
12 defence and appointed commanders and other officers in the Municipal Staff
13 and formed units and took military decisions on engaging units?
14 A. According to the Law on National Defence that was valid before
15 the war, the Territorial Defence was linked to civilian authorities. The
16 Municipal Staff was under the administrative bodies in the municipality.
17 So initially at the beginning of 1992, there was the War Presidency and
18 the Crisis Staff, and these are the two bodies that would take all the
19 relevant decisions, including decisions on professional matters, expert
21 Q. You also said that in Zenica some other organised military units
22 started appearing as a result of the efforts made by various powerful
23 individuals. Can you remember which units refused to recognise the
24 command of the Municipal Staff in the course of 1992?
25 A. There were the two components of the Croatian army, the HVO and
1 the HOS; the Muslim Armed Forces; the Green League. There were a number
2 of such units that acted independently. They recognised the Municipal
3 Staff when it was necessary to receive something from the staff, when they
4 needed logistics. But as far as command is concerned, they didn't
5 recognise our command.
6 Q. Did there come a time in 1992 when a radical change took place in
7 the way military structures were organised within the armed forces in
8 Zenica? And if so, please tell us what happened.
9 A. As I have already said, there was a large number of units in
10 Zenica. At one point, I think there were over a hundred. It was
11 impossible to organise command and control. When I arrived, I tried to
12 have larger units established; however, the watershed was the forming of
13 the corps. This was when brigades were formed and larger units were
14 established instead of the many small ones.
15 Q. Mr. Poparic, please tell us, did you continue to perform the same
16 duty in the Territorial Defence Staff or were you given a new duty when
17 the corps was formed?
18 A. Well, of course the corps needed personnel, and as I had
19 experience in this kind of work, in mid-November I was transferred from
20 the Municipal Staff to the corps command, performing the same duty.
21 Q. Your organ, the organ for organisation and mobilisation, who was
22 its superior? Who was your immediate superior and to whom were you linked
23 in the command?
24 A. These matters are linked to the Chief of Staff. My immediate
25 superior was Zijad Bahtic.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Q. You said that brigades were established at the same time as the
2 corps. From where were men mobilised into the brigades?
3 A. For the most part, this was creating larger units out of small
4 ones. We had platoons, companies, detachments, and then larger
5 detachments of battalion strength were formed. As larger and larger units
6 were established, brigades were formed. There was the 1st Zenica Brigade,
7 and this was mobilised according to the existing pre-war plans, with lower
8 manpower levels to be sure, but according to the same plans.
9 Also, there were many volunteers in Zenica, so we did have
10 manpower at our disposal.
11 Q. Mr. Poparic, you said that you had worked on these affairs for
12 over 30 years. What was the duty of this organ in the corps? What was
13 your main duty in the organ called the organ for organisation,
14 mobilisation, and personnel?
15 A. When I arrived in the corps command, I said that the situation in
16 other municipalities was similar. There were many small units that were
17 difficult to control. The first task of our service was to gain an
18 insight into the existing situation in the municipalities and what the
19 possibilities were for creating larger units out of smaller ones and to
20 make proposals to this effect to the commander. The personnel policy was
21 also within our competence, so that we proposed to the commander the
22 appointments of various people to various duties.
23 Q. Who prepared proposals for the commander to be submitted to the
24 superior command for appointments within its competence and the
25 reorganisation of certain units?
1 A. Pursuant to proposals coming from other towns, other Municipal
2 Staffs, we made proposals. Part of the commanding officers were appointed
3 by us. I'm not sure any more, but I think it was up to the rank of major.
4 Battalion commanders and ranks above major and colonel, they were
5 appointed by the superior command, and the Presidency appointed
6 higher-ranking officers. We made these proposals in agreement with the
8 Q. When you took up your duty in this service, did you have any
9 records? And what efforts did you make to establish records for the units
10 and the soldiers?
11 A. Initially there were no records. We didn't even know what all
12 the units were. During 1993, we made a great effort to try to create
13 records of the fighters in the 3rd Corps. It was very difficult because
14 the habit wasn't there. Communications were such that we could not obtain
15 regular reports. Entire groups of soldiers moved from one unit another
16 unit. This unit was established, but we couldn't rely on it too much.
17 Q. In order to survey the situation, as far as units and manpower
18 and commands went, were subordinate units duty-bound to supply you with
19 information about their establishment and their manpower levels, and in
20 view of the problems you have set out, did you monitor this by visiting
21 the troops on the ground?
22 A. Yes, we visited almost all the units in order to gain an insight
23 into the situation as far as manpower levels went and in order to assist
24 these units to set themselves up establishment-wise properly. There were
25 also reports in which they informed us of their numbers, the number of
1 casualties, men moving over from one unit to another. But we could not
2 rely on such data too much.
3 Q. Mr. Poparic, as the units were formed according to a certain
4 establishment, in 1993 were there major or minor deviations from the
5 manpower levels provided for in the establishment?
6 A. Yes. We had men. We were able to raise all the units up to
7 manpower level, but we did not have sufficient weapons or logistical
8 support, which is why the units were not fully -- were not complete, and
9 they didn't have sufficient manpower.
10 Q. Mr. Poparic, for how long did you stay in the command of the 3rd
11 Corps doing this job?
12 A. Until November 1993, I performed these tasks in the corps
13 command. After that, pursuant to orders, I became commander of the
14 District Staff of the civilian protection, because the civilian protection
15 was being established in the municipalities and all this had to be linked
16 up and made to function. I stayed there for a year, and after that I
17 returned to the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to the General Staff.
18 Q. In the General Staff, did you do the same job, or were you given
19 other tasks?
20 A. I worked in the same service. I worked on the creation of
21 wartime formations.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, would you now please
23 show the witness some documents and have the documents distributed to
24 Their Honours and our learned friends and the witness.
25 Q. Mr. Poparic, would you please now look at the document issued by
1 the staff of the Supreme Command of the 23rd of July, 1993. And its
2 number is P202.
3 The first thing I wish to ask you is: This document mentions the
4 name of Sakib Mahmuljin. Do you know Mr. Sakib Mahmuljin?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Please tell me: In this period of time, was Mr. Sakib Mahmuljin
7 a member of the 3rd Corps of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
8 A. Mr. Mahmuljin arrived in Zenica and introduced himself to us, and
9 we accepted him as such. He said he was a representative of the armed
10 forces Supreme Command Staff and that he was there to help us. Therefore,
11 Sakib Mahmuljin was not a member of the command. He lived and worked with
12 us, but officially he was not a member of the command.
13 Q. Was he employed in the 3rd Corps?
14 A. No. No, he wasn't an employee of the corps.
15 Q. Was he a member of the command of the 3rd Corps? And had he been
16 a member, would you in your command have received an order appointing him
17 to a duty in the 3rd Corps?
18 A. Yes, we would have, because all such orders were kept in our
19 service. Such a document would have had to have been with us.
20 Q. You said that he occasionally came to the corps. Was there a
21 time when he was given a certain duty in the corps? And as far as you can
22 recall, when was this?
23 A. Later on, he was appointed Chief of Staff. I think this was in
24 the second half of 1993, August, September, thereabouts, but not until
25 that time.
1 Q. Thank you. I now wish to ask you whether you have ever seen this
2 document before.
3 A. I saw this document for the first time when Mr. Mahmuljin arrived
4 and ordered me to try and set up an establishment, that is, to form a unit
5 which was supposed to soldierise, so to speak, these Arabs who were
6 allegedly on the territory of the 3rd Corps. He showed me this
7 authorisation, and they tried to work on this.
8 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, I hate to interrupt. We are now
9 talking about the first document, not P202, but the second document. Just
10 for the record, if it could be indicated which Prosecution exhibit we are
11 talking about.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. We were speaking
13 of the document called "Authorisation," numbered P202. This is the first
14 document we talked about. If it is erroneously entered into the
15 transcript, I apologise.
16 Q. Mr. Poparic, before you you had the document issued by the armed
17 forces Supreme Command Staff of the 23rd of July, 1993. Is this the
18 document you were talking about?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Very well. Thank you.
21 Now please look at the next document. This is document
22 numbered - excuse me for a moment - P438.
23 This is document P438. You have just said that Mr. Mahmuljin
24 brought this authorisation to you and told you to make a proposal as to
25 the creation of a formation.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Tell me please, did Mr. Mahmuljin provide you with any elements
2 on the basis of which you would draw up a proposal for this formation?
3 A. When drawing this document, the only thing I knew about was this
4 village of Mehurici. He said they were concentrated there for the most
5 part and he told me what the name of the unit would be. It would be the
6 El Mujahedin Detachment. Had I know what their numbers were, their
7 groupings, locations and so on when drawing up this proposal, I would have
8 mentioned those. I knew of no other elements. The most important
9 information when setting up a formation are the numbers of the men. I
10 didn't know that, so I had to do this off the top of my head without using
11 any elements that I needed.
12 Q. Mr. Poparic, until that time, did you know that there were
13 groups, formations, or individuals who were foreigners in the Army of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
15 A. We all knew there were some sort of Arabs, but what they were,
16 where they were, how many there were, we really didn't know. I saw them
17 about town in Zenica. They created problems for us in town. But in the
18 units that we registered, there were no such individuals. When I started
19 drawing up this document, that was the first time I learned where they
20 were concentrated and that they were to be part of our army.
21 Q. Who gave you these elements, the elements we find here that they
22 are volunteers in the ABiH army, that they are in the village of Mehurici
23 and so on? Did you find this in your records or did you learn these
24 elements from Mr. Mahmuljin?
25 A. I learned them from Mr. Mahmuljin because I and the corps command
1 had no record of this.
2 Q. Tell me, Mr. Poparic, the initials at the bottom, what do they
3 represent? In the corner.
4 A. "PM PM." The first "PM," these are my initials. It means that I
5 drafted this document in handwriting. The other set of initials refers to
6 the typist who typed the document out.
7 Q. When drafting the document in handwriting, did you refer to the
8 basis on which the person asking you to draw up the document had the right
9 to ask you to do it?
10 A. Of course, when I started drawing up this proposal, he showed me
11 his authorisation and I mentioned this in the preamble, that this is
12 pursuant to an authorisation by the Supreme Commander, that Mr. Mahmuljin
13 is authorised to contact us, and the information I drew up was based on
15 Q. Mr. Poparic, since you have told us that you were involved in
16 similar, identical affairs for about 30 year, tell me: When a commander
17 hands over proposals to form units for the superior command, is it
18 necessary for him to have authorisation to do this?
19 A. Well, the commander by virtue of being a commander doesn't
20 require authorisation of any kind. A commander may form any kind of unit
21 and issue such orders without any authorisation in his zone of
22 responsibility because I don't know who would have given him such
23 authorisation. By virtue of his position as a commander, he has the
24 authority to issue such orders.
25 Q. Mr. Poparic, at the bottom of the document - and you said that
1 you wrote it by hand and then handed it over for typing - you can see the
2 name of Commander Enver Hadzihasanovic. How is it that a document for
3 which someone else handles the authorisation and someone else asked you to
4 draft this document, how is it that this document contains a reference to
5 the corps commander?
6 A. It was quite usual - I think this is normal- that all documents
7 that were going to other parties from the Supreme Command -- from the
8 corps command, all such documents would be authorised or certified by the
9 commander. So everything that we did, any proposals that we drafted, any
10 issues that we -- any orders that we issued, on all such documents we
11 would mark down the name of the commander and hand it over -- hand the
12 documents over to the commander so that he could examine them. Why it
13 hasn't been signed, I don't know. It was probably forwarded by packet
14 communications. I don't know whether it was sent to be signed or not, but
15 we had to draft the document, hand it over to be typed out, and that was
16 the end of my duties.
17 Q. Do you know who in fact signed this document and do you know
18 whether the corps commander saw this document?
19 A. No, I don't know about that. I ask for the document to be typed
20 out. I provide it to the relevant body. And it's then their duplicate to
21 take the document to be signed, to inform those who have to be informed
22 about it. That's not my duty.
23 Q. Mr. Poparic, would you please have a look at the next document
24 now, P439. This is an order from the Supreme Command Staff dated the 13th
25 of August, 1993. Do you have that document before you?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Tell me, after you had drafted this proposal, did you at any time
3 receive this order in your service?
4 A. Yes, naturally we did receive this order. I remember the order.
5 This order is in fact a response to the proposal that we had made.
6 Q. Since you worked in this field, tell me, according to the rules,
7 who determined the establishment of the newly formed units?
8 A. The Supreme Command was responsible for all wartime
10 Q. Did the Supreme Command have to add information on -- on
11 establishment matters to units when it forwarded orders to them?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Please have a look at item number 1 in the order. Have a look at
14 the paragraph after -- under "Formation," and the sentence where it says,
15 "To form in a 3rd Corps zone of responsibility, the El Mujahedin
16 detachment, according to proposed establishment, which it must submit to
17 the staff for approval."
18 Tell me, does this mean that this military rule is not being
19 respected or were such things things that happened?
20 A. Well, the rule wasn't respected here because we received all the
21 information from them, and I assume that they did not have a sufficient
22 number of elements to form such a -- a unit. They assumed that we had
23 more information and that we could draft a proposal that they would then
24 certify or amend. They suggested that we make a suggestion on what we
25 wanted to happen.
1 Q. Tell me whether you acted on the basis of this order and did you
2 draft a proposal of any kind? If so, on what basis did you do that?
