Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18000

1 Wednesday, 30 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The witness entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 [The accused entered court]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you please

7 call the case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is

9 case number IT-01-47-T, the Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and

10 Amir Kubura.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 May I have the appearances for the Prosecution, please.

13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,

14 Your Honours, counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the

15 Prosecution, Matthias Neuner and Daryl Mundis, assisted by Andres Vatter,

16 our case manager.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis.

18 The Defence teams, please.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On

20 behalf of the Defence of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina Residovic, counsel,

21 Stefane Bourgon co-counsel, and Muriel Cauvin, legal assistant. Thank

22 you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The other Defence team, please.

24 MR. DIXON: Today on behalf of Mr. Kubura, Mr. Rodney Dixon

25 assisted by Nermin Mulalic. Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 18001

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, the interpreters

2 have a problem in the French booth with the air-conditioning and it's very

3 difficult for them to work like that. We are now going to resume the

4 testimony of the expert witness and I am going to give the floor to

5 Mr. Bourgon for his additional questions.

6 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good

7 morning, Your Honours.


9 [Witness answered through interpreter]

10 Re-examined by Mr. Bourgon: [In English]

11 Q. Good morning, General. General, further to the cross-examination

12 conducted by my colleague yesterday, there are a few issues I would like

13 to confirm with you.

14 Now, I am sure that my colleague from the Prosecution did not

15 intend to confuse you with his questions yesterday, as he mentioned to

16 you. Nonetheless, I don't think my colleague was successful in avoiding

17 to confuse you and this is why I would like to clarify a few things that

18 were mentioned yesterday. And my first question is very simple, and it

19 goes as follows: What kind of questions did you expect from the

20 Prosecution yesterday and were you surprised by the kind of questions that

21 were asked of you?

22 A. I was surprised by the questions. I didn't expect those

23 questions. I expected different questions, questions that would have to

24 do more with the essence of my expert report.

25 Q. Now, General, there might be a reason for the kind of questions

Page 18002

1 that you were asked. And even though the Prosecution did not challenge

2 you directly, with respect to the validity of your report, as I believe he

3 should have done, it is implicit from the questions that were put to you

4 that the Prosecution is challenging the way and the manner in which you

5 drafted your report. Did you understand that yesterday from the questions

6 that were put to you?

7 A. To a large extent I did and I assumed that this was their

8 objective.

9 Q. Now, what I would like to do this morning, General, is to ask you

10 some additional questions on the methodology or, to use the words of my

11 colleague from the Prosecution, the means by which you produced your

12 report. Do you understand that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So what I would simply ask you this morning, General, is to

15 concentrate on my questions and, if you have any doubt as to any of the

16 meaning of my questions, please don't hesitate to interrupt me or to tell

17 me and I will try to the best of my ability to clarify the question. Do

18 you understand that?

19 A. I do.

20 Q. Thank you, General. Now, yesterday, in response to a question

21 from my colleague from the Prosecution, you mentioned that you retired

22 officially from the Army of the Federation on 31 August of 2004, and you

23 also said that you agreed to take on the challenge of drafting this report

24 in May of 2004 or sometime in early June. Do you recall giving this

25 answer?

Page 18003

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, last week, in response to my question, which was on the 21st

3 of March, you said about the same thing. Now, that was on page 43, lines

4 7 to 17 of the transcript. And you mentioned that you had retired on 31

5 August 2004 and that you started working on the report while you were

6 still in the military. Do you remember giving me that answer on the 21st

7 of March?

8 A. I do.

9 Q. Now, my question, General, is the fact that you were still in the

10 army when you agreed to draft a report and that you started to draft a

11 report, did this have any influence on the manner in which you drafted the

12 report or the conclusions that you reached?

13 A. You are asking me whether the fact that I was still in the army

14 had any influence on the manner in which I drafted the report and the

15 conclusions that I arrived at; is that your question?

16 Q. That is correct, General. Did this -- does this fact, that you

17 were still a serving member of the Army of the Federation, did this fact

18 have any influence on either the manner in which you did the work or the

19 conclusions that you reached?

20 A. On the 16th of June last year, I underwent surgery of my thyroid

21 gland in the clinical centre in Sarajevo. I was removed from certain

22 activities connected with this job for 15 days. After that I was on sick

23 leave and I never returned to work in the BiH army until the moment I was

24 retired. Before the surgery, I had some preparations for this surgery,

25 and in fact and formally my engagement in the Army of the Federation

Page 18004

1 stopped at the beginning of June last year. Legally and because of the

2 procedure, because of the manner the decisions are made, I was formally

3 retired on the 31st of August last year or, in other words, on the 1st of

4 September last year.

5 I knew about all of that and in formal terms my engagement in the

6 army did not have any influence on my work on this task, the task of

7 preparing this expert report, because I was not present in the army at

8 that time.

9 Q. Thank you, General. Now the fact that you were still a member

10 serving in the Army of the Federation, if we take into consideration that

11 General Hadzihasanovic is a former member of the army of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina, did this have any influence or did you feel any pressure to

13 draft your report in one way or another because you were a member of the

14 same army as General Hadzihasanovic?

15 A. I'm a serious person and I know very well what the meaning of the

16 Tribunal in The Hague is and what its overall significance is. I know the

17 situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina very well. I know the situation as it was

18 during the last war, and not for a moment I would dream of playing with a

19 certain peoples' destinies. I would never embark on something that would

20 be dishonest and immoral. Whatever you mentioned in your question would

21 seem to me to be immoral and dishonest and those things are the things I

22 never allowed myself to be.

23 Q. Thank you, General. Now in response to one of my questions also

24 on the 21st of March, and the reference is the same - that is the

25 transcript on page 43, lines 7 to 17 - you mentioned that after you

Page 18005

1 retired from the military, you got more involved in drafting the report.

2 And my question is, when did you do most of the work? Before or after

3 your retirement from the army?

4 A. Most of the work and the key parts of that work were done after my

5 retirement.

6 Q. And yesterday the Prosecution asked you if, when you accepted to

7 draft this report, you had any doubt as to the innocence of the two

8 accused. Now, that was yesterday and this was on page 19, lines 5 to 9.

9 Then, at my request, the question was repeated. And that was on

10 page 21, lines 1 and 2. But this time you were asked whether you had any

11 beliefs as to the guilt or the innocence of the two accused.

12 Now, initially your answer was that you were even more confused by

13 the second question than by the first. An then, at page 21, lines 5 to 7,

14 you said the following, and I quote: "I was informed of the main elements

15 and facts of the indictment; however, I did not give myself the right, nor

16 did anybody ask me to do that. Nobody ever instructed me as to whether I

17 should form an opinion of their responsibility."

18 Now, my question, General, is: Should we understand, from your

19 answer, that you had no opinion one way or another when you agreed to

20 draft the report?

21 A. That would more or less be the case.

22 Q. Now, the Prosecution went on to ask you if you had read the

23 indictment, and your response was "yes". This is at page 21, lines 17 to

24 23.

25 My question is, would it have been possible for you to answer

Page 18006

1 question 7 in your report without reading the indictment? And maybe you

2 want to look at question 7 - which was put to you by the Defence - in your

3 report to answer this question.

4 A. Question number 7, paragraph 18, is that what you're referring to?

5 Q. If you look at, in your report, in the first part where you have

6 paragraph 18, and then inside the block you have question 7. Are you with

7 me?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So my question is, would it have been possible for you to answer

10 this question without reading the indictment?

11 A. I don't see why not.

12 Q. And my next question relates to what -- to your response to a

13 question by the Prosecution, and this was on page 19, at lines 15 to 21,

14 yesterday.

15 Now, I just need to find the right quote.

16 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President, I had

17 the transcript. There it is.

18 MR. BOURGON: [In English]

19 Q. So, General, this was on page 19 and this was at line 15 to 21.

20 And you said here: "I don't know, to this very day, whether these two are

21 guilty or not. I'm just trying to show you, through the documents, and to

22 explain to the Trial Chamber the military steps and the military actions,

23 the actions and steps of a commander in the given circumstances that

24 prevailed at the time. I'm trying to explain why things were done in a

25 certain way and not in another way, whether things should have been done

Page 18007












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18008

1 in that particular way and how things were being done at that time."

2 Now my question to you, General, is, in terms of what you were

3 asked to do in drafting the report, were you asked to give your opinion as

4 to General Hadzihasanovic was innocent or guilty, or were you asked to

5 asked to give your opinion as to whether General Hadzihasanovic fulfilled

6 his duty as commander of the 3rd Corps in the circumstances ruling at the

7 time and from the perspective of a senior military commander? Which of

8 the two was it?

9 A. I don't want to offend anybody, but I would like to say that the

10 first part of your question is rather ridiculous. It would have been

11 preposterous for me to say and nobody asked for me to do that, to say

12 whether General Hadzihasanovic and Brigadier Kubura are innocent or guilt

13 guilty. Nobody ever asked me to do that.

14 Q. So what were you attempting to do when you drafted this report?

15 What was it that you were asked to do as a military expert at the command

16 level or at the level of senior commanders?

17 A. In keeping with the questions that I was asked to study, all the

18 documents available to me, to provide answers in the most precise and

19 clear manner. And whenever the questions called for that, I was asked to

20 give my opinion about the steps that were taken by the two commanders,

21 what those steps were like in the situation that prevailed. And when

22 looking at those steps, from a military angle, were these steps justified

23 or unjustified, and to what extent.

24 Q. Thank you, General. I move to a different topic. In response to

25 a question from the Prosecution, you said that the military expert

Page 18009

1 initially retained by the Defence was Sead Delic.

2 Can you inform the Trial Chamber as to who is Sead Delic and, if

3 you know, what position did he occupy during the war?