3 A. A minute ago I said I didn't have all the elements that are
4 necessary for such an establishment, but on the basis of this order, I
5 made a variant of a detachment that resembled a Territorial Defence
6 detachment. It was a sort of detachment. There was a command -- there was
7 a command, communications department, two or three companies, et cetera.
8 Q. While you were within the 3rd Corps Command, did you ever receive
9 authorisation for that proposed formation?
10 A. While I was there, no. No such formation was established.
11 Q. Have a look at item 2, "Mobilisation preparations." A minute ago
12 you said that in the 3rd Corps you and the service had no information
13 according to which those foreigners were in the units or in the 3rd Corps.
14 This first sentence says: "Replenish the El Mujahedin Detachment with
15 foreign volunteers currently on the territory of the 3rd Corps zone of
16 responsibility." What does this mean, in your opinion? Who are on the
17 territory of the 3rd Corps zone of responsibility?
18 A. Well, that's where they were. They were in that territory. So
19 the detachment was to be formed of those men but not of 3rd Corps units.
20 Men weren't supposed to be taken from 3rd Corps units. They weren't
21 there. So these individuals were present in the territory of the 3rd
22 Corps and the detachment was to be formed from those men who were not part
23 of 3rd Corps units.
24 Q. Mr. Poparic, so as far as I have understood your answers, you
25 were also involved in the mobilisation of men and of materiel for the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 units that you had or for the newly formed units.
2 I'd like to ask you about the second sentence in this order. It
3 says that the people mentioned should carry weapons and other materiel and
4 other equipment with them that has already been issued to them. What does
5 this order mean? How did you understand this order, when it says that
6 these people should keep the weapons and other equipment which has already
7 been issued to them?
8 A. When we were establishing this formation, then I was told that
9 these foreigners, these men, had their weapons. We didn't have weapons
10 for our own men, let alone for them. So they carried these weapons with
11 them. They'd obtain them from somewhere. They'd buy them. I don't know
12 how or where. But they already had these weapons. And when it says
13 "which has already been issued to them," I don't know whether these
14 weapons had been issued to them on the basis of written documents or from
15 their own warehouses, but that's what one writes down.
16 Q. When a unit is formed on the base of an order and according to an
17 establishment, is its -- is it its duty to provide your body with a report
18 on its formation?
19 A. Yes. Usually one of us would go to the unit and spend two or
20 three days there to assist them in forming the unit. There are always
21 deadlines for all units -- for all units that were formed. In the case of
22 all units that were formed, there is a sentence specifying that the
23 commander of the unit should report on the completion of the task.
24 Q. Did you or your colleagues at any time from your service go to
25 that unit to assist them with establishing the unit? And while you were
1 in the 3rd Corps, up until the beginning of November; did that unit at
2 any time provide a report on its formation or, rather, on the process of
3 forming that unit?
4 A. I and no one else from my body for organisation and mobilisation
5 went there; otherwise, I would have been aware of that. As far as I know,
6 we never received such a report about that unit.
7 Q. Mr. Poparic, tell me whether you in your records have a list of
8 the commands of your subordinate units, have records on the commands of
9 your subordinate units and did you know who the commander of that unit was
10 or did you know who was in that unit until the time that you left the 3rd
11 Corps at the beginning of November 1993?
12 A. Yes. There are documents containing information on all the units
13 formed. There are records on officers from those units. It's normal to
14 keep such records, and this was always done in -- in -- in the service.
15 As we didn't receive a report that the unit had been formed, we weren't
16 aware of any of the names of the men from that unit, so we weren't aware
17 of its composition. We didn't even know who the commander of the unit
18 was, let alone anything else.
19 Q. Mr. Poparic, when you look back to that period now, to the period
20 during which you were involved in the affairs you have been testifying
21 about here, could you tell me whether according to what you know about
22 that period this detachment placed itself under the command of the corps
23 up until the time that you left -- or by the time you left the 3rd Corps?
24 A. I said I didn't even receive a report on their formation, so
25 until they are placed under the command of the 3rd Corps and there are
1 written documents about this, this is not the case. So as far as I know,
2 up until November 1993 this was a unit for which the 3rd Corps wasn't
4 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Poparic.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
6 questions for this witness.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 Defence for Mr. Kubura, do you have any questions for this
10 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no questions for this
11 witness. Thank you, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 The Prosecution.
14 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 First of all, we would like to distribute to all the parties the
16 documents which we would like to touch.
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Waespi:
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Poparic. I would just like to clarify a few
19 issues with you. I don't think it should take too long.
20 And, first of all, I'd like to go back to Prosecution Exhibit
21 PX438. And that's the document authored by Enver Hadzihasanovic and dated
22 12th August 1993.
23 Now, I believe you --
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have an
25 objection. My colleague just said that the document was drafted by Enver
1 Hadzihasanovic. The witness spoke about certain other matters. In fact,
2 perhaps one should specify that this document contains the name of Enver
3 Hadzihasanovic, because this question does not arise from the witness's
5 MR. DIXON: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.
7 MR. DIXON: Your Honour, could I just -- I've looked at the list
8 of exhibits that are proposed to be shown to this witness; P438 is on that
9 list. But in addition to that, there are three new documents, and I would
10 ask to address Your Honours on whether those documents can be shown to
11 this witness, if my learned friend is going to show those documents to
12 this witness, because our submission is that in accordance with
13 Your Honours' previous ruling, which is very clear, these documents cannot
14 be shown to this witness as part of the Prosecution's cross-examination.
15 And I would, if they are going to be shown, ask to address
16 Your Honours before that happens.
17 Thank you, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before I give the
19 floor to the Prosecution, there are two issues: Firstly, Defence counsel
20 for General Hadzihasanovic claim that the document shown to the witness in
21 which reference is made to General Hadzihasanovic, Defence counsel says
22 that his name is contained in the document but he did not sign the
23 document. That's the first issue.
24 And secondly, Mr. Kubura's Defence note that there is a new
25 document and Defence counsel would like to know whether this new document
1 will be shown to the witness, since they claim that we, the Judges, have
2 rendered a decision on new documents, and Defence counsel would like to
3 know the legal basis on which the Prosecution would like to present this
4 new document.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I fully support
6 the request made by Mr. Kubura's Defence.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is a joint
8 position, since both Defence teams agree on it.
9 You may take the floor.
10 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 On the first point, I agree with my learned friend Residovic that
12 the document has not been signed by Mr. Hadzihasanovic and that's not what
13 I said. I said it was authored. And to be more careful, I should have
14 said it appeared to be authored and -- but, you know, I just merely wanted
15 to introduce the document to show it to the witness. I didn't want to
16 suggest and I'm not giving evidence anyway. The document speaks for
17 itself, and the witness already talked about that. And I won't touch that
18 issue of who in fact signed it, because it wasn't signed. And the witness
19 clearly said he did not know. He wasn't involved in that. He handed it
20 over to some other department or some other person, and that's it. So I
21 won't touch that.
22 The second point, Your Honours, raised by Mr. Dixon, and
23 supported by Mrs. Residovic, is these three new documents. In fact,
24 listening to what the witness said in chief, I probably will only use the
25 first 21s.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 And, Your Honours, in your ruling, in your oral ruling - I
2 believe it was 29th November 2004 - you said that we could use or indeed
3 tender new documents. And I can quote it: "To test the credibility of a
4 witness or to refresh such a witness's memory." And you continue saying
5 that: "These documents need not to be admitted at this time," so these
6 can be new documents. And I quote again: "And which it had" - meaning
7 the OTP - "in its possession before or after the presentation of its
9 And you go on later on that same page - and, Your Honours, that's
10 page 12.527 - to say that "If the documents are to be admitted, they can
11 only carry limited value in a sense, as they relate to the credibility of
12 the oral testimony or the refreshing process of the witness."
13 So I believe, Your Honours, we are entitled to use it to test the
14 credibility of the witness because he said a few quite straightforward
15 points; namely, that the 3rd Corps didn't receive any information about
16 these Mujahedin, the incorporation into the 3rd Corps, and I believe that
17 both documents would -- would suggest otherwise. And I just wanted to
18 show it to the witness and ask him whether he has to make any comments
19 about it.
20 Whether we are going to tender these documents, Your Honours,
21 that's not yet decided. But to start with, we would like to mark it for
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
24 Defence counsel to hear the additional submissions they would like to
25 make, I will reread the relevant paragraph of our oral decision dated the
1 29th of November, 2004. I will now reread it, and you can compare it with
2 the transcript. And I'll read it out now.
3 "It is the Chamber's opinion that the Prosecution may show in the
4 course of their cross-examination any documents that have not already been
5 admitted in order to test the credibility of the witness or to refresh the
6 witness's memory. In each case, the Prosecution may present a document
7 that hasn't already been admitted and which they had in their possession
8 before or after the conclusion of its case. The Trial Chamber believes
9 that when the Prosecution intends to present such a document, they must
10 disclose this document to the Defence and inform them of their intention
11 to disclose the document at least 24 hours before the witness for the
12 Defence in question appears unless the Defence has belatedly provided the
13 Prosecution with information that they need in order to prepare their
14 cross-examination of the witness."
15 That is what we decided with regard to new documents that had not
16 been admitted into evidence but were in the possession of the Prosecution
17 before or after the presentation of its case.
18 We mentioned two cases in this decision, the credibility of the
19 witness or refreshing the witness's memory. And in our decision, we added
20 that it was necessary for the Prosecution to give the Defence at least 24
21 hours in advance the documents in question unless the Prosecution
22 belatedly discovered that Defence counsel wanted to use a document. In
23 such a case, the 24-hour notice could not be respected because they were
24 made aware of the document too late.
25 That was our decision. I will now give the floor to the
2 MR. WAESPI: Just to add two pieces of information. I called
3 yesterday the Defence, both Defence teams, and informed them of my
4 intention perhaps to use these documents. And the reason -- it's not
5 exactly 24 hours. I think I called them around 1.00. But you have to in
6 mind -- to keep in mind, Your Honours, that the 65 ter summaries are very,
7 very brief. In fact, this witness, I think it's five lines, and it does
8 not say that the witness disputes that these Mujahedin would be part of
9 the -- the 3rd Corps. It just says he will testify about this document
10 P438. But out of an abundance of caution, I thought this might be a
11 relevant issue, so I called the Defence.
12 We also disclosed both documents, Your Honours, in November of
13 last year, so the Defence had the prior notice.
14 And they could also discuss it with the witness yesterday,
15 because they were alerted to these documents prior to the proofing
17 Thank you, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for this
19 information about the necessity of informing 24 hours in advance.
20 MR. DIXON: There's no dispute over a few hours here or there on
21 the part of the Defence.
22 Our real issue, Your Honours, is that in Your Honours' decision
23 the key wording as to whether a document can be shown is that it must
24 test - and I underline "test" - the credibility of the witness or refresh
25 his memory. And in our submission, neither of these documents do serve
1 that purpose.
2 Your Honour has the documents in front of Your Honours. Neither
3 of these documents have anything whatsoever to do with this witness.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we continue, we will ask
5 the witness to leave the courtroom.
6 Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness out of the
8 Witness, you'll have to leave the courtroom for a while since
9 there are certain procedural matters that we have to deal with. We will
10 call you back into the courtroom as soon as possible.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence submits that in
13 their view - but the Judges of course will confer about this - however,
14 you must develop your argument. However, the said documents do not have
15 the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness in your view. Can
16 you expand on this? Because the Prosecutor says this is the purpose for
17 which he's going to use the documents. You, however, assert the opposite.
18 Could you please explain to us why you say this? And why you reject the
19 arguments of the Prosecution.
20 MR. DIXON: Yes, Your Honour.
21 Both of these documents are ones which are entirely independent
22 of this witness. These are not statements by the witness. These are not
23 documents that the witness himself prepared. These are not proceedings.
24 For example, the first document, an interview, that this witness
25 was involved in. He didn't interview Mr. Durmis, for example. Nor did he
1 prepare this list of the foreign citizens who left the El Mujahedin squad.
2 These are documents that may relate to other witnesses. They may be
3 documents that are referred to later. But they are documents which have
4 no connection whatsoever to this witness.
5 And we therefore submit there is no basis for challenging his
6 credibility if it is not a document which he has some link to.
7 If, on the other hand, the Prosecution had a -- a document which
8 he had authored or a meeting that he was at where something different was
9 done or said to what he has said in court before Your Honours, if there
10 was an obvious contradiction in something he had said before and something
11 he said today, then of course we would have no objection to that.
12 Likewise, if he'd forgotten about something and a document that
13 he had authored at the time was shown to him to try and refresh his
14 memory, there would be no basis for the Defence to object.
15 But in our view, the test is very strict. Your Honours have said
16 that documents can only be shown for a limited purpose, and that must be
17 to change the credibility of the witness. Credibility can only be
18 challenged where something can be shown to be different to what the
19 witness himself once did or once said and what he's said in his evidence
20 today. Otherwise, Your Honour, we could be in a situation where -- where
21 any possible document could be shown to a witness. A newspaper article
22 from ten years ago which the witness has never read could be shown to him
23 to seek to challenge his credibility.
24 Your Honour, in our submission, that would be unfair. A witness
25 can only be tested where he himself has been involved in something.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Otherwise, it's unfair to suggest to the witness that he's lied or that he
2 hasn't told the -- the truth to this Court.