4 A. Sead Delic is a general major, I believe that that was his rank,

5 when he was retired, and he retired even before me. I believe that he

6 retired two years before me, if not more. He hails from eastern Bosnia.

7 He was also an officer of the JNA up to the beginning of the war, just

8 like me. He served in places different to me. I believe that he was in

9 Croatia when the war started, and that he held one of the military

10 positions in Varazdin which is in the northern part of Croatia, when JNA

11 units withdrew from Slovenia and Croatia in the course of 1991, just like

12 I arrived in Zenica, I believe that he was wounded and he was transported

13 to Belgrade, to the military medical centre for rehabilitation. After

14 that he arrived in Tuzla. I don't know how he found himself there, but he

15 did come to Tuzla. And when Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised as an

16 internationally recognised state, he joined the Territorial Defence of the

17 Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

18 He's my senior by a few years, two, three or four years, I don't

19 know exactly. He performed rather important duties in the JNA and he held

20 very high positions in the JNA. In the BiH army, at the beginning, he was

21 the commander of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defence of Tuzla.

22 And during that short period of time, he was my subordinate until the

23 moment I was captured, because at the time I was the commander of the

24 district staff of the Tuzla Territorial Defence. After that he became the

25 commander of the OG and then he became the commander of the 2nd Corps of

Page 18010

1 the BiH army in Tuzla. And I believe that he held that position in the

2 Federation Army until the moment he was retired. So he remained the

3 commander of the 2nd Corps.

4 Currently he is involved in politics and he is a member of

5 parliament in the parliament of either the federation of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina -- I can't be sure of that. He holds a master of arts

7 degree in political sciences.

8 Q. Now, General, did General Sead Delic try to influence you, one way

9 or another, with respect to the drafting of your report?

10 A. Not only that he didn't try to influence me, he couldn't influence

11 me. I wouldn't want to say anything else because I'm on different terms

12 with Sead Delic and that has been the case since the beginning of the war.

13 So if I may put it this way, our relationship is purely official, but this

14 has nothing to do with this case. But he didn't try to influence me in

15 the way that you suggested.

16 Q. And General, yesterday, in response to a question by the

17 Prosecution, you mentioned receiving some material which was drafted by

18 Sead Delic before you took over from him. And my question is: Were you

19 influenced, in one way or another, by whatever material was given to you

20 by Sead Delic?

21 A. Absolutely not.

22 Q. Now, I would like to refer you to paragraph 10 of your report.

23 Now, this is in the first part where you say that you requested to meet

24 with Sead Delic. To use the exact words in your report, it says "I

25 expressed my interest, provided my curriculum vitae and requested to meet

Page 18011

1 with the former military expert retained by the Defence before confirming

2 my ability."

3 Now, in paragraph 11, you go on to say: Having obtained a better

4 understanding of the work required, I agreed to take on the challenge. Or

5 to use the exact word, "I was ready to take on this challenge."

6 My question is, was the purpose of meeting with Sead Delic to

7 obtain such a better understanding of the work required to produce an

8 expert report?

9 A. I think that I saw Sead Delic once or twice and I don't consider

10 those times when I saw him to be meetings. We didn't discuss the

11 subjects. When we saw each other, it was only for a few minutes. Later I

12 asked him over the phone for his book. I think I mentioned that

13 yesterday, because his book clarifies and explains the role of all

14 international bodies, from UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, the OSC, the UNHCR, to a

15 lot of international bodies in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the course of the

16 war. And at one point in time, in one of the first versions, there was a

17 question or subquestion about the role of the international bodies in the

18 Central Bosnian area in 1993. But later on this question was deleted. I

19 was provided with his book, but I never used it. And that is all the

20 contact we had.

21 Q. Thank you, General. I now move to a different issue, and I would

22 ask that you look at paragraph 13 of your report. I will quote this

23 paragraph for you and it says here: "I was given a copy of the material

24 available at that time and I was informed that additional documents would

25 be given to me as they became available. I was also told that I could

Page 18012

1 call upon the team investigator to locate additional material, if

2 required."

3 General, can you give us the name of the team investigator you are

4 referring to in paragraph 13 of your report.

5 A. I think I have already mentioned this on a number of occasions.

6 His name was General Mustafa Polutak.

7 Q. Now yesterday, and this is at page 28, line 25, and also page 29

8 lines 1 to 3, and I will quote what you said then. You were asked whether

9 you knew that Mustafa Polutak was the investigator of the Defence. And

10 then you went on to say -- and I'm looking for the exact place in the

11 transcript. Yes, sorry. I gave you the wrong quote. It's page 28, line

12 25. I was looking at page 25. Sorry.

13 Now I found it. Page 28, line 25 and page 29, lines 1 to 3. The

14 question put to you was: "And General Mustafa Polutak was or is an

15 investigator working for the Defence team of General Hadzihasanovic, is

16 that correct."

17 And your answer was: "I can't confirm that. I had contact with

18 him, but as to what he does, I don't know. I assume that is the case."

19 Was there ever any doubt in your mind as to the fact that Mustafa

20 Polutak was an investigator for the Defence team of

21 General Hadzihasanovic?

22 A. I really want to provide you with precise answers but that creates

23 certain problems and confusion. I said that I'm not sure that

24 Brigadier Kubura was the brigade commander up until the 6th of August,

25 1993 because there is not a single order, there's not a single document

Page 18013

1 about this. I can't confirm that then. We know what would be used as a

2 confirmation of certain claims. I didn't see any documents or orders from

3 this Tribunal related to General Mustafa Polutak in which it was stated

4 that he was what he was. It wasn't anyone's duty to show me such

5 documents, but everything that I did was done with General Mustafa Polutak

6 and I could see that he had direct contact with you, and with

7 Mrs. Residovic, and with others. And I saw that he had free access to the

8 archives when he needed something and the Federation Army, for example,

9 and he had contact with Mrs. Mirna, I don't know her last name,

10 Milanovic -- or Mirkovic, I think that was her surname. As to everything

11 else that I mentioned, as to all the other people that I mentioned, I

12 didn't consider them to be particularly important. The conversations I

13 had with those people are completely official. They lasted from a minute

14 or half a minute up until half an hour. Ten or fifteen minutes. And when

15 I had to draw maps, I asked others where the line was around Travnik or

16 where the defence line was around Bugojno or I asked about certain dates

17 that appeared in documents. I asked them about various dates in order to

18 obtain confirmation, et cetera, et cetera. Then I failed to mention my

19 wife, for example, who brought me a book from a -- or who brought me books

20 from the library because she -- because she works in a library and she

21 brought me all the books I needed to read and prepare for this expert

22 report, that, what is the objective of this question, that's what I'm

23 asking myself.

24 Q. Thank you, General. I will move on to a different topic and we

25 will have the chance to discuss a little further the people that you had

Page 18014

1 conversations with, because this was an issue raised by my colleague. But

2 I now would like to go back to paragraph 13 of your report where it says,

3 in the first sentence: "I was given a copy of the material available at

4 that time and I was informed that additional documents would be given to

5 me as they became available."

6 So my question is, were you in fact given this material as you say

7 and what was that material you were given at that time?

8 A. I'll probably have to provide you with the same answer that I

9 provided yesterday. Reference was made to additional material. I'm not

10 sure what the importance of this material was. I received certain

11 material from General Polutak. I read through the material. Were the

12 summary -- the reports from certain number of witnesses or not, I don't

13 know. Perhaps they were. But this was never clarified. Although this

14 material had been described as additional reports.

15 Q. Thank you, General. Now, in paragraph 13, I go back to the

16 sentence I referred to a little earlier where it says "I was told that I

17 could call upon the team investigator to locate additional material".

18 Now, I would like to refer you to page 40 of the transcript

19 yesterday, at lines 5 to 16 and to quote what you said then. And the

20 question was as follows: "Can you elaborate upon that answer that you

21 gave? What did you mean by using documents from the archives of the

22 Federation Army?"

23 And your answer was: "Let me give you an example. I wanted, on

24 two or three occasions, to look at the zones of responsibility of various

25 corps and how they changed over time and this could not be found on any of

Page 18015












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18016

1 the existing maps. Then I asked for some topographic maps from the

2 archives of the BiH army and I did that through General Polutak. I

3 consulted these topographic maps and, after that, I used the information

4 that I obtained from those topographic maps in order to compile my

5 annexes."

6 And then the question, the following question was: "Sir, other

7 than topographic maps, did you make any request for documents from

8 archives of the ABiH or from any other Bosnian government archives?" And

9 your response was: "I did not request any particular documents. Mustafa

10 Polutak was the one who had the list of documents that were registered

11 with the Tribunal. I did not find it necessary."

12 Now my question to you, General, is, those dealings you had with

13 Mustafa Polutak, as you say, on two or three occasions, to get topographic

14 maps, is this what you were referring to when you said that you could have

15 access to Mustafa Polutak to get further material?

16 A. Could you repeat the question, please?

17 Q. I'll try to make the question -- or to clarify the question. In

18 paragraph 13 of your report, you say "I was told that I could call upon

19 the team investigator" - now we know that this is Mustafa Polutak - "to

20 locate additional material."

21 In your response to a question from the Prosecution yesterday, you

22 said that on two or three occasions, you asked Mustafa Polutak for

23 topographic maps. Can we link your response yesterday to what you were

24 told you could do while preparing your report?

25 A. Absolutely, yes.

Page 18017

1 Q. Now, I refer you now to paragraph 15 of your report and it says,

2 in the first sentence that "During the period from 1 June to 17 December,

3 I was provided with additional material on a regular basis."

4 My question is very simple: This additional material, did it

5 include documents, witness summaries, or both?