3 In our view, the decision must be applied in that very strict
5 In addition to that, Your Honours, we -- we do agree with what my
6 learned friends have said, that even if such a document were shown, that
7 it has limited value because it purely goes to issues of credibility. But
8 for it to have some value, in our submission, the best approach for Your
9 Honours to adopt would be to always look very carefully at what documents
10 are being shown and whether they truly can test the credibility of the
11 witness or not.
12 In our submission, these documents certainly cannot. They may
13 well be documents that can be shown to other witnesses. In fact, the
14 first document is one that the Defence team for Mr. Kubura has referred to
15 in the past regarding the time when Mr. Durmis had left and was not
16 involved in 7th Brigade -- 7th Brigade activities at all. But that's
17 certainly not a matter which this witness can testify about. He wasn't
18 involved in that interview, and it hasn't even been asked him whether he
19 knows any of these individuals involved.
20 So it may be that these documents arise later. But in respect of
21 this particular witness, our submission is that there is no connection
22 whatsoever to him or the testimony that he's given here today.
23 Thank you, Your Honours, for the opportunity to make these
24 submissions. We would also request that the Prosecution - the onus is on
25 them, in our submission - seek to set out how they would challenge the
1 credibility of this witness with -- with this document. In our
2 submission, they can't do that on the face of these documents.
3 Thank you, Your Honours.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I fully accept the
5 arguments put forward by my learned colleague Mr. Dixon, and I only wish
6 to add that not only has the witness not drawn up these two documents;
7 they have not been drawn up by the command of the 3rd Corps either. But
8 also, neither of these documents is addressed to the witness or to the
9 organ he was part of.
10 Secondly, the first document clearly indicates that it is some
11 sort of court record, and on our list of witnesses we also have judges.
12 If the Prosecution wishes to use this document at all, it can perhaps
13 introduce it, if you Judges so rule, when these witnesses arrive.
14 Secondly, the way in which an accused's testimony can be treated
15 in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot assist in any way when shown
16 to this witness who has no knowledge of it.
17 Secondly, these documents can in no way refresh the witness's
18 memory, especially as the second document dates from 1994 and the witness
19 said clearly that he left the 3rd Corps in early November 1993.
20 Therefore, none of the strict elements in Your Honours' ruling
21 can be met if such documents were to be shown to the witness.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the
24 Prosecution, after which we will retire to confer, I have to say to make
25 everything clear that we have three documents. The first document is a
1 record of an official interview with the accused Ramo Durmis, which has
2 been translated into English. This is a record of an interview, and the
3 document was signed by the accused, his counsel, and the judge. This
4 interview was conducted in Zenica. And according to the first page of
5 this document, one can see that it is dated the 26th of October, 1993.
6 The second document is a list signed by Dr. Abu Haris on the 9th
7 of February, 1994. The title of the document is "List of members of the
8 El Mujahedin Detachment."
9 The third document is a list of names several pages long, and
10 apparently it was addressed to Sarajevo or sent to Sarajevo, and it was
11 sent to the assistant to the minister of the public security service, and
12 it contains a list of foreign citizens. We don't see the exact date on
13 this document. We don't know how it was translated, how it came to be in
14 the possession of the Prosecution, and why it was not disclosed to the
16 I will now give the floor to the Defence, and after this the
17 Judges will retire to confer. We shall do this only after we hear the
18 final arguments of the Prosecution.
19 You have the floor.
20 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
21 In relation to the third document there, needs to be something
22 said about the source. And I would need to go into private session but --
23 for that. But I'm not proposing to -- to use this document. So we -- we
24 can just deal with the first two documents, if I may.
25 Just in response to what my learned friend --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. This means that
2 the third document will not be used? We will not discuss it any more?
3 MR. WAESPI: Yes, that's correct, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have less work to do, then.
5 We only have go documents to deal with.
6 You have the floor.
7 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Just in relation to what my learned friend Dixon -- Rodney Dixon
9 said. The purpose of cross-examination is -- can be testing the
10 credibility of -- of a witness. And I'm going to do that based on what he
11 already testified in chief and what I anticipate he may be testifying
12 in -- in cross-examination.
13 And following up from a discussion we had the other day,
14 Mr. Dixon and me, I reiterate: To test the credibility of a witness, I
15 can put anything to him which is relevant. That's number one. And
16 second, for which I have a good-faith basis to put it to him. That's the
17 only restriction I have. And then the witness can deny it. It could be a
18 newspaper article which was written about a relevant subject about which
19 he testified. There does not need to be any more connection like that he
20 signed something, he's mentioning an article. This type of information
21 elements are normally used for a witness to tender a document to enhance
22 his credibility, the authenticity, reliability of a document. But that's
23 not cross-examination, in my submission, Your Honours. I need a good
24 faith basis and it needs to be relevant.
25 And I believe, Your Honours, both documents touch upon something
1 the witness said before. He's, he says, an expert or has dealt with for
2 30 years, we have heard, about mobilisation, personnel issues, and in the
3 relevant time frame of the 3rd Corps. I can certainly put to him that
4 some people early 1994 left the 3rd Corps signed by the detachment
5 commander, what it appears. And I can put it to him and say, "Here, you
6 see the El Mujahedin Detachment has indeed been formed, as suggested by
7 these two documents he discussed, P438 and 39," and let's see what he
8 says. Perhaps he can add something useful. That's number one, the first
10 And the second one, Mr. Durmis, he testified in front of this
11 Court that he was a member of the 3rd Corps and the El Mujahed Battalion
12 or Detachment. And I can direct you to -- to the second page of this
13 Durmis record just after the middle. He says, and I quote: "At the time
14 the crimes were committed, I was a member of the El Mujahedin Unit and I'm
15 still a member of this unit." And that relates to July 1993, so that
16 would contradict what the witness said that at this time there was no El
17 Mujahedin Unit. And the witness, Mr. Durmis -- or the accused in that
18 proceedings on page 4 at the end, last paragraph, also talks about the
19 incorporation of this independent El Mujahedin Unit into the 3rd Corps of
20 the BH army, again contradicting what the witness said or appeared to have
21 said in examination-in-chief.
22 So he, as a specialist in mobilisation, dealt with these issues.
23 He would have an answer to these issues. And that's why I intend to use
24 these two documents.
25 Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is now 25 past
2 10.00. We will now have our break, as it is actually time for a break.
3 We will have a break of some 20 to 25 minutes, and we will resume at
4 10.50, ten minutes to 11.00. Then we will tell you what our ruling is on
5 this issue.
6 Please rise.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.24 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall continue. And now the
10 Chamber will hand down its ruling as to whether the Prosecution is to be
11 allowed to use for purposes of testing the credibility of this witness two
12 documents: One dated the 26th of October, 1993, which is in fact a record
13 of an interview with the accused Ramo Durmis, dated 26th of October, 1993.
14 The interview was conducted by a judge, an investigating judge of the High
15 Court in Zenica. And the second document is a document compiled by Abu
16 Haris, commander of the El Mujahedin Unit dated the 9th of February, 1994.
17 The Trial Chamber has decided that these documents fall within
18 the range of documents as to which the Chamber has already ruled, and the
19 Chamber on the basis of this has decided that the documents may be used to
20 test the credibility of the witness. The Chamber feels that these
21 documents do fall within this category of documents, and this means that
22 the Prosecution may use them for this purpose.
23 We shall now ask the usher to bring the witness into the
25 Of course, the Defence will be able to return to this topic
1 during their redirect.
2 Did you wish to say something before the witness enters the
4 MR. WAESPI: Yes. I just realised that one of the -- what I said
5 before was not clearly translated or perhaps I misspoke.
6 On page 35, lines 4 to 5, when I was talk about Mr. Durmis
7 testifying in front of a court, it's not this Court here but it was, of
8 course, the High Court in Zenica.
9 Thank you, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is why I mentioned in this
11 oral decision of the Trial Chamber that the interview with Mr. Durmis was
12 conducted before the investigating judge of the High Court in Zenica.
13 Thank you for this clarification.
14 [The witness entered court]
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, the hearing has now
16 resumed, and you will be questioned by the Prosecution.
17 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. MUNDIS:
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. President. And good morning again.
21 I would like first to ask you about a document you already talked
22 about, and this is Prosecution Exhibit 438.
23 MR. WAESPI: If that could be shown to the witness.
24 Q. And the first question I wanted to ask you is on paragraph 2.
25 On paragraph two, you talk about a mobilisation collection point.
1 Can you tell us what that is?
2 A. Mobilisation collection point. This is the terrain where this
3 unit is formed and comes into existence, and this is where it is located
4 unless it is given another task. The mobilisation collection point is the
5 location where a unit is formed.
6 Q. And now, I believe you testified before the break - and please
7 correct me if I'm wrong - that you -- the only thing you knew beforehand,
8 before Mr. Mahmuljin approached you in relation to this to be formed unit
9 was about the village of Mehurici. That's what you had known before. Is
10 that correct?
11 A. Yes. I knew, as did most people, that there was a group of Arabs
12 there, but not as soldiers. They were mostly in civilian clothing. They
13 would enter the town of Zenica, where they mistreated people, did all
14 sorts of things. But they did not exist as a unit, at least to my
15 knowledge. I didn't know there was an armed unit of Arabs there.
16 Q. Now, incidentally, who in fact drafted this proposal? Was it you
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, you also testified before that logistics was very limited or
20 very scarce in -- in the 3rd Corps. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So that would be a big sacrifice if you used 3rd Corps -- if you
23 propose to use 3rd Corps logistics for this El Mujahedin Unit, as you
24 propose under item number 4.
25 A. Yes. This is a sentence that is usual in such documents. It
1 refers to the overall logistics. But as to when it would enter into force
2 and under what conditions would depend on the needs, on the requirements.
3 This sentence "Logistics support will be regulated by the logistics
4 services of the 3rd Corps," refers to something they can ask of us if we
5 can provide it. Nothing more than that. Certainly the 3rd Corps did not
6 have sufficient weapons or ammunition.
7 Q. But that's what you suggested here, that these -- the El
8 Mujahedin, if they were to be formed, would rely on the 3rd Corps
9 logistics services.
10 A. Within the bounds of their possibilities. That's what's missing
12 Q. And, in fact, that's what was picked up -- thank you. In fact,
13 that's what was picked up by the commander, Rasim Delic, in his letter of
14 the next day. He, in fact, said, under item 3 - and perhaps you remember
15 the second exhibit, P439 - that "Logistics support would indeed be
16 provided by the 3rd Corps." Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, this was based on our proposal.
18 Q. Now, before making the proposal, did you discuss that with the
19 logistics commander, the assistant commander for logistics of the 3rd
20 Corps, or anybody else, whether you had enough logistics support to deal
21 with another unit, or did you consult with other people about that before
22 making the proposal?
23 A. No. No. As I said, this is a standard sentence where all units
24 are informed, that they may ask of the corps command something that the
25 corps command will provide provided it has it. It's also a question of
1 time. This might happen in a year or two years. However, the corps
2 command would be supposed to provide them with logistical support.
3 Q. Now, incidentally, did the corps commander, Enver Hadzihasanovic,
4 ever come to you and complain about your involvement or the involvement of
5 Mr. Mahmuljin or in the creation of the El Mujahedin Unit, did he ever
6 complain and say, "You can't do that." You know, "we don't have
8 A. No, he didn't. No.
9 Q. Any other discussions you had with Mr. Hadzihasanovic in relation
10 to the El Mujahedin Unit or any other Mujahedin formations?
11 A. I don't recall. I don't think I ever had any such discussions.
12 If I did, it would be with my immediate superior. However, I don't think
13 we discussed this unit personally.
14 Q. Now, you were asked about the second document, again, P439, to
15 comment on one of the sentences. And it's in the middle of the first page
16 under item 2, "Mobilisation preparations." And it's the second sentence,
17 and I quote it again: "These people keep the weapons and other equipment
18 which has already been issued to them." And obviously this document comes
19 from Rasim Delic.
20 Now, do you know what -- if you know -- what the basis of
21 information, the source of information was for Mr. Delic when he signed
22 this letter?
23 A. He probably had information according to which they had weapons.
24 That is the only possible explanation.
25 Q. And I believe you told us there may have -- they may have relied
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 on a warehouse to get these weapons. Can you tell us which warehouse you
2 have in mind?
3 A. Well, all units have their own warehouses. The 3rd Corps Command
4 had depots from which certain equipment could be obtained. They certainly
5 couldn't have requested any such equipment because we didn't have a
6 sufficient amount. During that period of time, every third soldier had a
7 weapon in the units that existed, so we weren't able to provide them with
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Defence counsel.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I object to the question put to
11 the witness by my learned friend. And after I've checked page 14, line 13
12 [as interpreted], the witness did not say that they took weapons from
13 certain warehouses. They -- it says that perhaps they had their own
14 warehouses. So I don't think it's correct to suggest that the witness
15 provided a different answer.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Defence counsel says that the
17 witness said that they had perhaps taken these weapons from their own
18 warehouses, not from 3rd Corps warehouses, and he confirms that.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness has just confirmed
21 what Defence counsel has said.
22 Please continue.
23 MR. WAESPI: Yes. In fact, my question was sufficiently broad.
24 I said whether they relied on certain warehouses. I didn't ask whether
25 they took it. But that's fine. The witness answered.
1 Q. Let me go to a different issue, and that's the formation of the
2 El Mujahedin Unit. So just to -- to be sure, did this process which we
3 followed through these three documents, the one giving the authorisation
4 of Mr. Mahmuljin to deal with the issue, that's P202; then 13 August 1993
5 document drafted by you, P438; and then the next day -- in fact, the same
6 day he received the document, that's P439, when Mr. Delic basically
7 ordered the formation.