6 A. Again, I haven't understood your question.

7 Q. I will clarify the question. You mentioned in paragraph 15 that

8 you were provided with additional material on a regular basis. What was

9 this material? What was this additional material?

10 A. The material referred to wasn't additional material, but the

11 material that's behind me, that is all the material that -- initially I

12 started using the first binder, and then the second binder. So the second

13 binder was the additional material, and then the third binder was

14 additional material, et cetera. That's what I meant when I

15 said "additional." Initially I must admit that I didn't think there was

16 so much material. However when I started working on the report, then

17 after a certain period of time, I realised that the material I had to read

18 was extremely voluminous and that's what I meant when I said "additional."

19 And finally, I realised that there was all this material that is contained

20 in the binders behind me, if you're referring to additional material that

21 is not included in these binders, well then that's a mistake. That's not

22 what I had in mind.

23 Q. Thank you, General. I would now like to move to paragraph 21 of

24 your report, which deals with what you have just mentioned. I would like

25 you to take a few seconds to read what you wrote in paragraph 21 of your

Page 18018

1 report. Now, my question, General, is the following: Is this the

2 material on which you based your opinion in your report?

3 A. Are you referring to the material behind me?

4 Q. I'm referring, General, to the material which is described in

5 paragraph 21. Is this what you used, as you mentioned here, to prepare

6 your report?

7 A. Yes. That is the material used, but in order to avoid any

8 confusion I was trying to be a little clearer.

9 Q. Is it included in the binders that you have beside you?

10 A. I think so, but I can't claim for sure that perhaps a document

11 appeared or arrived was contained in the binders for sure. But, yes,

12 that's right.

13 Q. Now, in those materials that were given to you, did you see any

14 documents having a number preceded by the letter "P," some documents

15 preceded by the letters "DH" for "delta hotel," and some documents with a

16 number preceded by the letters "DK," or "delta kilo," and some documents

17 with a number but without any letters? Do you recall seeing such

18 documents and can you explain what these documents are?

19 A. I saw many such documents, all of the documents here are of that

20 kind. But the Defence has one way in which the documents are marked.

21 Other documents are marked in a different way. Documents are marked in

22 different ways for General Hadzihasanovic and for Brigadier Kubura and the

23 Prosecution documents, yet again, marked in another way.

24 Q. And do you recall, General, seeing documents with a number but

25 without any letters? And do you recall what these documents were?

Page 18019

1 A. I saw a lot of documents of that kind, with such numbers, five or

2 six numbers. And I don't really know what kind of documents they were.

3 Q. Now yesterday, General, there seemed to be some confusion with

4 regards to paragraph 21 of your reports, and that was on page 37 at lines

5 4 to 9 of the transcript. And the confusion seemed to be in the words "I

6 have also relied on proposed exhibits by the Defence for General

7 Hadzihasanovic, and the Defence for Brigadier Kubura." These documents,

8 are they included in your binders behind you?

9 A. Firstly I don't believe that that is the word I used. I don't

10 believe I said that I relied on proposed documents, on proposed exhibits.

11 I don't know how that was interpreted, but I wouldn't comment on that. As

12 far as these proposed exhibits are concerned, I've already provided you

13 with an answer. All I can do is repeat my answer. If you're referring to

14 the documents that we've described as additional documents -- what do you

15 mean by proposed documents?

16 Q. This is just the purpose of my question, General. It's just to

17 clarify, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, and I'm referring to

18 paragraph 21 of your report. Now maybe it's the language that is

19 different between the English version and the original. But at the end of

20 this paragraph, you say, at least from the English version, "in addition,

21 I have also relied on proposed exhibits by the Defence for General

22 Hadzihasanovic and the Defence for Brigadier Amir Kubura." And then you

23 say, "when referring to the exhibits, I used the numbers provided to me by

24 the Defence."

25 Now, I would simply like to know whether these proposed exhibits

Page 18020

1 are documents that were given to you and that are included in your

2 binders.

3 A. Precisely so.

4 Q. General can you say this answer again, because the transcript --

5 sorry. Now I have the transcript. Sorry, General. Thank you. Now, I

6 would like to go back to a question which I asked you on the 21st of

7 March, and that was on page 45 at lines 1 to 4, where you mentioned that

8 for each binder there was a list of documents. Do you recall saying this

9 and showing to the Trial Chamber one of those binders?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, if I take all of your binders, and I take the sum of all of

12 the lists at the beginning of each binder, would that make up all the

13 documents that you used for your report?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Now, do you have such a compiled list anywhere? Or you worked

16 separately for each binder and never collected these documents or these

17 lists together?

18 A. I don't know whether the list that I had was comprehensive or not,

19 but I had a list in Sarajevo. I don't have it on me. I don't have it

20 among the documents that are either in the hotel or in my briefcase, that

21 I have on me today. In any case, I don't have that list on me today here

22 in the courtroom. And the one that I had in Sarajevo, I don't know

23 whether it was comprehensive or not. I can't be sure of that.

24 Q. Thank you, General. If need be, we'll go back to trying to

25 locate. But my question is: Is there such a consolidated list of all the

Page 18021

1 documents?

2 A. I think so.

3 Q. My next question, General, is: Were you ever instructed, by

4 anyone, to look at different documents or to consult with people, other

5 than what is in paragraph 21, to prepare your report? Were you ever

6 instructed by the Defence to, say, Go and see more people, or, Look at

7 other documents than this, what is in your binders?

8 A. In both cases, the answer is "no." Whatever I did and whoever I

9 consulted with was my own doing and it had nothing whatsoever to do with

10 the Defence team. I'm sure that you didn't even know about my contacts

11 with anybody else until yesterday when I mentioned them.

12 Q. I would like to move on to a different issue, General, and that is

13 the question of witness summaries. But before I ask you a question

14 specifically on the summaries themselves, I would like to know if you were

15 or if you recall being given a CD Rom or maybe more than one CD Rom with

16 all the transcripts of the witnesses, or of witnesses who appeared in this

17 case?

18 A. Yes, I was given five CDs with a lot of material. A lot of that

19 material was on those CDs that I studied.

20 Q. Now, these CD Roms that you mention, are you talking about

21 documents or transcripts? A transcript is where -- it looks like

22 something you have on your screen. Were you given a CD Rom with something

23 that looks like what you have on your screen?

24 A. Documents, documents. For the most part, the things that I

25 studied, were documents.

Page 18022

1 Q. Now yesterday General you said that you had read the testimony of

2 General Reinhardt - and we'll come back to that - and you mentioned that

3 there were two binders and five days and you provided a lot of

4 information. But on those CDs, was there any similar transcript to what

5 you read from General Reinhardt? If you know.

6 A. I'm not sure. Maybe yes. Maybe no.

7 Q. Now General, the -- in response to a question by my colleague

8 yesterday, you mentioned that the witness summaries were given to you in

9 Sarajevo. Do you remember what the purpose of these summaries was? Or

10 why they were given to you?

11 A. Well, probably the purpose was for me to study those summaries, to

12 study those testimonies, and to get acquainted with what these people

13 said.

14 Q. And General, do you recall being given additional summaries while

15 you arrived here in The Hague no later than last weekend while you were

16 preparing for your testimony?

17 A. I remember that. In my briefcase I have General Reinhardt's

18 report. Not the transcript, but his report, which I studied thoroughly,

19 which I read two or three times. I made my notes on it. And I believe

20 that I have two groups of summaries of that sort in my briefcase, the

21 summaries of various witnesses.

22 Q. Now, these summaries that you have in your briefcase, these were

23 given to you quite recently, after you handed in your report?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And yesterday, in response to a question by my colleague, you said

Page 18023












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18024

1 that those summaries were in your own language. And my question is: Do

2 you remember receiving some of those summaries also in English?

3 A. Yesterday, when I looked at them, one group of summaries is in

4 English, and the other is in Bosnian. I'm referring to the material that

5 I had in the hotel, and some of it I have in my briefcase.

6 Q. This material that you have that you looked at, could you use it

7 to produce your report? Or did you use that when you drafted the report?

8 A. I received this material maybe ten or fifteen days ago, some 15

9 days ago or so. And before that there was another set of summaries that I

10 received 10 or 15 days before that. So objectively speaking, there was no

11 way for me to use any of them in drafting my report.

12 Q. Now, do you also recall, General, having received such summaries?

13 And yesterday you referred to a -- I think you said something like 150, or

14 it may be 160 pages that you mentioned. Do you recall having received

15 those summaries before you wrote your report and having used these

16 summaries in drafting your report?

17 MR. MUNDIS: Objection, Mr. President. The witness said there was

18 100 to 150 pages. That's on page 27 -- pages 26 and 27 from yesterday.

19 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I have

20 all the quotes, almost all the quotes. This particular one I don't have,

21 so I may have been mistaken on the number. I apologise.

22 MR. BOURGON: [In English]

23 Q. General, yesterday you said anywhere from 100 to 150 pages, but

24 the number of pages, to me, is not the purpose of my question. My

25 question is, rather, whether you read witness summaries in preparing your

Page 18025

1 report?

2 A. I read them subsequently, after I handed over -- or maybe there

3 was a bit of an overlap in time, but most of them I read after I had

4 handed over my expert report.

5 Q. And these summaries, General, were they useful in preparing your

6 report?

7 A. No, not particularly.

8 Q. I would like to go to paragraph 21 of your report. Sorry, let me

9 go first to paragraph 14 and 15 of your report. In these paragraphs, you

10 mention a cut-off date and there and to be some confusion as to what the

11 cut-off date was or what is a cut-off date. Now, again I don't know if

12 it's the translation, and if you have something different in the original

13 report. But you also come back, at paragraph 21 and you mention not the

14 word "cut-off date," but you again mention the date of 17 December.