8 Did -- was a unit, El Mujahedin Unit, according to information
9 actually formed in summer 1993?
10 A. As far as I know, that unit wasn't formed in the way we wanted it
11 to be formed, according to these orders. They didn't have names, the
12 establishment that had been determined, stamps that they were to use.
13 These elements lacked while I was in the corps -- were lacking while I was
14 in the corps command, so I don't think that the unit was formed in the way
15 that we had planned.
16 Q. So are you saying de facto the unit existed but they were lacking
17 some formal criteria which were normally present when a unit was formed?
18 A. I believe that it did exist and that they had their command, et
19 cetera, but it did not want to be resubordinated to the corps command.
20 They wanted -- well, I wouldn't say freedom, but they wanted to be
21 assigned tasks from someone else, not from the corps command. That's the
22 information I had at that period of time.
23 Q. And what's the basis for this information? Who gave you the
25 A. Information arrived, official information, unofficial
1 information. People could observe the situation. We knew that there was
2 a unit that was in existence, but we knew very little about them.
3 Although, I was involved in operations, operational matters, I know that
4 that unit was never issued orders for engagement. It wasn't assigned a
5 zone of responsibility, et cetera. So for us, it didn't exist. We
6 weren't aware officially of its existence, but we did know that it
7 existed. But as to how many of them there were, et cetera, this is
8 information we did not have.
9 Q. I would like to -- to show you two documents which touch on this
10 subject. And you may have a comment or two about that.
11 MR. WAESPI: If the witness could first be shown the document,
12 the court record -- interview with the accused concerning Mr. Ramo Durmis
13 dated 22nd [sic] October 1993.
14 Q. And this appears to be a interview with a court. You see the --
15 the people present on -- on the cover page. What I'm interested in is on
16 English page four, the last paragraph.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President. Mr. President, it
18 would perhaps be appropriate if my learned friend first asked the witness
19 whether he knew the person in question.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The objection is
21 sustained. It would perhaps be appropriate to find out whether the
22 witness knows the person referred to in the document.
23 In addition, there's an error in page 43, line six. It's the
24 26th of October. It's not the 22nd of October. But that's an error in
25 the transcript.
1 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.
3 MR. WAESPI:
4 Q. Do you know the accused in this proceeding, meaning the
5 proceeding before the High Court in Zenica, a person called Ramo Durmis,
6 also known as Abu Jihad? And you can see even some more data on this
7 person on the first page. Do you know this person?
8 A. I don't know this person personally; although, this is an address
9 in the vicinity of my home. I don't know him personally, but I have heard
10 about him. I think he was involved in a murder or in -- in stealing
11 something. I think he was a criminal. That's when I heard about him.
12 But I don't know him personally.
13 Q. Let me direct you to the last paragraph of page four. In English
14 and in the B/C/S original - B/C/S meaning Serbo-Croatian - it's on page 4.
15 And it's the fourth paragraph from the bottom, and it starts:
16 "Napitanje," [phoen] in your language. And I'll read it out in -- in
17 English, Your Honours.
18 "In answer to a question asked, the accused said" - apparently a
19 quote - "About two and a half months ago, this independent El Mujahedin
20 Unit was incorporated into the 3rd Corps of the BH army. Until then, it
21 had not been formally part of that formation but had operated
22 independently and carried out the riskiest operations with great success
23 in agreement with the 3rd Corps."
24 Now, what can you tell about that? Here Mr. Durmis now claims
25 that this unit was indeed formed and was incorporated into the 3rd Corps.
1 Can you -- can you help us about -- about that? Do you agree with it or
2 you disagree?
3 A. I don't know what duties he performed there. I don't know where
4 he obtained information according to which they were under the 3rd Corps
5 Command. I don't believe that this is correct, and I don't know where he
6 obtained this information from, according to which they were subordinated
7 to the 3rd Corps. There is no document that would support this.
8 Q. Well, this person - and you see that on -- on page 2 - the end of
9 the page in the English version, and in your version it's after the middle
10 of page 2, he says - and I quote him - "I was a member of the 7th Muslim
11 Brigade unit until April 1993 and I did a lot as a participant in its
12 operations. After that, our unit, which is now called El Mujahedin, was
13 separated from the said brigade and has since operated as an independent
14 detachment," and so on. End of quote.
15 So this person, in fact, was in that unit, so he -- he should
17 A. I don't believe these allegations, not at all. I don't even
18 believe that in the 7th Muslim Brigade there were men with Arab names.
19 Perhaps this man was a member of the 7th. But in that detachment, there
20 were quite a few local men. Perhaps they did separate and join those
21 Arabs. That's a possibility. But that they did that with our agreement,
22 I wouldn't agree with that. I would have had to draft such an order and
23 provide it to the commander so that he could certify it, an order
24 according to which a group from one unit was to be transferred to another
25 unit. Perhaps this was done, but if it was done, it was without our
2 Q. But doesn't that suggest what Mr. Durmis says was in fact in
3 accordance with the process which had been initiated by you and
4 Mr. Mahmuljin that a El Mujahedin unit was to be formed? And here we have
5 somebody on the ground who in fact performed that. Isn't that the case?
6 A. I agree, but as far as the dates are concerned, we obviously
7 don't agree. These dates that were before the commencement of the case.
8 Perhaps they were preparing for the formation of that unit. I am making
9 assumptions. When they had a sufficient number of men, et cetera, perhaps
10 they took the initiative to form such a unit. I really don't know though.
11 Q. Just incidentally, going back to the first document, P438. In
12 the middle of the page, it said - and I quote - what you drafted, "Given
13 the need to organise and make use of foreign volunteers as well as their
14 written request to the 3rd Corps Command."
15 What written request was that? "Their," I take it meaning these
16 people who wanted to be part of 3rd Corps. Can you tell us what that is?
17 A. I haven't understood you very well.
18 Q. In that paragraph I quoted - and that's from the 12th August 1993
19 document, Exhibit 438, in the middle it says -- I believe it's the other
20 one, the document dated Zenica 12th August 1993. You had drafted it. It
21 says: "Given the need to organise and make use of foreign volunteers, as
22 well as their written request to the 3rd Corps Command."
23 Did you find it?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. What written request was that?
1 A. I haven't seen this document. It's obviously Mr. Mahmuljin who
2 had the document, and at the time they probably requested to form a unit
3 and be placed under someone's command. I assume that that is the
4 document. But I haven't seen it.
5 Q. Let me go to the second document I wanted to show you, suggesting
6 that indeed a El Mujahedin detachment was formed, as you have suggested.
7 And that's the one-page document dated 9th February 1994.
8 Now, let me ask you first, have you ever seen this document
10 A. I haven't seen this document before, but I can see the date, the
11 9th of February, 1994, a list of men who left the detachment. Perhaps
12 after I had left the corps command in November 1993 there were such men
13 who had these names, but this is the first time I've seen such a document.
14 Q. Now, do you know the purported author of this document, an Emir
15 Dr. Abu Haris?
16 A. No. No.
17 Q. Do you know any other individual which is listed in this
18 document, points 1 to 17?
19 A. I said that while I was in the corps command we never received a
20 list of men with Arab names. This is really the first time I've seen
21 this. And naturally, I don't know any of the men included in this list.
22 Q. Now, if you look at the heading of it, it says: "Army of
23 Republic BiH 3rd Corps squad or detachment El Mujahedin." That suggests
24 that indeed an El Mujahedin squad within the 3rd Corps of the Army of
25 the -- of Bosnia and Herzegovina existed, would it not?
1 A. It might have existed after my departure, between November and
2 February 1994. It might have been established in that period and put
3 under command, but not while I was there. While I was there, this unit or
4 detachment did not exist. As to what happened later, I don't know.
5 Q. Now, after you had sent off your proposal of 12th August 1993 and
6 after your command had received Mr. Delic's order in which, incidentally,
7 I think he sets a deadline for the completion by 31st of August, did
8 anybody complain with you that the order of Mr. Delic has not been
9 implemented? Did you ever hear of any complaints to you personally or --
10 or otherwise?
11 A. No. I really never heard anyone say that the order had not been
12 implemented. I knew that it had not been established, but as to whether
13 anyone complained about that, I don't know.
14 Q. And the basis of your knowledge that it's not been established is
15 because you have not seen any documents?
16 A. Yes. Yes. We never received any document about the
17 implementation of this order, and we should have received it. When a unit
18 was established, we had further obligations. For example, we made all the
19 stamps that the unit had and issued it to the unit. While I was, there
20 this was not done. Therefore, I draw the conclusion that until November
21 1993, this detachment did not exist officially.
22 Q. Let me ask you just two more questions. The first one: I
23 understand that your office, your department had personnel information on
24 all the units that were part of the 3rd Corps.
25 A. It was supposed to have all this information. It wasn't always
1 updated, but we did have lists of members for most of the units. Perhaps
2 70 per cent of these lists were correct. Because there was a lot of
3 coming and going, a big turnover, so the lists were not reliable.
4 Q. Now, did you ever hear of a massacre occurring on the 24th of
5 April, 1993 in and around the village of Miletici? Have you ever heard of
6 a massacre?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't deal with operative
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The question falls completely
11 outside the context of the examination-in-chief. The witness did not
12 testify about this, but the witness has already answered that he never
13 dealt with such matters. So perhaps my objection is needless, but it's
14 outside the scope of the examination-in-chief.
15 MR. WAESPI: Perhaps, Mr. President, I should have asked -- I
16 should have asked leave. I would like to ask this person, who admittedly
17 was in charge or in this personnel department, whether anybody ever asked
18 him to provide information about individuals who might have been involved
19 in -- in massacres. It's about the indictment, which says that there were
20 no investigations, no prosecutions done in relation to these incidents.
21 And I would like him to provide information whether somebody approached
22 him, since he was in the personnel department of the 3rd Corps. That's
23 the line of questioning - it will be brief - I wanted to launch into.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is completely
25 clear even to us civilians that the organisation and mobilisation service
1 has nothing to do either with combat operations or investigations into
2 certain events. Therefore, I think there is absolutely no basis for
3 putting this question to this witness.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence says first that
5 this question falls outside the scope of the examination-in-chief, and
6 therefore leave must be asked of the Trial Chamber to put this question.
7 Secondly, the Defence also says that the witness dealt
8 exclusively with issues of mobilisation, not operative matters, as he
9 stated at the very outset.
10 So what use is it to put such a question at all?
11 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, if -- if I might just reiterate.
12 Because he was in the personnel department, me as a Prosecutor,
13 investigator, I may address him and ask him for information about the
14 possible units who were involved in these -- in these massacres. And if
15 he doesn't know, if he hasn't dealt with that, that's fine. But I believe
16 I'm entitled to -- to ask this question, with your leave obviously, which
17 I have forgotten about.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] By a majority of the votes, the
20 Chamber has decided that you may ask the witness whether within the scope
21 of his duties as a person in charge of personnel he had any knowledge in
22 connection with any requests or any investigations or requests for
23 information. You may put the question to the witness and we shall see
24 what he says.
25 Go ahead, please.
1 MR. WAESPI: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. You've heard what the President said, and I'm asking you about
5 possible investigations into two events. One is Miletici, the 24th of
6 April, 1993; and one is the villages of Maline and Bikosi, on the 8th of
7 June, 1993.
8 Now, were you or, if you know, somebody else from your department
9 ever approached to provide information concerning a possible investigation
10 or prosecution into these events by military authorities, civilian
11 authorities, security authorities? Are you aware of any requests like
13 A. I never saw anything like this, nor did anyone ever ask me
14 personally about anything like that. I can't say whether they asked that
15 of anyone else, but I believe not, because I would have known about it. I
16 learned about this first case only much later, when I was performing a new
17 duty in the civilian protection. That was the first time I even heard of
18 that first incident. Nobody ever asked this of me, and I believe no one
19 asked any of the people working with me.
20 Q. And that relates to -- to both these incidents I mentioned?
21 A. Yes. Yes.
22 Q. And my last question - and, Your Honours, I take it I need again
23 leave for that question. I would like to ask him whether his office or
24 himself had ever issued certificates in relation to soldiers of the 3rd
25 Corps in order that a court can determine whether the appropriate
1 jurisdiction was a military one or a civilian one. Because that's an
2 issue which may become relevant about the, again, Ramo Durmis case. There
3 is some information that certificates were issued, and so I think he would
4 be a witness who could tell us whether he, as part of the 3rd Corps
5 Command in charge of personnel, ever dealt with this issue.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before the Judges hand down a
7 decision, I would like to hear from the Defence.
8 The Prosecutor wishes to ask the witness whether he, within the
9 scope of his administrative duties, in the personnel department, within he
10 was ever asked to issue certificates for soldiers of the 3rd Corps and
11 these certificates were issued for the purpose of being sent to military
12 or judicial authorities.
13 This was what you wanted to ask; is that correct, Mr. Waespi?
14 Go ahead, please.
15 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it's for you to
16 decide. I, again, feel that this falls outside the scope of the
17 examination-in-chief because we did not ask about any court proceedings.
18 If the witness can answer whether he issued any certificates or not, we
19 leave that to Your Honours to decide whether this question can be put or
21 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
22 have no objection to this question being asked.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before saying that the decision
25 has been reached by a majority of votes, I have to say that this question
1 does not relate to the credibility of the witness. It falls outside the
2 scope of credibility. However, we will approve it because it is in the
3 interests of justice and in the interests of establishing the truth. On
4 this basis, we will give you leave to put this question and we will give
5 leave to the witness to answer it, of course, as this is a question
6 falling within the scope of the witness's sphere of activity at the time.