15 And my understanding was that this report was based on everything

16 that you received until 17 December as well as the witness summaries who

17 had appeared, but no later than 17 December. Is that -- is that what you

18 wanted to say in paragraphs 14, 15 and 21? I just want you to explain to

19 the Trial Chamber what exactly you meant by these paragraphs and what you

20 meant by the word "cut-off date." And is there a difference between the

21 material that you used in drafting the report and the material that you

22 were given after, that you looked subsequently, as you just mentioned.

23 A. I don't see any difference here. This is more or less the way you

24 put it.

25 Q. Now, it would be important here, General, for you to explain

Page 18026

1 whether you received any documents after you received -- after handing in

2 your report - and the date you gave it to the Defence or to us was on the

3 22nd of February - if you received documents after this date, and of

4 course that you could not use when you drafted the report. I think you

5 did confirm this, but I would like to hear it from you.

6 A. I don't know exactly when I received the second set of summaries,

7 of the summaries of witness testimonies.

8 Q. I only have two more questions with respect to this issue. My

9 first question is: All of these witness summaries that you received, did

10 you ever have any problems with the summaries, in terms of there was not

11 enough information, or the information was too vague? Or did you ask for

12 any clarification with respect to the summaries that you received?

13 A. No.

14 Q. And all of those summaries, General, would it be impossible for

15 you to put them altogether and to hand them to the Trial Chamber if that

16 was necessary?

17 A. I can provide the Trial Chamber at this very moment with what I

18 have on me, now.

19 Q. And what you have on you now, is that all the summaries? Or are

20 there other summaries? Is that all the summaries you were given?

21 A. I believe that I have all of them, but I can't say that for a

22 fact. I can't be 100 per cent sure of that.

23 Q. I move on to a different issue, General, and I see we only have

24 ten minutes before the break -- sorry I have one more question on this

25 issue, and that is: On the basis of those, of the material you received,

Page 18027

1 after you gave the Defence your report, did you see a need, on the basis

2 of the documents or the witness summaries, to modify any of your

3 conclusions in the report?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Now, I would like to move to the issue of the persons with whom

6 you had various conversation. And in response to a question earlier, you

7 said that these conversations took place on your own initiative. Now,

8 what I would like to know is whether any of these persons - and we could

9 go back to the transcript, but I don't think it is necessary - whether any

10 of these persons tried to influence you, one way or another, with respect

11 to the contents of your report.

12 A. No. Nobody influenced me. Nobody even tried to influence me.

13 But the main thing is that they could not influence me, because, in my

14 contacts with these people, a lot of them didn't even know, were not even

15 aware why I was talking to them. Only a few of them knew that I was

16 talking to them because of the expert report that I was preparing. The

17 majority of them, they didn't know, because our conversations were

18 absolutely informal, and none of these conversations lasted more than five

19 or six minutes. The only exception being Remzija Siljaic on who I spoke

20 with to or three occasions and each of these occasions our conversations

21 lasted about ten minutes. And not for a single moment did I find these

22 contacts important in any sense. And these people did not have any

23 influence on me whatsoever.

24 And the same goes for the people who helped me in technical terms,

25 in drafting my report. Those people were my typist, the lady who typed my

Page 18028

1 report and that's how she helped me. She is a high school graduate.

2 There was also this lad who drew some ten or fifteen topographic maps for

3 me; he also is a high school graduate. Also there was this lad who helped

4 me with the computer; he has just graduated from the university. These

5 people were my technical personnel. When it comes to the professional

6 expert part of my report, I am the only one responsible for the drafting

7 of this report. And as I told you yesterday, I worked on my own, in my

8 house, I have my computer there. I had the Internet connection there. I

9 have my e-mail connection there, and everything else that I used.

10 I did spend a certain time in Mrs. Residovic's office reading the

11 vast amount of documents, and that is the long and the short of it.

12 Q. Thank you, General. I understand that it is not pleasant to be

13 questioned after drafting a report and working so many months. And it is

14 just that the Prosecution's challenge make it that I must ask you these

15 questions and I hope you understand that.

16 My next question to you is: At page 40, lines 24 and 25, as well

17 as page 41, lines 1 to 4, you explain - and I will quote the exact words

18 just to be sure - "and my answer was there isn't. On some occasions I

19 double-checked with some other persons. I received the same answer and I

20 was able to close the door on such a particular question. I did not need

21 to look any further. I had my answer."

22 And then you go on, because the Prosecution put a question to you:

23 When you say that you double-checked information with other persons, can

24 you tell us if you recall the identity of these persons and where they

25 were employed. Then you go on to explain that these people were retired a

Page 18029

1 long time ago and you provide some names.

2 Now my question is simply, when you say that your conversations

3 with those people were to double-check information, was that the purpose

4 of these conversations? Or was it something else?

5 A. It was the first thing that you mentioned. I was checking myself.

6 I sought confirmation for my beliefs, for what I thought.

7 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I believe that the

8 time has come for our first break. I will continue after the break. I

9 don't know for how long, but I believe that I will need only half an hour

10 to finish.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It is half past ten. We

12 will resume at around five to eleven.

13 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m..

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, you may continue.

16 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. [In English] Welcome back, General. Before I move on to my next

18 question, I was looking at my notes during the break and I see that I

19 missed one question that I should have been asking you, and that is: How

20 many hours were you supposed to spend to draft this report or, to be more

21 precise, for how many hours of work will you be paid to produce this

22 report?

23 A. I did everything myself, in the sense that I acted as my own

24 typist, at least for part of the report. I made the annexes myself on a

25 computer and I, in fact, drew my own maps, my own topographic maps, and

Page 18030

1 then I gave this young man, who was assisting me, to redraw these maps

2 because he was technically quite capable. Later, I had to scan those

3 topographic maps and that involves a lot of work. It was necessary to do

4 this to be able to display how this was done on the computer. The process

5 is very complex. Had I done all of this on my own, it would have been

6 difficult and I -- it is very difficult for me to say how many hours I

7 spent working on this. I know that, on average, I worked between five and

8 ten hours a day, if not more. But to be quite frank, occasionally there

9 were interruptions because I had other duties.

10 If you calculate the total number of hours, well the total number

11 of hours would be very high.

12 Q. Now, General, I will say my question again, because maybe I wasn't

13 clear enough. I just wanted to ask you when you agreed to take on this

14 challenge of drafting this report, were you told that you would be paid a

15 certain amount of money, and that was based on the number of hours you

16 were supposed to spend working on this report? What I'm interested in is,

17 if that is the case, how many hours were you supposed to work on this

18 report?

19 A. I was told that I should spend 80 working hours, that was for the

20 initial version. And later, the number of hours was increased. But the

21 actual number of hours that I spent working on this report is far greater.

22 I'm not saying this with something particular in mind, but I just wanted

23 to tell you what the situation actually was. I spent two or three times

24 many hours on the project.

25 Q. Now, General, I would like to move on to the issue of the

Page 18031












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18032

1 separation of the documents. In response to a question by the Prosecution

2 yesterday, you said that you separated the documents yourself. And I

3 believe - now I don't have the exact citation here, but maybe my colleague

4 can correct me if I don't use the exact words - but you said that you

5 separated the documents by a number of themes.

6 Do you have a list of those themes that you used?

7 A. I separated the documents, placed them in different categories, on

8 the basis of the questions or rather the themes. I did that myself. As

9 for the other questions, as for the other part of the question when I said

10 that I separated or singled out some documents, I did that and created a

11 certain list of some documents that I thought were very important or had

12 to do with important periods of time or had to do with certain

13 territories. Yesterday I mentioned an example. I separated a certain

14 number of documents about direct and open cooperation between the

15 Republika Srpska army and the Croatian Defence Council. I thought that

16 this might be necessary given all the questions I would be asked when my

17 report was being discussed. I thought it would be good to have these

18 documents within my reach. So that is why I created certain categories of

19 documents, on the basis of questions that I believed to be relevant.

20 Q. Thank you, General. Now, yesterday you were asked by the

21 Prosecution to pull out a document, and I must admit I was quite impressed

22 with the speed with which you pulled out this document. Can you explain

23 what the methodology you used to be able to pick this document so quickly

24 in response to the question by my colleague. I'm referring to the

25 document related to, I guess it was the appointment of Brigadier Kubura as

Page 18033

1 Chief of Staff and deputy commander. How did you go about pulling this

2 document so quick from all of your binders there?

3 A. It's very simple. When all of these documents behind me were

4 prepared, I tried to categorize them on the basis of the type of document,

5 or rather on the basis of the units concerned. Finally in terms of the

6 type of document and then the units and all the documents had to be in

7 chronological order. So if I was asked yesterday whether there was

8 such-and-such a document, such-and-such an order, first I asked myself

9 where I might find that document, since the document concerned was an

10 order and the document concerned the 7th Muslim brigade alone, it had

11 nothing to do with any other units or with any other areas, and as a

12 result I came to the conclusion that it might be in the certain binder,

13 binder marked the 7th Muslim brigade. I took that binder and all the

14 documents in all the binders being arranged in chronological order, I

15 found the document on the basis of its date. That's why I was able to

16 find it so quickly. But there are a certain number of documents here

17 which were copied, so it's possible that some -- that there are several

18 copies of some documents contained in various places in these binders

19 because the document concerns a number of units or a number of areas, a

20 number of activities, et cetera. So these documents have been copied and

21 they're in each of these binders.