7 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
8 Q. Colonel, I understand you are still a -- a colonel --
9 occasionally obviously it's an issue whether a person, an accused soldier,
10 and tried before a military court or a civilian court. Did your
11 department ever issue certificates on behalf of soldiers for the purpose
12 or -- of that determination, whether he's indeed a soldier and for what
13 unit, so that the judges can decide jurisdictional issues? Do you
14 remember whether that was ever done?
15 A. We did issue certificates that someone is a member of the army on
16 the basis of our records. In this certificate, at the bottom the purpose
17 of the document always had to be stated. I do not recall that we ever
18 issued a document saying that somebody was a member of the army for the
19 purposes of some sort of legal proceedings before a court or because of an
20 investigation. I don't remember ever issuing a certificate for this
21 purpose. The certificates we issued were usually for the purpose of
22 resolving questions of status and of social welfare. I don't recall them
23 ever being issued for purposes of legal proceedings.
24 Q. Do you know whether lower units issued certificates like that,
25 the personnel department of lower units?
1 A. Yes. Yes, units could issue such certificates and use their own
2 stamp on them.
3 MR. WAESPI: Thank you very much, I appreciate your answers.
4 I have no further questions, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 Re-examined by Ms. Residovic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, my learned friend showed you again
9 some documents that I also showed you. And when asked whether in relation
10 to the proposal you drew up, whether you ever discovered this with
11 Commander Hadzihasanovic, and as far as I recall, you said you never
12 discussed it with him?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And also, in connection as to whether General Hadzihasanovic
15 ever expressed disagreement with what you had done, I ask you now: Was
16 Commander Hadzihasanovic a professional soldier?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. As a professional soldier yourself, if a person receives
19 authorisation from your superior command, can you then challenge this
21 A. No.
22 Q. Is it normal for a superior command to issue orders to
23 subordinate units and so subordinate individuals?
24 A. It's their right, but it would be proper to inform the commander.
25 Q. You said that you had received an order from the Supreme Command
1 Staff dated the 13th of August establishing the El Mujahedin and that you
2 acted in accordance with that order and drew up, to the best of your
3 knowledge, a proposal for the establishment, although this was your not
4 duty. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Were you able to or was anyone else able to say they would not
7 implement this part of the order?
8 A. I didn't know that.
9 Q. Do you abide by your previous testimony that approval for such an
10 establishment was never received by the 3rd Corps or you personally while
11 you were in the command of the 3rd Command -- Corps?
12 A. We could only draw up proposals, but the order could only be
13 issued by the Supreme Command.
14 Q. While you were in the 3rd Corps, did you ever receive this from
15 the Supreme Command?
16 A. No.
17 Q. With regard to the questions put to you by my learned friend when
18 he showed you some documents, please tell me: Do you have any knowledge
19 of any legal proceedings, especially criminal proceedings?
20 A. No. This did not fall within my sphere of competence, and I
21 really don't know anything about it.
22 Q. Do you know anything about what rights and position an accused
23 has in criminal proceedings when defending himself, and is he duty-bound
24 to tell the truth? Do you know anything about this?
25 A. No, I don't.
1 Q. You said that your units could issue certain documents confirming
2 membership, the membership of certain persons in their unit. Was this a
3 general right or were these situations that had to be ordered by the 3rd
5 A. We're talking about certificates of membership? These
6 certificates could be issued by the units because one couldn't travel
7 150-kilometres to reach the corps command, so the units were able to do
9 Q. Do you personally know whether at any time whether any unit
10 issued a certificate to a member for the purpose of legal proceedings?
11 A. No, I have no information.
12 Q. Mr. Poparic, tell me, were you in a position to monitor the
13 certificates issued by various units in the area where the 3rd Corps was
14 active? Were you in a position to verify these certificates?
15 A. That was impossible.
16 Q. Were there any military regulations which would instruct a unit
17 to send such a certificate for your authorisation before it was issued?
18 A. No.
19 Q. As far as this second document is concerned, the one that you
20 said you had never seen, and you also said that it never arrived in the
21 3rd Corps before you left. And the date also shows that it was issued in
22 February 1994. Could you please have another look at this document. Can
23 you see a stamp of any kind on this document, a stamp that would belong to
24 the 3rd Corps?
25 A. No.
1 Q. There is no such stamp.
2 Tell me, were you at any time familiar with any of the names
3 listed here?
4 A. No. I had never heard any of these names before, nor did I know
5 these Arabs.
6 Q. Do you know whether any of the individuals listed here actually
7 existed? Did these people actually exist?
8 A. I don't know about that.
9 Q. If I read this out, could you tell me whether these are names of
10 people Saif from Tunis, Baif from Tunis, Sain Jihad, someone from
11 Pakistan, someone from Palestine, someone from Libya? Are these the names
12 of people?
13 A. It's obvious that these are just nicknames. These are false
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. The Prosecution
16 wants to object.
17 MR. WAESPI: The point being the witness said he never heard any
18 of these names before, so I thought there was no purpose to go into that,
19 unless Defence proves he's an expert in the Arabic language and
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I just wanted to
22 ask the witness whether as a normal man from Bosnia-Herzegovina he thought
23 that these were names. I read the names of these individuals out, but
24 it's obvious that what we can see in this list has nothing to do with
25 names. That is what the witness has confirmed. Here it mentions
1 individuals from Bahrain, from Palestine, et cetera, et cetera. There are
2 no names referred to here.
3 I have no further questions.
4 MR. WAESPI: I object to Mrs. Residovic testifying --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Perhaps there's
6 a translation error. We're trying to see things clearly now.
7 Defence counsel has presented this document and want to know
8 whether the names listed in the document mean anything to the witness, and
9 Defence counsel wants to know whether these are in fact names. Is that
10 the question?
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
13 Witness, regardless of the Prosecution's position, in your
14 opinion, are these actually names in the document? What is your opinion?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This -- these are obviously
16 nicknames based on the origin. If someone's name or surname is Tunis or
17 Maghreb [phoen] or Suriname, et cetera, then obviously these are the
18 countries of their origin. These aren't names.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for providing this
21 clarification which was necessary.
22 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
23 only have a few questions for this witness.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Ibrisimovic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, my learned friend has already shown
1 you the statement made by Ramo Durmis, the statement given to the High
2 Court in Zenica on the 26th of October, 1993. And we can see that he
3 signed this statement in the presence of the investigating judge and the
4 public prosecutor.
5 You have read that document.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. My learned friend, Mr. Waespi, today quoted from the statement of
8 Ramo Durmis according to which he was in the 7th Muslim Brigade up until
9 April 1993. You heard the question put to you by the Prosecution.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. My learned friend also asked you about the El Mujahed Unit. And
12 if I have understood this correctly and made a correct note of it, you
13 said that there were local men in that unit too; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] I wanted to hear this answer,
16 Mr. President because there might be some confusion, on page 45, line 12
17 of the transcript, and I believe this answer has clarified matters.
18 Q. My second question -- my next question has to do with the
19 document shown to you by the Prosecution. February 1994 is the date of
20 the document. At that time, you weren't in the 3rd Corps; is that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Poparic, do you know -- are you aware of the fact that in
24 February 1994 in Travnik the 7th Muslim Battalion -- Brigade no longer
1 A. That's what I heard. I know that once I had left, it continued
2 to exist for a while and then it was subordinated or resubordinated to a
3 brigade. I wasn't working at the time, so I don't know what happened to
4 the battalion.
5 Q. Do you know that the 27th Brigade had been formed by that time
6 and that all the men and the entire 1st Battalion from the then-7th Muslim
7 Brigade moved to the newly formed 27th Brigade? That was towards the end
8 of 1993.
9 A. When I was leaving the corps command, the 27th was formed and the
10 37th was being disbanded, which never really came to life. But that was
11 the period during which I was already in the process of leaving the corps,
12 so I really didn't know that the battalion from the 7th Muslim had joined
13 the 27th.
14 Q. Thank you. I'd just like to correct something in the transcript.
15 It says "in February 1994 the 1st Battalion of the 7th Muslim Brigade in
16 Travnik no longer existed." [as interpreted]
17 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I just have a few
19 questions to clarify certain things.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that your service had
22 to prepare stamps; is that correct? You had to prepare stamps for units?
23 A. Yes. For all the units formed that were subordinated to the 3rd
24 Corps, for all those units we had to produce these military stamps.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as you can
1 remember, as of August, when the issue of creating this El Mujahedin Unit
2 was raised, did your service make or produce any stamps for this unit?
3 A. As far as I can remember, no, we didn't produce any such stamps,
4 because we quite simply didn't even know whether it had been formed.
5 Usually once a report is received stating that a unit has been
6 established, then the unit is provided with the relevant stamps. As we
7 did not have such information on such a detachment, I don't believe that
8 we ever made any stamps.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you said that you
10 received -- that you would receive a document saying that it had been --
11 saying that the unit had been formed, and in such a case you would send
12 them stamps.
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And you also said that you left
15 the 3rd Corps in November 1993 to go to the Main Staff, which was involved
16 in protecting civilians. And as far as I have understood, on the base of
17 the transcript, on the base of your testimony, you returned to the 3rd
18 Corps later. When did you return? In which year and in which month?
19 A. I didn't return to the 3rd Corps, but after one year had passed,
20 I returned to the ABiH, to the Main Staff and I performed the same duties
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you were in the
23 Main Staff, which was based in Sarajevo.
24 A. In Kakanj. There was a command post there too, so I was in
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there was a command post in
2 Kakanj. Very well. Thank you for having provided this clarification.
3 JUDGE SWART: Good morning, witness. I have two questions to put
4 to you in relation to what you told us about the El Mujahedin Unit and its
5 relationship with the or absence of relationships with the 3rd Corps.
6 You said before the break that -- and after the break also that
7 officially the El Mujahedin Unit did not exist as far as the 3rd Corps was
8 concerned. You knew as a fact that there was a unit, but officially it
9 did not exist. And you also said it had -- it was not a unit for which
10 the 3rd Corps was responsible. That was the last remark you made before
11 the break.
12 Now, assuming that what you say is correct, I want you to help me
13 in the first place in understanding a document that is dated from
14 September 1993. If I follow your reasoning, your remarks, there are
15 questions I have with relation -- in relation to this document. And I
16 want to show it to you. It is document P440. And maybe you could help me
17 in understanding the meaning of that document.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll place the document on the
19 ELMO so that everyone can see it.
20 JUDGE SWART: We have discussed this document with other
21 witnesses in the past, but I'm interested in the language of the document
22 in relation to what your testimony of today is.
23 As you may know, this is a document of the 7th -- the 6th of
24 September, 1993. It originates from the 3rd Corps. And on the bottom at
25 the left hand there are initials "SM/HA." Do you know who "SM" might be?
1 A. Usually the person who drafted the document would place his
2 initials there, such as "SM." But other initials than those of the
3 operations officers who worked on packet communications. This would be
4 taken to the commander to be signed and the person who drafted the
5 document was probably one of the operations officers in the 3rd Corps.
6 As far as the contents of the document are concerned, my personal
7 opinion, although I wasn't involved in these affairs, is that this was an
8 attempt made by the commander to put that detachment to use. In September
9 it had probably already been formed, but we weren't informed of the fact,
10 and this was probably an attempt made by the commander to place it under
11 his command or to place it under someone's command. Whether -- as to
12 whether this was done, I don't know.
13 JUDGE SWART: I'll put the very first question I should have put
14 to you: Have you seen this document before or is it new to you?
15 A. It's the first time I've seen it.
16 JUDGE SWART: Now, when another document was shown to you - and
17 this is document 438 - there were initials at the left bottom side
18 saying "PM." And you said, "These are my initials. I am the document --
19 I have drafted this document." And so, therefore, I put to you the
20 question: Do you recognize who drafted the document in P440? Is SM the
21 person who drafted the document? It's not of enormous importance, but I'm
22 just satisfying my curiosity.
23 A. I can't remember who had those initials. Because there were a
24 lot of operations officers and we didn't have that much contact. They
25 performed their duties. We performed ours. So right now I can't remember
1 who that person was.
2 JUDGE SWART: Do you recognize the -- the initials of the -- of
3 the person who signed the document, on the right-hand side at the bottom
4 across the stamp?
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you show the witness the
6 document again. Let's place it on the ELMO.
7 A. This isn't my commander's signature.
8 JUDGE SWART: Thank you.
9 Now, have a look at the contents. And I'll ask you a question
10 on -- on language. Just read the document in its entirety.
11 You've seen it? Well, let me quote the --
12 A. I have.
13 JUDGE SWART: -- the sentence of the order given. It is: "To
14 resubordinate the El Mujahed independent detachment to the Bosnian Krajina
15 OG Command for the forthcoming combat activities, in accordance with the
16 plan of Bosnian Krajina OG."
17 In view of what you said this morning about the El Mujahedin not
18 being a part of the 3rd Corps, I would like to ask you what in this
19 context of your testimony means "to resubordinate a unit"? How do I have
20 to understand that you -- how do you resubordinate a unit that is not part
21 of your -- your own corps? That is my question to you.