22 For example, if I had been asked for a document that had to do

23 with measures taken, since I have a number of binders, five or six binders

24 that concern measures that were taken, I would then have a look at the

25 date again, and the terms of time are quite clearly marked on the binders,

Page 18034

1 on the binders that relate to measures, so I would immediately see the

2 period of time that the document related to. I would then find the date

3 of the binder and I would like for that document in that binder and I

4 would find it there.

5 Q. Thank you, General. Now, I'm not sure if you do have a list, but

6 in case you don't have a list, I would ask the assistance of the usher to

7 maybe give you the microphone that you can hold in your hand and I would

8 ask that you read the title of each of your binders that you have in the

9 back so that we have this for the record in the transcript.

10 A. Could you repeat your question, please? What do you want me to do

11 exactly.

12 Q. Yes. If you can just read and explain what you find in each of

13 these binders that you prepared. Maybe the title is enough. It's up to

14 you.

15 A. Should I take the binders off this support or should I just do

16 it --

17 Q. It's not necessary.

18 A. -- in this manner? The first binder says: "Looting, destruction

19 of buildings," religious buildings. All the documents that have to do

20 with this subject have been placed in this binder.

21 The next binder is this one, marked "legal framework," binder

22 number 2. It refers to the date from May 1993 to 2003. All documents,

23 all the documents that have to do with legal matters are contained in this

24 binder.

25 The next binder is also number 1, the previous one was number 2.

Page 18035

1 Number 1 is also marked "legal framework," and the date is up to May 1993.

2 It wasn't possible to place all the documents in two binders. That's why

3 they were placed in two binders [as interpreted]. The next two binders

4 are numbered 1 and 2, marked the Croatian Defence Council.

5 1991 to 1992 is the period for the first binder and up to March

6 1993. Reference is made to 1991 and 1992 and up to March 1993. Binder

7 number 2 says from April 1993 to the year 2002. All the documents that

8 say anything about the HVO are contained in these two binders. In the

9 second row below there is a binder marked, in capital letters: "DK," and

10 the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade. All the documents that directly relate

11 to the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade are contained in this binder.

12 The next binder is marked "Dusina" and "Bugojno". All the

13 documents that relate to the events in Dusina and in Bugojno have been

14 placed in this binder.

15 The next binder is marked "the music school," Mehurici, the

16 village of Mehurici, "the Travnik barracks," the Sretno Hotel in Kakanj

17 and the Serbian army, the Republika Srpska army. Documents that relate to

18 those events have been placed in this binder.

19 The next binder, and the following four binders or rather a total

20 of five binders here are binders marked "miscellaneous". These binders

21 contain documents that cannot be placed in any of the other binders, since

22 they don't belong there. They should be placed in the binders

23 marked "miscellaneous." The dates of these binders are from 1969 up until

24 May 1993. The second binder from May 1993 up until August 1993. The

25 third binder from August 1993 to January 1994. The fourth binder from

Page 18036

1 1994 to 2002. The fifth binder contains transcripts and final reports

2 from expert commission of the UN and copies of certain rules and

3 regulations. And in the bottom row there are binders. On the left there

4 is a total of six binders. All six binders are marked "measures." Any

5 documents that relate to measures taken by various bodies at various

6 levels during that period of time in the ABiH and outside of the ABiH, all

7 such documents which can't be placed in any of the other binders are

8 contained in these six binders. The first binder has the date 1991 to

9 February 1993. The second binder, February 1993 to May 1993. The third

10 binder, from May 1993 to January 1993. The third binder, January 1993 to

11 July 1993. The fifth binder, from July 1993 to November 1993. And the

12 6th binder, from November 1993 to the year 2001. And finally, there are

13 two other binders, one marked "the village of Miletici," "the village of

14 Maline," and "the village of Orasac." All the documents that relate to

15 these three villages and the events in those villages have been placed in

16 these -- in this binder.

17 Then we have the last binder marked "the Mujahedin." All the

18 documents that directly relate to the Mujahedin are in this binder.

19 Q. Thank you, General, now yesterday you were asked a question by the

20 Prosecution, and this was at 16 hours 27 minutes, and the question

21 was: "Did you read all of these exhibits, described in paragraph 21, or

22 did you review them and only read those which you believed were most

23 important?"

24 And your answer was: "My answer would be "yes." I read most of

25 it. I read two-thirds of it. Some of the things I just reviewed, I

Page 18037

1 skimmed through, as I believe that this was not important. But I can't

2 tell you exactly how much of that material I only reviewed. It's

3 impossible".

4 Now, that was yesterday. On the 21st of March, I asked the exact

5 same question. And your response then was, and this was at page 45, lines

6 12 to 18, where you said that there were over 5.000 documents, according

7 to your count, that you did not read all of them because it was

8 impossible, that you read the vast majority of the documents, and that the

9 ones that you had not read, you at least had a look at.

10 So can you just be -- again for the benefit of the Trial Chamber,

11 did you physically handle every piece of paper by reading the vast

12 majority and having a glance through the others? Or are there any

13 documents that you never looked at?

14 A. First of all, as far as the 5.000 documents are concerned, I think

15 that there was a mistake there or a slip. There are probably 5.000 pages,

16 not 5.000 documents. In both cases, when I provided my answer, now that

17 you have quoted my answers, I don't see any significant difference between

18 my two answers. But I can repeat that I read the vast majority of all of

19 these documents, and I don't believe that there are any documents that I

20 didn't at least have a look at.

21 Q. Thank you, General. I now move to another issue, which is that of

22 the Internet. Now, this was a question put to you by the Prosecution

23 yesterday, and this was at page 32, lines 7 to 25, where you mention

24 having looked on the Internet, the proceedings in the trial of Sefer

25 Halilovic, that you had also downloaded some media articles and also some

Page 18038

1 documents about the proceedings.

2 Now, at page 34, lines 23 to 25, here's what you said. "In very

3 simple terms, I log on, and whatever happens I follow it. I just come

4 across things that are on-line at the time and I read things. I listen to

5 things. That's what I do."

6 Now my question, General, is: This material from the Internet,

7 does it have any bearing or did it have any bearing on the drafting of

8 your report? Or is that something completely different?

9 A. Absolutely not.

10 Q. Coming back to the issue of the persons you spoke to. Yesterday,

11 in response to a question by the Prosecution - and that was at 16 hours 49

12 minutes - you mention "The people I spoke to are wartime associates of

13 mine from the ABiH 1st Corps, from the General Staff of the ABiH, and to a

14 certain extent I spoke perhaps to some people who were from the ABiH 3rd

15 Corps. I did not speak to anyone who was not a member of those bodies".

16 Now, General, this may give the impression that you only spoke to

17 people of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that there is a big scam

18 here for you to produce a report that is on behalf of the army or that is

19 one-sided or that was biased from all of these people who are only from

20 the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Can you reassure the Trial Chamber in

21 this respect.

22 A. I could have drafted my report without contacting anyone, without

23 discussing anything with anyone. I'm 100 per cent persuaded that the

24 quality of the report would be identical to the quality it now has;

25 however, I didn't need to speak to anyone in order to pick on their minds

Page 18039












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18040

1 or to obtain information of -- crucial information through such contact.

2 The purpose of that contact, of the contact that I had with these people

3 was to confirm some of my thoughts, some of the facts that I had arrived

4 at in terms of -- to make it possible for me to draft the report more

5 rapidly. It was not to give others the opportunity of influencing me.

6 I will provide you with an example. My wife would assist me when

7 I needed to refer to certain combat regulations, or when it was necessary

8 for her to bring me books from the library since that is where she works.

9 But I was assisted by her so that I wouldn't have to go to the library

10 every few days. So that I wouldn't have to waste time searching for

11 combat rules or searching for other civilian books that I had to read. My

12 wife assisted me only to help me save time. It has nothing to do with the

13 quality of the report. My wife knows as much about such matters as I do

14 about -- well I don't know, about the cosmos or something else.

15 Status of all the other people that I had contact with was more or

16 less the same as the status of my wife who assisted me by bringing books

17 to me from the library and providing me with the rules and regulations I

18 wanted to consult.

19 Q. Thank you, General. I would like to move on to the issue of the

20 questions and the modifications which were brought to the questions. And

21 I refer you to what you said yesterday, and that was on page 49, lines 17

22 to 25, as well as page 50, lines 1 to 4.

23 Now, this is what you said in response to a question by my

24 colleague. And the question was: "I take it, sir, from this answer, that

25 the questions were amended in such a way so that you could focus your

Page 18041

1 attention and thus reduce the length of your report. Is that a fair

2 overall summary?"

3 And your response was: "Well, roughly speaking, that would be my

4 viewpoint."

5 Now, my question to you is: These questions that were given to

6 you and any modifications thereafter, what was, in your view, the impact

7 of these changes on the drafting of your report, other than, as you say,

8 reducing your report?

9 A. There was no other influence whatsoever. I just needed additional

10 time.

11 Let me give you an example to clarify things. At one point in

12 time, I believe that I was provided with a second group of questions and I

13 believe that there was a subquestion dealing with the communications in

14 the 3rd Corps of the BiH army in the course of 1993. I embarked on

15 answering that question. I prepared grounds for answering that question.

16 I invested some time into answering that question, and later on this

17 question was completely withdrawn. So this would be my answer to your

18 question.

19 Q. And General, when this question was withdrawn, was it because of

20 the contents of your answer, and had you provided your answer to this

21 question when it was withdrawn?

22 A. No.

23 Q. On this issue of questions, I now refer to page 49, and this is at

24 line 1 to 6, talking about the questions and the corrections. Actually,

25 this is not the right quote. But there is a place where you say,

Page 18042

1 yesterday, about the questions being changed in February.

2 Do you remember saying this yesterday?

3 A. I don't.

4 Q. Now, I cannot find the quote, but may I refer you to paragraph 145

5 in your report. Are you with me on this paragraph?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. We discussed already, when I was asking questions last week, as to

8 the fact that the contents of paragraph 145 appeared to be a different

9 version of question number 2.

10 My question to you is whether this is the type of changes that

11 were made, that is between question number 2 in the square that you used

12 and what appears to be the same but in a slightly different manner in

13 paragraph 145. Is this the type of changes that were brought to questions

14 when the question themselves were modified?

15 A. I believe so.

16 Q. I now move on to the issue of changes to the report itself. And

17 you mentioned that you were asked to reduce the report and to bring it

18 down, and you mentioned 130 or 150 pages.

19 Now, my question is: Did anyone from the Defence of either

20 General Hadzihasanovic or from the Defence of Brigadier Kubura ever

21 exercise any influence on you with respect to the contents of your report,

22 or the contents of any answers to -- any answer - sorry - to any question

23 in the report?

24 A. The only influence they had was to ask me to reduce the number of

25 pages, if you can consider that influence. And everything else was up to

Page 18043

1 me. So they only had influence on the reduction in the number of pages.

2 There was no other influence whatsoever.

3 Q. Now of course, General, as I've mentioned yesterday, I take no

4 pleasure in asking these -- sorry, in asking questions like this, because

5 we from the Defence also feel personally involved here, and we don't

6 appreciate it either, but I guess we have to, to fulfil our duty before

7 the Trial Chamber.

8 Now, my next question deals with your reading of the transcript of

9 General Reinhardt. After reading the full transcript of

10 General Reinhardt, how would you qualify his knowledge of the war in

11 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993?

12 MR. MUNDIS: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-examination.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon, what do you explain

14 to the objection.

15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my colleague has

16 emphasised the fact that the witness has read the report and he asked him

17 what conclusions he drew from that report. Now I'm asking him about the

18 knowledge that the General Reinhardt had about the situation in Bosnia at

19 that time.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to

21 Mr. Mundis, the Defence has asked the expert witness, who had acquainted

22 himself with General Reinhardt's report, what was his opinion of

23 General Reinhardt's information about the war that was taking place in

24 Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993. Mr. Mundis, you have the floor.

25 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Prosecution's

Page 18044

1 questions were limited to the methodology employed by General Karavelic in

2 producing his report. As part of his answer to one of my questions, he

3 did say that he had read the full transcripts of General Reinhardt's

4 testimony. I did not, however, specifically ask him to comment on any of

5 the conclusions or any of the testimony. And in fact my learned colleague

6 did put questions concerning General Reinhardt's testimony to the witness

7 as part of his direct examination. He could have asked these questions

8 when he conducted his direct examination. I did not specifically ask this

9 witness about the specific contents of General Reinhardt's testimony, nor

10 did I ask him about General Reinhardt's report.

11 Our questions were limited to the methodology, what he did, what

12 he read, et cetera, and we did not get into the merits.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well then. I am going to

14 put the question to the witness. General, you have been asked about your

15 opinion with regard to the fact that another expert drafted a report, and

16 also, in your view, what kind of knowledge could this expert have about

17 the war in your country. Could you please tell us about the knowledge of

18 another expert, about the conflict that had taken place in your country.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that General Reinhardt is

20 the person who has achieved a very great military career. In view of all

21 that I know about him, about his training and education from a very young

22 age to the moment when he became a general, he had a lot of training. And

23 throughout his career, he held a number of different positions both in his

24 country, in his own military, as well as in the course of his

25 participation in the international forces at various destinations in

Page 18045

1 Europe and worldwide.

2 As I was reading his report and his transcript, I have to admit

3 that I -- I believe that he approached the situation in Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina and the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina from a very limited legal

5 and professional aspect. He looked at that situation to a very large

6 extent, and I would find it hard to mention any percentage here, from an

7 angle of a peacetime situation rather than from a wartime situation.

8 In my view, these would be the key objections, if I have any right

9 to voice my objections to that report or parts of General Reinhardt's

10 report.

11 I was not very happy with his overall knowledge of the situation

12 in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the course of 1993. I was very happy to find

13 the facts in his report that he looked at from the legal and professional

14 angle and from the angle of a peacetime situation. However, somebody who

15 has held positions in those places as a member of the international forces

16 had to be aware that he was at war and that he was faced with a wartime

17 situation. Whoever knows less about the state of war and about the role

18 and the status, the position and functions of the international forces

19 that were deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time and this was

20 similar to other parts of the world and other destinations in the world.

21 However, if I were to compare this - although it is beyond comparison -

22 with the place and role of the international forces in Iraq at the moment

23 and the role and position of international force in Bosnia and Herzegovina

24 for the very reason that the international force in Bosnia-Herzegovina led

25 a life of ease, as if there was peace and that's the way they looked at

Page 18046

1 the war situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And to cut a long story short, I

2 would like to say that I have certain reservations and a certain number of

3 objections, my personal objections to a number of comments for the very

4 reason that he did not look at the situation from the real aspect, and he

5 did not look at the reality of the things that prevailed at the time.

6 MR. BOURGON: [In English]

7 Q. Thank you, General. I would like to move on to a question which

8 was put to you by the Prosecution yesterday and I will read the question.

9 This was at 1800 hours 40 minutes, and the question went as follows: "To

10 the extent you can render your opinion on this as the author of the

11 report, did you take a subjective approach, that is, viewing the events as

12 they happened through the eyes of the two accused, or did you attempt to

13 take an objective approach?"

14 Now, my question to you, General, is, are you familiar with this

15 legal language of objective criteria and subjective criteria in analysing

16 evidence? Are you familiar with these terms?

17 A. More or less.

18 Q. And in response later to -- in the same area when you were

19 questioned by the Prosecution, you responded that what you were trying to

20 do. And this is what you said at 18 hours 42 minutes yesterday, when you

21 said: "I don't know if there's some confusion with regard to the term,

22 but in this paragraph, I wanted to refer to all the events that took

23 place. When I said to look at things through their eyes that means

24 placing myself in their position, in their shoes during that period of

25 time, in order to have the best possible understanding of the situation at

Page 18047












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18048

1 that period of time, during that period of time, and in the belief that

2 that would enable me to be as objective as possible."

3 Now, I stop here and I refer you to your report, and when you ...

4 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. President, just give

5 me a moment. Just bear with me until I find my notes.

6 MR. BOURGON: [In English]

7 Q. Sorry, I now have it. In response to one of my questions last

8 week, and that was on page 52, lines 16 to 25 and page 53, lines 1 to 11,

9 you said that one issue that stands out -- or rather my question was: "Is

10 there one issue that stands out from your analysis and your drafting of

11 the report?" And you responded that there were two facts, the first one

12 was the concept of reality and the second one was the character of the

13 conflict.

14 Now, my question to you is: When you drafted this paragraph, is

15 this what you had in mind, the concept of reality and the character of the

16 conflict, as you responded last week?

17 A. Precisely so. If I may add to that. My opinion now is that there

18 has been a certain confusion with the use of the term "eyes." I don't

19 know whether I used the term "eyes" in the Bosnian version. Maybe this

20 came out in the English translation, creating this confusion. Everything

21 boils down to the fact that if I were to achieve the highest possible

22 degree of objectivity in representing the reality of the situation, then I

23 would have to place myself in the position of the commander of the 3rd

24 Corps and the commander of the 7th Muslim Brigade, and this is what I did.

25 And I just asked myself how I would have done things under the

Page 18049

1 circumstances, under the influence of all the factors that prevailed in

2 that situation, and of course know that I would have abided by all the

3 rules and regulations, and that was my sole objective. And if I may add

4 to that, in all the militaries of the world, there is one golden rule.

5 When you assess the strength of the enemy, both sides assess their enemy,

6 because they are the two opposing sides. And the rule is always to put

7 yourself in the enemy shoes in order to assess your own strength properly.

8 That was my guiding thought in all this.

9 Q. Thank you, General. As a follow-up to this response and to the

10 last two or three questions, I would like to ask whether you agree with

11 the following question and answer which were put to General Sir Martin

12 Garrod, when he testified. And the question was -- and that is on page

13 8243 of the transcript, the question was: "Now, in this respect, sir,

14 would you agree with me that for anyone to be able to properly assess the

15 work of a commanding officer in an operational situation, this could only

16 be done by taking stock of the prevailing circumstances at the time, and

17 by trying to put one's self, even though that would be very difficult, in

18 the shoes of the commander at the time."

19 And Sir Martin replied: Yes, I think I would agree.

20 Do you agree with the position taken by General Sir Martin Garrod?

21 A. All the time I'm saying what General Garrod said, and I agree with

22 him to the largest extent.

23 Q. My colleague yesterday began his cross-examination by asking you

24 to confirm that this was the first time that you acted as an expert

25 witness. And your response was "yes." Do you recall giving this answer?

Page 18050

1 A. [No interpretation]

2 Q. Can you, for the benefit of the Trial Chamber provide your opinion

3 whether the fact that this is the first time that you act as an expert

4 witness makes you less of an expert and reduces, in any way, your

5 conclusions in your report?

6 A. Two years ago I obtained my Masters degree from the school of

7 political sciences, and a masters degree thesis is a -- is much more than

8 this report. I'm also trying to obtain my doctoral degree, and this will

9 be of great use to me. What I'm trying to say is that this expert report

10 is not something that I had come across before, in terms of its extent and

11 its weight and its demands.

12 I must say that I have done more complex and more elaborate things

13 in my life than this report, and this would be my answer to your question.

14 The truth is, I found myself in the role of an expert for the first time,

15 but this does not have any influence on the quality of my work as an

16 expert.