22 A. In September, there was probably a form of contact. This is what
23 I assume. I had no direct knowledge. But I assume there was contact with
24 this detachment that was being formed. There was contact between the
25 detachment and the corps command. And I assume that this was an attempt
1 to finally use this unit in accordance with our plans. In this particular
2 case, in accordance with the plan of the Bosnian Krajina operational
3 group. I think that is what is at stake. As to whether this was actually
4 carried out, I wouldn't know.
5 JUDGE SWART: Thank you. The logical question I have is: Can
6 you resubordinate a unit that is not part of your own corps, your own
7 brigade, your own unit? What is your opinion on that?
8 A. I can only repeat what I have just said. Theoretically speaking,
9 that is not possible. But since they had already received an order in
10 August to work on the formation, well, I'm not sure but perhaps they were
11 supposed to become companies, platoons, et cetera, but I assume that in
12 September they could have been used and perhaps there was contact and
13 there was an attempt to put that unit to use and to ensure that it was
14 part of the 3rd Corps. I can't see any other possibility.
15 JUDGE SWART: Did you in your position or did you not follow
16 the -- the developments in the field, in terms of military operations?
17 Were you informed about military operations going on in your position?
18 A. No. No. My service dealt with the organisation of the army, the
19 creation of units, replenishing the units, with manpower, but it was the
20 Chief of Staff and the operations officers who planned combat activities.
21 We did not have information about this.
22 JUDGE SWART: Thank you very much.
23 A. You're welcome.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does the Prosecution wish to
25 put any further questions to the witness?
1 MR. WAESPI: Yes, just two small issue, Mr. President.
2 Further cross-examination by Mr. Waespi:
3 Q. If you could have a look again at P440, the document Your Honour
4 Judge Swart showed to you. [Microphone not activated] And if you look at
5 the signature block where it says "commander." Do you agree with me
6 that --
7 Thank you. Sorry. If you can look at the signature block where
8 it says "commander." Do you agree with me that it says or it appears to
9 say "Za Komandanta," meaning "for the commander"?
10 A. Yes. Yes. So somebody was signing on behalf of the commander
11 somebody was acting as a deputy. This is, if I may say, the signature of
12 Dzemal Merdan. That's his initials there.
13 Q. Thank you very much. And the last issue is -- I know you left in
14 1993 and I believe November 1993, but have you heard of an order which was
15 issued from the High Command in 1995 to destroy the stamps of the
16 Mujahedin Unit? Have you ever heard of that?
17 A. No. No. I've never heard about that.
18 Q. And my last question is: The issue of the El Mujahedin Unit and
19 the way it was formalised or not. You said there were no stamps issued.
20 But it's correct that they were assigned the official numbers, the
21 T-number, the five-digit T-number, and also a four-digit military number
22 in your language - it's called "Broj vojne jedinice" - that was assigned
23 to -- to that unit?
24 A. No. Yes, they got this in the order, the order on the formation
25 of the unit. That's where it says where -- the VJ number, the number of
1 the military unit is.
2 Q. Thank you very much.
3 MR. WAESPI: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team.
5 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no further questions,
6 Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may take the floor further.
8 Further re-examination by Ms. Residovic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Poparic, previously we saw this order issued
10 by the staff of the Supreme Command. I will not put the document before
11 you again. But in the provisions it says that "This newly established
12 unit will be in the mobilisation plan of the 3rd Corps. Does this mean
13 that the Supreme Command staff wanted this unit to be part of the 3rd
15 A. Obviously yes.
16 Q. You testified that they did not do everything they were supposed
17 to do according to the order. Tell me, did you personally mobilise this
19 A. No, never.
20 Q. As this order was issued by the Supreme Command Staff and was the
21 formal document whereby this unit came into existence, tell me, was the
22 command of the 3rd Corps duty-bound to try to implement this order?
23 A. We forwarded this order and we expected them to call upon us as
24 the proper professional persons to assist them in establishing their unit.
25 No one from the corps, at least not from my service, was ever requested to
1 go and assist them in this.
2 Q. As you testified previously when looking at this document, the
3 document says that the proposal for the establishment should be delivered
4 to the Supreme Command Staff, and you testified that you had done this.
5 Is it usual, in view of the fact that the Judge showed you the document of
6 the 6th of September, for other organs of the corps to attempt to
7 implement the order that came from the Supreme Command Staff?
8 A. Would you repeat the question, please.
9 Q. You said that you carried out your part of the obligation
10 stemming from the order of the Supreme Command by proposing the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. My question is as follows: Would it be normal for other organs
14 in the corps to do what you did and attempt to implement the order of the
15 Supreme Command?
16 A. Yes, I believe that they would have to try. But whether they
17 actually did anything specific, I don't know.
18 MR. WAESPI: Mr. President, just objection to these questions
19 which requires the witness to go beyond his corps. He cannot possibly
20 discuss other corps.
21 And also, these questions are very difficult to answer or to
22 assess for Your Honours. Is it usual or is it normal? I believe
23 that's -- that's too vague for -- for a question to -- to ask, especially
24 also in re-examination and when it's about clarification of -- of open
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understood the question
2 put by the Defence correctly, it is as follows: Pursuant to the questions
3 put by His Honour about the document issued in September, the counsel
4 asked the witness whether it would be usual or normal for someone else
5 besides the witness to respond to the order issued by the Supreme Command.
6 Was that the purport of your question?
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I apologise if my
8 question was not sufficiently clear. As His Honour Judge Swart showed a
9 document and the witness said that he felt it was an attempt by the
10 commander to use the units, on the basis of this I wanted to ask the
11 question of the witness as to whether it would be normal if a unit had
12 been established for other parts of the corps, including the commander, to
13 try to implement this order by wishing to use the unit. The witness
14 previously said that he carried out his part of the order. I think it was
15 not too difficult for the witness because he answered each one of my
16 questions. Everyone to whom the order referred attempted to implement it.
17 Thank you. I --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But from the military
19 viewpoint, the witness should answer the question.
20 Can you do that, sir?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said previously, I believe
22 that other organs, because a unit was being established which was supposed
23 to have certain basic military things the same as other units had, I
24 believe that the operation men tried, that the logistics men tried. I
25 believe they all tried to help those people. But I don't have any
1 knowledge about it and I personally never went there.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the
3 Prosecution, I wish to say the following: In answer to this question,
4 witness said that it seemed normal to him that other organs of the 3rd
5 Corps should work on this issue.
6 I now give the floor to the Prosecution in order to conclude this
7 discussion. Go ahead, please.
8 MR. WAESPI: Yes. The witness answered, in fact, the question
9 Defence should have asked him: Do you have any knowledge whether other
10 organs of the corps did something? That would have been the proper
11 question. But just to ask: Is it normal that something happens? That
12 just -- just doesn't help us any further. But the witness answered.
13 Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Defence may
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
17 questions for this witness. I wish to thank my learned friend because
18 it's always useful to learn how questions should be put. I thank him for
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As for the
21 admittance of documents, which documents do you wish to tender?
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We have no documents to tender
23 because we have shown the witness only documents that have already been
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
1 Sir, do you wish to tender any documents, for the Prosecution?
2 MR. WAESPI: Yes, at least make a definite or a specific status
3 for these documents. We don't wish to tender the two documents I have
4 discussed with the witness because the relevant parts have been read out
5 on the record and the witness answered it. But we would like to mark it
6 for identification. So perhaps in a -- at a later stage we can go back to
7 these documents if -- if the need arises.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [No interpretation]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]
11 [Interpretation] Just a minute. There is a problem with the
12 interpretation because we're not receiving any right now.
13 Mr. Registrar, could you please check the problem.
14 It seems that everything is functioning now.
15 Please go ahead.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] New documents can be used only
17 for strictly limited purposes. I see no basis to have these documents
18 marked for identification now. For general use in future proceedings, the
19 Prosecution will be able to do this in their rebuttal, if they wish to
20 tender these documents. Only if they wish to use them for a specific
21 purpose to test the credibility of the witness, then they must do so now,
22 but not have them marked for identification.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Dixon.
24 MR. DIXON: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honours.
25 It's, I think, a matter which all the parties agree on that these
1 documents are not to be regarded as evidence in the case. Your Honours'
2 ruling was very clear on this matter that these documents cannot be used
3 to strengthen the Prosecution evidence against the accused or in any way
4 to deal with the individual criminal responsibility of the accused. They
5 have been shown merely for the purposes of testing the witness's
6 credibility. And in -- in that regard, we do wish to have it placed on
7 record that the only area where credibility was allegedly tested by the
8 Prosecution was on the existence or not of the El Mujahed Unit.
9 In addition to that, Your Honours, we -- we do note that the
10 witness was not able to identify anything in these documents, certainly,
11 for example, with the second document, the list of foreign citizens. He
12 was not able to identify anyone on that list or the person who had
13 purportedly prepared this document.
14 So in our submission, we have reference to these documents on the
15 record by the Prosecution for the purposes of cross-examination, and the
16 matter need not be taken any further at this stage. There's no need to in
17 any way mark these documents. They can be left as documents referred on
18 the record. And Your Honours are able to assess the witness's answers for
19 the purposes of -- of credibility.
20 That, in our submission, would accord with the decisions
21 Your Honours have given today and the earlier decision.
22 Thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Would the Prosecution respond.
25 MR. WAESPI: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 I agree with most what Mr. -- Mr. Dixon said; although, he had a
2 little broad concept of anything related to individual criminal
4 Anyway, we don't regard it as evidence. I agree with him. We
5 don't tender it. It's a merely technical processing of these documents
6 that they receive a number so perhaps later if a similar witness appears -
7 and there are still many to come - or perhaps in rebuttal or reopening,
8 whatever, that it's easier for us to trace these documents. There is
9 nothing sinister about giving it a number. It's not evidence; we agree
10 with it. But usually in other proceedings I think they receive a
11 technical number so we can -- we can easier trace them. That's the only
12 purpose for it.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber
14 will consider this technical aspect which the Prosecution has now put
16 Sir, as far as you are concerned, your testimony is over now. We
17 thank you for coming and contributing to the establishing of the truth.
18 You have responded to all the questions put to you, both by the Defence
19 and the Prosecution as well as by the Trial Chamber.
20 The parties showed you documents. This is something that is
21 necessary, as you know. You held high-ranking posts in the army. You are
22 a retired colonel. So it was evidence that you by your knowledge were
23 able to contribute to the interpretation and understanding of these
25 Thank you for this. The Trial Chamber extends its best wishes to
1 you and wishes you a safe return home, and we wish you a happy retirement.
2 I will now ask the usher to take you out of the courtroom.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is now time for our break.
6 It is already 12.30. Are the witnesses ready?
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. The witness
8 is ready. But in order not to interrupt the beginning of the witness's
9 testimony, we have two documents, 0419 and 0879, left over from yesterday,
10 which had not been translated into English. We have now submitted the
11 translations, so may we regulate these two questions before the break?
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Mundis. What have you
13 to say about these two documents which had not been translated and now
14 have been translated and you have had a chance to review them?
15 MR. MUNDIS: We have indeed, Mr. President. We have no objection
16 to those documents, 419 and 879, being admitted into evidence.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. May these documents
18 be admitted into evidence.
19 MR. REGISTRAR [Realtime transcript read in error "MS.
20 RESIDOVIC"]: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. These two
21 documents will be admitted into the record as DH419, and its translation
22 as DH419/E; and the other document will be marked DH879, and its
23 translation into English will be DH879/E.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You have now heard
1 the final numbers assigned to these documents.
2 It is now 25 to 1.00. We shall resume at around five minutes to
4 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Usher, could you call the
7 witness into the courtroom, please.
8 There's a slight error in the transcript, line 8, page 74.
9 Mr. Registrar mentions the numbers -- the exhibit numbers for documents,
10 not Defence counsel.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first
13 like to make sure that you are receiving the interpretation of what I am
14 saying. If so, please say that you can hear and understand me.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you and I
16 understand you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will shortly ask you to take
18 the solemn declaration, but I'd first like you to tell me your first and
19 last names, your date of birth, and your place of birth.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Zivko Sakib. I was born
21 on the 25th of June, 1956 in Tesanj in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you currently employed?
23 And if so, what is your job?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am now retired. I am a teacher
25 of defence and security matters by profession.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1992 and 1993, did you hold
2 a position of any kind? And if you were in the army, which unit were you
3 in and what rank did you hold?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In 1992, I was a member of
5 the Supreme Command Staff of the ABiH, up until the 20th of November. And
6 as of the 20th of November, 1992 until the 20th of August, 1993, I was a
7 member of the 3rd Corps Command of the ABiH.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified
9 before an international or national court about the events that took place
10 in your country in 1992 and 1993, or is this the first time?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the first time.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the
13 solemn declaration.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
15 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may sit down.
17 WITNESS: SAKIB ZIKO
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to the
20 Defence, who will start with their examination-in-chief, which will
21 continue tomorrow since we only have 45 minutes before the end of the
22 hearing, I would like to provide you with some information.
23 You will first have to answer the questions that will be put to
24 you by Defence counsel, who will be conducting their examination-in-chief.
25 The questions they put to you will always be phrased in a neutral manner
1 so as not to suggest any answers to you.
2 Once this stage has been completed - and it should not take too
3 long since another witness has been scheduled for the tomorrow - the
4 Prosecution, who are to your right, will put a series of questions to you
5 which will have a direct bearing on the questions put to you by the
7 Once this stage has been completed, Defence counsel may ask you
8 additional questions.
9 The three Judges sitting before you may also at any point in time
10 put questions to you in order to clarify some of the answers that you have
11 provided to the parties or to ask you about the documents that they are
12 already familiar with, since they have been admitted into evidence.