17 Q. Thank you, General. If you can just look at the screen in front

18 of you, page 45, line 8, your answer was not interpreted. And the

19 question was: Do you recall answering "yes" to the fact that this was

20 your first time acting as an expert witness. I'm simply asking you,

21 General, to say that the answer that you gave -- I heard you say it, but

22 there were no interpretations. Page 45, line 8. What was your answer to

23 this question?

24 A. My answer was "yes," but here it says "no interpretation."

25 Q. Thank you, General. I would like to move on discussing the

Page 18051

1 methodology in your report as I said at the beginning of my

2 re-examination, and I would like you to turn to paragraph 595 in your

3 report.

4 Do you have this paragraph?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. What you say in paragraph 595 is that for each of the events you

7 were asked to address, you attempted, as best as possible, to apply a

8 certain methodology. Can you further describe your methodology where it's

9 included at paragraph 595 and say why you decided to adopt such a

10 methodology. Excuse me, general, there is no interpretation, at least on

11 my screen. Can you start again your response to my question which was:

12 Can you further describe your methodology as it is included in paragraph

13 595 of your report and say or explain why you decided to adopt such a

14 methodology.

15 A. As I have already said, there were a certain number of events,

16 five, six or seven events. Although these events are different, in terms

17 of their essence were different. However, at the same time, in spite of

18 these differences, all of these events were related to each other and

19 there were certain similarities between these events. And the key issue

20 when selecting my methodology was to determine how to deal with these

21 events, which methodology to apply to them. And I wanted to apply one

22 methodology when dealing with all the events. So as to cover all of the

23 essential issues that related to the events, to deal with all the

24 similarities between the events. This is why the methodology I used was

25 the methodology described in paragraph 595, or rather, I applied these

Page 18052

1 five principles: Number 1; description of the event; number 2, the

2 relationship between each of the events and the corps commander or brigade

3 commander; number 3, I stated what one could expect from a corps commander

4 and from a brigade commander in relation to such an event; under number 4,

5 I described the steps actually taken by commanders or, rather, commands in

6 relation to the event, and depending on the event concerned; and finally,

7 under number five, I presented my conclusion, that was naturally the

8 result of the previous principles described. That would be my answer.

9 Q. Thank you, General. I would like to turn to a paragraph in your

10 report, which is paragraph 663. Actually, I would like to refer to

11 paragraph 663 until 668.

12 And my question is: Is there any information in the description

13 of this event which does not come from the material that was given to you?

14 A. I didn't include anything in this report if it was impossible to

15 find confirmation in the documents that I have behind me.

16 Q. From 679 until 684 and the title is: "Actions taken in relation

17 to the events in the Lasva Valley in January of 1993." And my question is

18 the same, is there any information included in these paragraphs that does

19 not come from the material which was made available to you to prepare your

20 report?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Now when you say at paragraph 679 that - and I quote from the

23 report - "It can be seen that General Hadzihasanovic issued numerous

24 orders to ensure that subordinate commanders would inform all members of

25 their units that no criminal activity would be tolerated and that measures

Page 18053

1 would be taken if violations were committed," and then you go on to

2 describe a number of actions. Did you actually see in writing, in the

3 documents that were at your disposal, all of the actions that are

4 described in these paragraphs?

5 A. Yes, I did. I read these documents with my very own eyes, and

6 there is a significant number of such documents contained in these binders

7 here.

8 Q. Now if we look, General, at paragraph 688. Now I ask you this

9 because my colleague from the Prosecution opted not to challenge your

10 conclusions and that was his right, but looking at it from a methodology

11 point of view, I look at the conclusion you reach at paragraph 688. And I

12 ask you whether this conclusion is derived only from the material which

13 was put at your disposal.

14 A. Mostly it was derived from the material placed at my disposal and

15 to a minor extent I made assessments on the basis of my own experience.

16 And I also relied on all of the documents I was provided with when making

17 such assessments, when combining the documents that I had at my disposal

18 and my experience. When viewing the situation from my own perspective,

19 the perspective as a commander of the 1st Corps and when I regarded the

20 situation from the perspective of the 3rd Corps commander, I made the

21 comment that I made in paragraph 688.

22 Q. My next question, General, is if I would go through Part IV of

23 your report and take each of the events addressed in the report one by one

24 and I would ask you the same questions, that is: Are your conclusions --

25 based on the material that you were given, as well as on your experience,

Page 18054

1 would your answers be the same as you just provided for the events which

2 allegedly took place in Dusina?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. My last question, General, is follows. The Prosecution has

5 decided to -- or has attempted to challenge the drafting of your report --

6 of course they did not challenge any of your conclusions but that's a

7 different matter -- but they attempted to challenge the drafting of your

8 report and the validity of your report. We're not sure if they are saying

9 that your report was bias, or if your report was -- the methodology was

10 wrong. We're not sure exactly what the challenge is. But it is implicit

11 that they are challenging your report.

12 My last question is: What last information would you like to

13 provide to the Trial Chamber with respect to the preparation of this

14 report and how much weight we can give to your conclusions.

15 A. As to the weight I would give to my report or rather to my

16 conclusions, if one engaged someone else, an expert, had someone draft

17 else drafted this report many of the commanders of the ABiH corps, in the

18 course of the war and the Generals, members of the General staff of the

19 ABiH, any of the politicians with knowledge of military matters because

20 most of these are covered in the report concerning military matters, and

21 naturally anyone from the ABiH and any of the politicians who was a member

22 of the government or the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina, any of these

23 people would have provided a very similar report if not an identical

24 report in relation to many of the issues. And why do I say that? Because

25 this certainly depicts the reality such as it was to a very large extent.

Page 18055












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18056

1 That is what the situation was like, and generally speaking it was not

2 different. There are certain nuances that could be introduced with regard

3 to certain issues, but that's a different matter.

4 What I have claimed is certainly the case and in a way that would

5 be my response to your question.

6 Q. I must add one final question, General. When you agreed to take

7 on this challenge as you described, and when you sat in this chair last

8 Monday the 21st of March, was your aim to defend a friend, to protect the

9 reputation of your country, to protect the reputation of your army, or to

10 be an objective expert witness?

11 A. With regard to the first part of your question, the objective of

12 my report, the objective of my work, the final objective had a far wider

13 scope than the objective of the Defence for General Hadzihasanovic and the

14 Defence for Brigadier Kubura. The objective would be just to portray the

15 reality of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and, in particular, in Central

16 Bosnia in the course of 1993. By viewing the situation from the

17 perspective of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a state whose

18 independence is internationally recognised, naturally the focus was also

19 on the 3rd Corps and on the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade.

20 But as to the second part of your question, my objective was as

21 follows: Because I'm deeply persuaded of the fact that in

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina it's not necessary to say anything but the truth. The

23 truth is the best guarantee for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina for

24 its continuity as a national entity, but especially from the perspective

25 of the ABiH regardless of certain events, not only within the 3rd Corps,

Page 18057

1 but in the entire ABiH the truth and only the truth is in fact the best

2 guarantee for our future. And by following the truth, the future of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a state will be best preserved. And this is the

4 principle that guided me and that would be my response -- that would be my

5 response to your question.

6 Q. Now, General, maybe you did not understand my question. My

7 question was simply what your objective was in drafting your report and in

8 testifying before the Trial Chamber. Was it to be an objective expert

9 witness? Or something else?

10 A. Well I think that I understood your question and I have answered

11 your question. My objective was to be as objective as possible, to appear

12 here as an expert witness, to follow the truth and to be as objective as

13 possible.

14 Q. Thank you very much, General. I have no further questions.

15 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this concludes my

16 re-examination of the witness. Thank you.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will now have our

18 break and we will resume at five to one.

19 --- Recess taken at 12:30 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.

21 THE REGISTRAR: Please be seated.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And now on to the Defence team

23 of General Kubura.

24 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours, there is just one matter we

25 wish to clarify in re-examination.

Page 18058

1 Further cross-examination by Mr. Dixon:

2 Q. General, you may recall yesterday that Mr. Mundis put a

3 hypothetical situation to you regarding Mr. Koricic, the commander of the

4 7th Muslim Brigade and his leaving the brigade. I'm not going to go into

5 whether that hypothetical is correct or not, that's a matter that was

6 dealt with already in your examination-in-chief. All I want to look at,

7 it's one clarification in respect of the effect of a commander leaving.

8 You said in your examination-in-chief that article 78 of the

9 decree law on service in ABiH, that's the decree of 1 August 1992, is the

10 decree that governs that situation. I'm going to ask with the assistance

11 of the usher if you could have a look at that article again. It's P243,

12 and it's at page 42 of the B/C/S, page 17 of the English.

13 If you could, General, please read article 78 again and then I

14 wish to ask you one question about it. Can you firstly confirm that that

15 is the provision that was in force in 1993.

16 A. I think so.

17 Q. You said, in response to a question asked by Mr. Mundis, that in

18 the former rules of service in the JNA, that there was a provision which

19 stated that for the first two months when a commander left, there was no

20 requirement to have a written assignment and you cited the former rules of

21 service in the JNA as your basis for making that statement. Do you recall

22 that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Looking again at Article 78, could you please clarify for the

25 Trial Chamber - and as this may be an issue of some importance - that that

Page 18059

1 two-month rule is not included in the provisions of Article 78. If you

2 could answer for the record, please.

3 A. It is correct that, according to the rules of service in the JNA

4 as opposed to this book of rules and it's Article 78, that these are

5 different and that the two month period that is mentioned in the JNA is

6 not mentioned in this article here.