13 I would also like to point out that, as you have solemnly
14 declared to speak the truth, you should not give false testimony. As you
15 are well aware, false testimony constitutes an offence, and there is
16 another provision contained in our Rules: If you believe that an answer
17 you provide to a question might cause you problems at a subsequent date,
18 since the answer contains information that might be used against you, you
19 may refuse to answer the question. The Chamber may, in such
20 circumstances, compel you to answer the question but grants you a form of
21 immunity. I am pointing this out, but it is purely theoretical since this
22 case -- or such a case has never arisen to date.
23 If you feel that a question is complicated, ask the person
24 putting it to you to rephrase it, since, as you know -- or perhaps you're
25 not aware of the fact -- we don't have any written documents that concern
1 you. We do not know what your answers will be in advance, so it is your
2 testimony that will be transcribed. It will appear on the monitor that
3 you have before you. Your testimony will be transcribed and the
4 transcript is in English.
5 This is the procedure we will be following, and I'm sure that
6 things will run very smoothly.
7 As we have 45 minutes left at our disposal, you will have to
8 return tomorrow for the cross-examination.
9 I will now give the floor to the Defence, who will commence with
10 their examination-in-chief.
11 Defence counsel.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Examined by Ms. Residovic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would also like to point out
15 that as we speak the same language, you might want to answer the questions
16 I put to you immediately, but as the Presiding Judge has already said,
17 there is a monitor that we all have in front of us and we can follow
18 everything that is said on this monitor. It is necessary for my questions
19 and your answers to be interpreted, so I would be grateful if you could
20 make a brief pause after I have put my question to you and then answer the
21 question so that everyone can follow our exchanges. Have you understood
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You said that you were a professor of defence by profession.
25 Tell me whether before the war you were involved in affairs that were
1 related to defence. If so, when did you have a rank of any kind?
2 A. Yes. I completed the school for reserve officers in Tuzla, the
3 infantry section. I was then engaged in the military in the Hadzici
4 Municipal Staff and in the Ilidza Municipal Staff afterwards, and for the
5 last nine years in the Sarajevo Regional Staff.
6 Q. What duties did you have in the Regional Staff of the Sarajevo
7 Territorial Defence?
8 A. I was involved -- I worked as an operations and intelligence
9 officer in the staff.
10 Q. Did you have a rank at the time?
11 A. Yes. I held the rank of captain.
12 Q. At the JNA attack on Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 6th of April,
13 did you remain in that position or did you assume any other duties?
14 A. When the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina started, I
15 placed myself at the disposal of the Regional Staff in Sarajevo.
16 Afterwards, on that very same day I moved to the Supreme Command Staff of
17 the ABiH.
18 Q. Mr. Ziko, can you tell me what sort of duties you performed in
19 the Supreme Command Staff.
20 A. From the 8th of April, I worked as an officer -- as a liaison
21 officer. I was involved for contact between the ABiH and the MUP.
22 Q. Afterwards?
23 A. After the OG one in the Supreme Command Staff was formed, I was
24 appointed as the chief for intelligence.
25 Q. Did you remain in that position until you moved to the 3rd Corps
2 A. No. On the 20th of August, I was returned to the Supreme Command
3 Staff as an officer for operations and my task was to monitor the
4 situation in the Zenica region.
5 Q. Given the duties you had that involved monitoring the situation
6 in the Zenica region, were you aware of the reason for which
7 Mr. Enver Hadzihasanovic left Sarajevo and went to Zenica?
8 A. Yes. I knew the reason, since we were both in the Supreme
9 Command Staff, and I knew what Mr. Hadzihasanovic's task was.
10 Q. Could you tell us what his task was.
11 A. At the time, Mr. Hadzihasanovic's task was to act with the 3rd
12 Corps forces and units on Igman, to lift the blockade of Sarajevo.
13 Q. After Mr. Hadzihasanovic had left Sarajevo with that task and
14 after he had gone to the Zenica area, did you in the Supreme Command Staff
15 receive a report of any kind on the situation in that area? And if you
16 did, what information did you have after Mr. Hadzihasanovic had left
17 Sarajevo, that had been encircled?
18 A. Since I was a member of the Supreme Command Staff and I monitored
19 the situation in the Zenica area, all written reports forwarded by
20 Mr. Hadzihasanovic were reports that I could see. All the written reports
21 he sent to the Supreme Command Staff. I could see them and I could read
23 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what sort of a situation
24 Mr. Enver Hadzihasanovic found and can you tell us about the extent to
25 which it was possible for him to carry out the task that he had been
2 A. Since I was in Sarajevo, in the Supreme Command Staff we didn't
3 have a very clear idea of the situation in the Zenica area. We were in
4 Sarajevo; that was encircled.
5 Q. Mr. Ziko, you don't have to wait for your answer to be fully
6 transcribed before answering.
7 A. We didn't have a clear view of the situation and units in the
8 Zenica area, and Mr. Hadzihasanovic forwarded a report according to which
9 there were no troops there, no organised formations with which he could do
10 anything as far as carrying out his initial task was concerned. And his
11 task was to lift the blockade of Sarajevo.
12 Q. Mr. Ziko, tell me whether you know whether at the time
13 Mr. Hadzihasanovic was issued another order; and if so, what kind of order
14 was he issued?
15 A. Since we carried out analysis of all the information obtained
16 from the Zenica region and Mr. Hadzihasanovic confirmed that information
17 at a joint meeting of the Supreme Command Staff a decision was taken
18 according to which Mr. Hadzihasanovic and a group of officers should
19 establish a corps, train the members, and he was charged with this task.
20 Q. You said that later you moved over to the 3rd Corps. Tell me,
21 why and when did you leave Sarajevo and what sort of order was there with
22 regard to you leaving the town?
23 A. Given the report from Mr. Hadzihasanovic according to which there
24 were no combat groups in Zenica that could carry out the task that he had
25 been assigned, a group of officers -- or rather, nine officers in the
1 Supreme Command Staff were assigned the task to go to Zenica and place
2 themselves at the disposal of Mr. Hadzihasanovic.
3 Q. I think you have already said that you left.
4 A. Since I was involved operational affairs and I monitored the
5 situation in the area of Zenica, it was logical for me to be one of the
6 officers who would go there and continue with my work as an operations
8 Q. What duties were you assigned in the 3rd Corps when you arrived
9 there at the end of November?
10 A. I was assigned duplicates in the operations and training organ.
11 Q. Can you briefly tell us about the tasks you had been set and
12 what sort of attitude did Commander Hadzihasanovic have towards the body
13 that you were assigned to?
14 A. Commander -- the commander of the corps -- or a commander of a
15 corps and of larger units knows what an operations unit is and what an
16 operations and training body is. It's the commander's right hand. It's
17 the commander's brain. So in this sense, at the very beginning he tried
18 to establish a good operations and training organ that would assist him
19 with his work, a body that would make good proposals for his further work.
20 When assigned to the operations and training organ, we started organising
21 an operations centre, a communications centre, and all other elements of
22 importance in an operations and training organ.
23 Q. Tell me, what did you have at your disposal initially and did you
24 know what the situation was on the ground?
25 A. In view of the fact that I was an operations officer, I had an
1 erroneous picture of the situation in the Zenica region. When I arrived
2 in the corps command, we found only empty offices without any technical
3 equipment, such as an operations and training organ needs for its work.
4 We had no technical equipment, no maps, and we received this from the
5 Zenica Regional Staff as well as some auxiliary communications equipment,
6 what they had at their disposal at that time.
7 Q. Tell me please: What was your attitude toward establishing your
8 function toward the subordinate and superior commands? Did you take any
9 measures in this respect? And if so, what measures?
10 A. As I had arrived from the Supreme Command Staff of the Army of
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina, I knew what the method of work was in the Supreme
12 Command Staff. We did something similar in the 3rd Corps, and this link
13 functioned from the very beginning. We found very different officers in
14 Zenica, various officers, at the disposal for the corps formation. We had
15 to train them to work in the operations centre so that they could take
16 duty shifts and contribute to our work.
17 We had special problems in the lower-level units, in the brigades
18 and the battalions, where there were no officers capable of responding to
19 the duty facing them. It was our obligation to train these lower-ranking
20 officers or at least give them instructions in order for their work to be
21 as good as possible.
22 At the outset, we did this through an order and through
23 suggestions about the way they could carry out their activities.
24 Q. What was the method of work of the training centre? Were there
25 any office hours? Or did you work in some other way?
1 A. The operations centre worked round the clock. All the officers
2 in the 3rd Corps Command were in the command, and at any point in time,
3 whenever they were needed, they were at the disposal of the staff of the
4 3rd Corps and, therefore, at the disposal of the commander.
5 Q. Was there a method of reporting set up in your organ, or, rather,
6 in the corps?
7 A. Through the order and instructions we gave to the officers
8 working on operations, we suggested how they should do their job. The
9 first problem we came across which had a great influence on the work of
10 the 3rd Corps Command was the lack of communications equipment. At that
11 time, we tried to solve this problem through all other methods of
12 conveying information, including the simplest, by courier or, if needed,
13 by telephone if possible.
14 Q. Tell me, Mr. Ziko, did you only issue orders, or did you monitor
15 the implementation of these orders? In other words, did your method of
16 work include direct insight into the situation on the ground or were you
17 just in your operations organ offices working there?
18 A. All the information that arose in the area of the corps command
19 arrived in the operations centre. This was the only centre where this
20 information was gathered. The duty team that was set up for every working
21 day of 24 hours and the presence of one of the operations officers of the
22 operations and training organ of the 3rd Corps, which was obligatory, they
23 were all there to analyse the information and to alert whoever needed to
24 be alerted, if necessary, or at that time we drew up proposals for orders
25 for the removal of shortcomings and for the taking of measures that were
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, may the witness be
3 shown some documents I would like to use. I would ask the usher to
4 distribute the documents, please.
5 Q. These problems in establishing the method of reporting and the
6 work of the operations and training organ -- or rather, the operations
7 centre, were they solved quickly or did efforts have to be made over a
8 longer period of time to solve them?
9 A. Although our efforts were directed at removing the shortcomings
10 as soon as possible in order to provide good quality information to the
11 3rd Corps Command and thereby the commander, our efforts did not yield any
12 results for a long time. It would often happen that officers who had
13 already been trained or at least informed as to how they should do the
14 work of the operations organ would be appointed to other positions and
15 their duties would be continued by someone who had no idea as to how they
16 should do this work.
17 Q. Mr. Ziko, this set of documents, would you please look at the
18 document under tab 2, and it bears the number 1194; and another document,
19 P271, and tell me whether these are documents illustrating the situation
20 you have just testified about, that is, your efforts and the situation as
21 regards reporting to the 3rd Corps by the subordinate units.
22 A. Yes. These are precisely those documents that were drawn up in
23 June. There had been other orders previously asking for the same elements
24 as are found in this order, both in the first order and in the request for
25 the delivery of combat reports, that is, document 0181118.
1 Q. Tell me, now: When you received information from the subordinate
2 commands, what was your duty? Was it your duty then to submit this report
3 to someone? And was there any time frame, if you had such an obligation,
4 within which you had to carry it out?
5 A. The obligation of the operations and training organ and the team
6 on duty on that day was when these reports arrived, whatever they were
7 like - and they differed a lot, both by the method of working and the way
8 in which they were drafted - to study these documents, and if there was
9 any change in the first line of defence or anything else of importance to
10 the operations organ, to enter this information into the maps. The other
11 elements that were of importance to other officers from the staff organ
12 could be forwarded to these, and then they would continue working in
13 accordance with the information. Only matters of a high significance were
14 conveyed to the Chief of Staff, who was our immediate superior, and it
15 was his duty if he felt it necessary to inform the corps commander.
16 Q. Who compiled the report for the Supreme -- for the staff of the
17 Supreme Command?
18 A. This was done by operations officers from the operations and
19 training organ. The duty of the organ was to submit a daily report once a
20 day with the situation in the area of responsibility of the corps and, if
21 need be, to submit several interim reports, especially when there were HVO
22 attacks on BiH army units.
23 Q. Tell me, please: As you have just said that you analysed the
24 reports that arrived and that the duty officer, the operations officer
25 decided on what was important and had to be conveyed to the Chief of
1 Staff, how many such reports in your estimation arrived at -- to the corps
2 commander's desk?
3 A. These reports which we had to submit to the Supreme Command were
4 rarely seen by Mr. Hadzihasanovic, but his name was in the signature of
5 all of them.
6 Q. Mr. Ziko, does this mean that a piece of information that you
7 thought important might be forwarded to the Supreme Command Staff without
8 your commander receiving this information either from you or from the
9 Chief of Staff? Was such a situation possible?
10 A. As the area of responsibility of the corps was very large and the
11 situation on the ground was chaotic, it was the commander's duty to be
12 frequently absent from his command post in order to influence the
13 situation by his presence and improve it. Therefore, we could not fail to
14 forward these reports waiting for the commander to come back. Anyone who
15 was around would sign these reports, the Chief of Staff, the duty team in
16 the operations centre, and we operations officers in the operations and
17 training organ.
18 Q. So these were reports sent to the Supreme Command Staff. Tell
19 me, please: The reports that the subordinate units were duty-bound to
20 submit to the 3rd Corps and which arrived in your operations centre, did
21 the commander regularly read these reports, or, if not, approximately how
22 many such reports and how did they reach the commander? Who evaluated
23 whether they should be sent on to the commander?
24 A. As I have just said, all the reports arriving in the operations
25 centre were analysed by the operations team and these reports, such as
1 they were - sometimes very dry and sometimes vague - they were all
2 collected and the most responsible officer who was in the corps command at
3 the time would be informed of them if we thought that the information was
4 significant for the course of combat operations.
5 Q. You said that in the commander's absence you had an obligation
6 toward the superior command. Anyone in the operations centre or in the
7 command would sign these reports. If a report was sent by packet
8 communications to another organ and the whole would be signed -- or,
9 rather, the name in the signature line would be
10 Commander Enver Hadzihasanovic, would this mean that the commander had
11 actually previously seen, approved, and signed the document?
12 A. No. Bearing in mind the situation and the habit people had of
13 seeing the commander as the only authority in relation to the lower units
14 and the duty of the commander to send reports, we could use only his name.
15 So his name was always there.
16 Q. Thank you. Tell me, in this time period, you said that you sent
17 instructions, orders, and so on and so forth. While you were there, that
18 is, until the 20th of August, 1993, did you go out on the ground, and what
19 was your role on the ground? What tasks did you carry out in the field?
20 A. The operations and training organ of the corps staff, apart from
21 collecting information, analysing it, also had to check the situation on
22 the ground. Very often we would receive information from a third organ,
23 or whoever, that the situation in the units was not what it was reported
24 to be in their reports. Whenever we received such information, we would
25 inform the Chief of Staff and propose to him and thus to the commander
1 that we should go out on the ground and to see for ourselves what the
2 composition of the command was, how they were operating, what the
3 situation in the units was, and everything else of importance for us for
4 planning the use of the units. And in view of our obligations, I think
5 that each unit was visited at least two or three times and some of them
6 more frequently if they asked for assistance or if we noticed that they
7 were not complying with the orders we had sent them regarding the work of
8 the operations organs.
9 Q. Mr. Ziko, tell me, you in the operations and training organ, did
10 you have the duty to make a note in some of your documents and maps of the
11 strength, composition of units in the territory of the corps?
12 A. Yes. That was one of our main tasks, so that on the basis of the
13 situation in the corps we could allocate them at the appropriate zone of
14 responsibility. This would be based on their strength and on the materiel
15 and equipment they had.
16 Q. When you received such information from units and included that
17 information in official documents of the corps command, did you have any
18 information on the existence of units composed of foreigners? Or, rather,
19 did you have information that in some 3rd Corps units there were
20 foreigners from Afro-Asian countries. While you were in the 3rd Corps did
21 you have such information and did you include such information in your
22 documents or rather the maps?
23 A. We didn't have such information and I personally didn't have such
24 information, and since I was one of the officers that worked on those maps
25 and monitored the situation in the field, monitored the situation in units
1 as well, during that period of time I had no contact with foreigners nor
2 did I see any foreigners in those units. I would have had to be aware of
3 such a situation. If there had been any such individuals, we would have
4 had to include information of them in our orders and such a person would
5 have been duty-bound to provide us reports on the situation and the unit
7 Q. Since you have already said that you visited all units two or
8 three times and some units were visited even more frequently, does this
9 mean that you personally went into the field?
10 A. Yes. In addition to controlling the situation, we would also
11 inspect corps units, and I participated in such inspections so I can claim
12 with full responsibility what I have just said.
13 Q. When inspecting or visiting units or when assisting the commands
14 of subordinate units, did you on any occasion see foreigners who were
15 members of those units or, rather, did some commanders during that period
16 of time, from November to August, boast or complain about the presence of
17 foreigners in their units which were used in combat?
18 A. No, I had no such information. And since I was frequently in
19 contact with the commanders of all units and it was their duty when they
20 came to the corps to provide other information not included in reports,
21 given that I had such contact with them, I can say that I had no such
23 Q. Mr. Ziko, you spoke about the difficult situation in the
24 territory of the 3rd Corps. For this reason, the commander often -- was
25 often absent from the command. Tell me whether there was a period during
1 which the commander spent a long period of time outside the command in
2 Zenica. And if so, could you explain the situation?
3 A. Given the situation in the corps, the commander was very
4 frequently absent for various reasons. And since those units and parts of
5 units that he had contact with performed better, he believed it was
6 important for him to visit other units with a group of officers. This
7 took a long time. It was also his duty to go to Sarajevo, to the Supreme
8 Command Staff. And when the battlefield Zepce was opened up, he was
9 absent for a lengthy period of time. So at the forward command post he
10 didn't have good information or, rather, information that would arrive in
11 the 3rd Corps Command.
12 Q. When you mentioned combat activity and the situation in Zepce,
13 could you please tell me as an officer who was involved in combat
14 operations, what importance were those fights for Zepce. Of what
15 importance was the fighting around Zepce your corps and for the situation
16 throughout the free territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
17 A. I'd like to make two or three distinctions. As far as my
18 presence in the 3rd Corps Command is concerned, when I arrived in the 3rd
19 Corps Command, there was only one enemy that we had: The Chetniks -- or,
20 rather, the Serbian and Montenegrin aggressor who were facing us. This
21 was particularly evident when they were breaking up our forces or routing
22 our forces in Jajce and expelling the population towards Central Bosnia.
23 That's the first thing I wanted to mention.
24 But secondly, after HVO representatives started provoking
25 members, hindering the movement of our units, and rotating them, and in
1 the operations and training organ we had to provide daily information on
2 the movement of units to the HVO.
3 The third thing I'd like to point out is that there was a
4 conflict from April up until the time I left. There was open fighting,
5 and the commander made efforts to calm the tension in that part of the
6 battlefield to avoid conflicts of any kind with the HVO so that we could
7 deal with our other objectives and to make it easier for the men at the
8 front lines facing the Serbian and Montenegrin aggressor. When the HVO
9 and Chetnik forces joined up in the Zepce area, they disarmed the 319th
10 Brigade in Zepce. They killed some of the troops. They arrested the
11 others. And this situation compounded the situation in the 3rd Corps
12 Command. The commander believed that his presence was essential in that
13 area. And in the Golubinje sector we established a forward command post
14 with a minimum of officers and a communication centre so that we could
15 stop our members from fleeing. They were fleeing, just like the
16 civilians. We wanted to organise a defence in that area. That was the
17 most difficult period for Mr. Hadzihasanovic because the situation was
18 difficult. There was no materiel or technical equipment. The Supreme
19 Command Staff had requested that part of the units be sent to Igman and
20 then Igman, which is above Sarajevo, fell. And given the lack of materiel
21 and technical equipment and men for rotation, the situation was extremely
23 Q. Mr. Ziko, could you have a look at the following documents. One
24 o documents is from the command of the 3rd Corps, 1296 -- DH1296 forwarded
25 to the Supreme Command Staff. And then have a look at DH1298. It's also
1 a 3rd Corps document, dated the 11th of July, 1993. And could you please
2 tell me whether these documents and document P599, which is also a
3 document from the 3rd Corps Command dated the 30th of June, 1993, could
4 you please tell me something about these documents and say whether these
5 documents are documents that give a good view of the situation, the
6 situation that prevailed at the time of the intensive fighting in Zepce.
7 A. Yes. These are some of the reports we would forward to the
8 Supreme Command Staff, to our superior command. It reflects the actual
9 situation. And given the request we had of the corps command, it reflects
10 such a situation. And in these requests you can see the situation in
11 those periods and you can see the extreme difficulties Mr. Hadzihasanovic
12 was in. He wanted assistance. He did not just want to be asked to
13 undertake things that weren't realistic and weren't possible.
14 There was another period when the Chetniks had calmed down some
15 of their forces on the battlefield and it was possible that these forces,
16 together with HVO forces, might exert even greater pressure on 3rd Corps
17 units. If that had happened, it would have been even more catastrophic.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since I see the
19 time -- I have another ten minutes -- I need another ten minutes for this
20 witness. I could continue tomorrow.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll continue
23 So you will have to return tomorrow for the hearing that
24 commences at 9.00. You shouldn't see anyone in the meantime. Since you
25 have taken a solemn declaration, you are now a witness testifying in the
1 interests of justice. Please come back at 9.00 tomorrow.
2 Is there anything that the Prosecution would like to say?
3 Ms. Benjamin.
4 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Yes, Mr. President, with the permission of
5 the Court. My learned friend uses documents that were not on the list she
6 provided at about 1.30 yesterday afternoon. And for the record, it just
7 throws my cross-examination preparation off. At least three of the
8 documents so far that have been used are documents that have been taken by
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Apparently the
11 Prosecution is objecting to the fact that you are using documents that
12 weren't disclosed to them, 633 I assume is one of the documents. Which
13 are the documents that are in dispute? What are the numbers of these
14 documents on the list?
15 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: DH1296 is not on the list. DH1298 is not on
16 the list. And, of course, P599 and P271 are already in evidence so I
17 suppose she can use those.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 Defence counsel, apparently you did not disclose documents 1296
20 and 1298.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in accordance with
22 the suggestion you made and the practice followed to date, we provided the
23 Prosecution with the numbers of the documents that are not in evidence.
24 All the documents referred to by my learned friend are documents that have
25 been admitted into evidence. The Prosecution is familiar with this
2 And to make it easier to follow the proceedings, we provided
3 everyone with copies of these documents of these this morning. So these
4 are documents that are in evidence.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution, apparently the
6 Prosecution is familiar with these documents because document 1296 and
7 document 1298 have already been used. You're supposed to be familiar with
8 them, as well as the Chamber.
9 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, firstly, the documents were
10 just handed to us a while ago. And if in fact that we are supposed to be
11 familiar with them, at least we should be -- we should be told what was
12 going to be used so at least we could familiarise ourselves again with it.
13 And the documents that were distributed to us a while ago. We weren't
14 aware that these documents were going to be used.
15 The 65 ter statement is just three lines long, and the way that
16 the statement is phrased, there was no indication or any indication was
17 given that these documents could have been used with respect to what's in
18 that statement there.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you have raised
20 a problem I have already mentioned. Unfortunately, I'll have to mention
21 this problem to the Defence again. In the course of the Prosecution's
22 case, the Prosecution always mentioned the documents that would be used to
23 support their examination-in-chief. The rules for the Prosecution are the
24 same for Defence counsel. The rules are the same for both parties. So
25 when Defence counsel presents a list of a witness they will be calling, on
1 a number of occasions I have asked Defence counsel to attach to this list
2 documents that will be used when witnesses appear, a list of such
3 documents. For a few weeks when receiving lists of witnesses but
4 reference is never made to documents. So why are Defence counsel
5 proceeding in this manner since the Prosecution always made an effort to
6 state which documents would be used; whereas, you are not making this
7 effort. You are a party that has the same obligations as the
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have been
10 providing the Prosecution with a list of documents that we intend to use
11 if they are not in evidence. That's what we took your decision to mean.
12 If you suggest that we should also disclose and provide other documents,
13 well, I saw the witness yesterday and then I decided which documents would
14 be used. Before -- prior to that, I provided the Prosecution with a broad
15 list of documents and said that I would finally decide on documents used
16 after I had proofed the witness. I know that for the last two months of
17 their case the Prosecution provided us with documents, but we have been
18 making attempts from the beginning of our case to provide not only numbers
19 of documents but also copies of documents to facilitate the work for
20 everyone in the courtroom. This is in the interest of the defence for my
21 client and this is how we have been proceeding.
22 If the Chamber believes that we should provide the same list that
23 we provide to the Prosecution to the Chamber as well, we will by all means
24 do that.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Defence counsel
1 says that the Prosecution has been provided with information of all these
2 documents. But since it was only yesterday that Defence counsel proofed
3 the witness, they were not in a position to know which documents they
4 would be using until the very last moment. As a result, it's only during
5 the hearing that they provided a list of the documents. But the Defence
6 also added that the Prosecution is supposed to be familiar with all these
7 documents and information has been provided to the Prosecution about these
8 documents already. The only difference between your positions is that
9 when the Prosecution called a witness, there was already a witness
10 statement; they had already met on a number of occasions with the
11 witnesses. Whereas, the Defence counsel is not really in the same
13 Ms. Benjamin, what would you say about the matter? And then the
14 Judges will instruct the parties as to how to proceed.
15 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, it is just a little bit odd
16 to me that the Defence would expect that because documents were before
17 the -- the Court at an earlier stage that the Prosecution by some magic
18 should be able to know what documents are going to be used with this
19 witness for preparation of cross-examination.
20 Aside from that, I am very much aware that the Defence may be
21 proofing their witnesses late in the evening or whatever. But certainly I
22 think it would be most kind of the Prosecution -- of the Defence if they
23 could at least alert us before we come in here with the ones that they
24 want to use and -- and let us know that the ones that they have on the
25 list, that they're not using those. Because it -- it enables us to guide
1 our cross-examination in a certain way. Certainly me. Because when I
2 look at the ter statement, I take a certain course. And then when I'm
3 coming here, I'm presented with an element of surprise. And I don't think
4 that could be -- could be correct.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As we will be
6 continuing with the hearing of this witness tomorrow, you'll have time to
7 examine the documents and to conduct an efficient cross-examination.
8 We'll -- we, the Judges, will discuss the matter in general terms and tell
9 you how one should proceed tomorrow.
10 The registrar has said that the courtroom is needed after 2.00,
11 so we will now have to adjourn.
12 Thank you. And I will see everyone tomorrow at the hearing that
13 shall start at 9.00.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, 20th day of January,
16 2005, at 9.00 a.m.