7 However, according to my very deep belief, the rules of service of

8 the JNA provided more clarification or intended to provide for more

9 clarification and that is why one of the provisions provided for this

10 two-month period as the deadline or the cut-off date when an order should

11 have been issued by a superior officer deputising any officer to stand in

12 for his commander or temporarily occupying a new position, which was

13 probably done in view of the fact that this position might have to be

14 applied during the wartime and that the order deputising a person cannot

15 always be issued immediately, that sometimes it may take a few days and,

16 in some other situations due to various circumstances, such an order may

17 take up to two months.

18 The two month period, however, is the longest period for any of

19 the situations that any military may find themselves in, and this deadline

20 was given for a written document to be issued to that effect. In Article

21 78 of this document, this hasn't been provided for. I believe that this

22 was considered to be redundant and that's why it is not mentioned in this

23 article here, for a very simple basic reason. It says in the article that

24 the deputising position may last no longer than six months and, by

25 decision of the second level superior, up to one year. There is

Page 18060

1 absolutely not possible for the Chief of Staff standing in for the

2 commander of the brigade for over a year without a written document,

3 without a written order to that effect being issued. It goes against any

4 of the doctrines, principles, and rules of any of the military.

5 However, there is the two-month period which is provided for to

6 cover for any objective circumstances and it is after the two-month period

7 that the order has to be issued. This Article 78 implies precisely that,

8 irrespective of the fact that it is not expressly spelled-out.

9 This short period of time is the time during which deputising may

10 be exercised without a written document. However, in the shortest

11 possible time when the conditions for that in place, every deputising

12 function has to be covered by a written document. I have tried to be as

13 clear as possible in providing you with my answer.

14 Q. Thank you, General. Can I just pick up on one point that you made

15 at the end, which is that you said in the shortest possible time, a

16 written document must be forthcoming. Why is that the case?

17 A. Because this is requested by all the regulations. The military is

18 the most specific body of any one society. In the military, the command

19 and control function is exercised through orders, but orders can be both

20 oral and verbal. However, it is provided for any verbal order to be

21 covered by a written order issued in the shortest possible time.

22 Q. Thank you. One final question. You mentioned the formal rules of

23 service in the JNA. Yesterday you were shown the rules of service in the

24 army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are also part of

25 P243 that you have there. Were those rules of service adopted at the same

Page 18061

1 time as this decree law that we are referring to, where Article 78 is

2 mentioned?

3 A. I am not sure, but I don't think so. However, I'm not sure of

4 that.

5 Q. But the rules of service that you were shown yesterday, were those

6 the ones that were in force in Bosnia in 1993?

7 A. I believe that they were in force already in that year.

8 Q. So would that then mean that the rules of service in the JNA,

9 which was the former army, were no longer applicable?

10 A. It goes without saying that once these rules were created and

11 adopted, then the JNA rules stopped being valid or stopped being enforced.

12 Q. Yes. Thank you, General. I have no further questions for you.

13 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have about 20 or so questions

15 to put to you. I don't think that the time that we have at our disposal

16 will allow us to ask and answer all of the questions. Before I put my

17 questions to you, I would like to reassure you immediately that the

18 questions that I'm going to put to you will not intend to challenge the

19 contents of your report, but rather to clarify certain aspects of your

20 report and the paragraphs that you mention in your report.

21 I am also going to ask you certain direct questions relative to

22 certain parts of your report. My objective is to clarify the contents of

23 your report and not to contest your report. The Prosecution has to

24 appreciate our interest in finding the truth. My questions will serve

25 just to clarify certain points.

Page 18062

1 Questioned by the Court:

2 And I am going to ask you immediately to go -- go to paragraph

3 4707 in your report, speaking of the questions that the Defence for

4 General Kubura has asked you about, we would like to be clear on the issue

5 of nominations.

6 This paragraph, if I understand it well, it arises from this

7 paragraph that on the 12 March 1993 Brigadier Kubura, which you have

8 indicated, was appointed a Chief of Staff and at the same time he was the

9 deputy commander, so he had two positions. He held two positions, he was

10 the Chief of Staff and the deputy commander. And this happened on the

11 12th of March. Can you confirm that? Can you confirm that General

12 Kubura, on the 12th of March 1993, held two positions?

13 A. Yes.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well then. Who was the

15 commander of the 7th brigade in that case?

16 A. Koricic.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Where was Koricic?

18 Amongst the documents that you studied, did you find the proof of

19 Koricic's presence? Did he sign any orders? If he didn't, where was he,

20 was he ill? Was he on holiday? Did he have any other temporary

21 assignment? What can you tell us about the situation of Mr. Koricic?

22 A. I can't tell you anything particular with regard to Koricic. I

23 was not in possession of any documents. Either they didn't exist or I

24 wasn't given these documents that could tell me where Koricic was, what he

25 did, what his status was.

Page 18063












12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.













Page 18064

1 However, you've just said that he wasn't in the brigade, and asked

2 me whether he was in the brigade, indeed. Yesterday I provided an answer

3 to a similar question and I said that it doesn't really matter whether the

4 brigade commander is in the brigade or outside of the brigade.

5 In legal terms, in my view, and in military terms, it doesn't mean

6 a thing. The brigade commander can be outside of the brigade. He can go

7 to Tuzla, to Bihac, without his status of the brigade commander being

8 changed. He remains the brigade commander no matter where he is.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If somebody is not present in a

10 unit and you've just told us that, that he could be elsewhere, but he

11 could also be ill or he could have been injured, maybe he could have

12 undergone surgery, he could be abroad, there could be a different number

13 of situations or scenarios possible.

14 As an expert, did you ask yourself where Koricic was? Or you just

15 started from the idea that he was there because you didn't see any

16 document proving that he was either ill, or injured, or that he was on

17 some mission? What made you say what you have just told us? What were

18 the problems involved in that he was still the brigade commander and he

19 was responsible for the brigade and he wasn't there? You yourself were

20 the commander of the 1st Corps. Did you find yourself in the situation

21 when the brigade commander wasn't there, but for you, he still held the

22 position. Could you please clarify that. We are trying to understand,

23 how is it possible for somebody who is not present to still be present in

24 military sense?

25 A. You're absolutely right in the first part of your question when

Page 18065

1 you asked me about Koricic's status. What was Koricic's status and what

2 was his situation. You're absolutely right to ask me that. And you also

3 asked me whether he was in a position to perform his duties as the brigade

4 commander or not depending on the situation because if he was ill or if he

5 had been killed or captured, objectively it would have been very hard for

6 him to -- to perform his duties. However, for me to be able to assist in

7 the proper sense, I would have to know the status that he was in at the

8 time. And this status was supposed to be regulated by his superior

9 officer.

10 I did not come by any documents that would lead me to conclude

11 what his status was, whether he fled to a third country, whether he was

12 sent to a third country, maybe he wasn't in a third country at all. I

13 really don't know. I can only assume -- maybe he was in Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina for all I know. There are no documents proving one or the

15 other. Wherever he was, he remained commander until he was dissolved from

16 his duties. I started from the assumption that he was alive and well and

17 that he performed the duties of the commander wherever he was.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So for you he was still the

19 brigade commander until the 6th of August, at least?

20 A. Yes. That would be more or less the case.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please look at the

22 last sentence of this paragraph, which starts in English with the

23 word "before." Look at it in your language, please.

24 You say in here: Before that date, the 6th of August, 1993, he

25 had sat as an acting commander of the brigade. What did you want to say

Page 18066

1 with this sentence, in military terms, in a military sense? I'm not

2 asking you to draw any conclusions, especially legal questions. In

3 military terms, what did this mean for you?

4 A. This means as follows. Yesterday I also answered a very specific

5 question to this effect. The situation, when Koricic -- and we only

6 assume left for God knows what reasons from the brigade -- and let's say

7 that he was no longer in command of the brigade, although I can start from

8 another assumption and that is that he was in command, but we don't know

9 that. But let's say that he was not in command of the brigade. The first

10 in the chain of command below him was Brigadier Kubura. He already held

11 two positions that we already discussed. He did not have any other

12 solution but to continue working and leading the brigade in the way he

13 could and the way he best knew how to.

14 If he had said that he would no longer continue leading the

15 brigade, it would have been dangerous for him. And this would have

16 assumed more responsibility for him, because he failed to obey order and

17 this is very dangerous in a state of war. For him to take this

18 responsibility without being covered with an official piece of paper is

19 also dangerous. He did ask for an order to be issued to cover his new

20 duty, but this never came through as far as I know.

21 In those simple terms, because of the situation on the ground, he

22 just continued performing his duties, although it is questionable whether

23 at that moment, given the fact that he was a very young man, at the moment

24 whether he was mature enough, whether he had the qualities to be appointed

25 either the commander or the acting commander of the brigade. Yesterday I

Page 18067

1 said, what if his superiors had that in mind and that's why they hesitated

2 to appoint him officially, as either the acting commander or the brigade

3 commander. Maybe they had reservations about his qualities. However, the

4 time when went by and the brigade as a living organism existed and this is

5 how things went. I assume that this is how things went until the moment

6 the decision was issued on appointing him first the acting commander and

7 then the commander of the brigade and this was done by the supreme command

8 and the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina.

9 And now when you look at the ambiguous status of Koricic as the

10 brigade commander and where he was and whether he had the true authorities

11 of the brigade wherever he was, this is all questionable. And as for Amir

12 Kubura, irrespective of his situation and his qualities, he had been

13 appointed on the 12th of March to the position of the Chief of Staff and

14 this mind you is also very high position. And he held two positions at

15 the same time. And because of the circumstances, he had to continue

16 leading the brigade as best as he could.

17 I am only trying to explain this, to clarify this particular

18 situation and I don't know whether I've succeeded, or not.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If Koricic was absent in the 1st

20 Corps when the brigade commander was absent, did he have to ask for

21 authorization to be absent? Did he have to inform the corps commander of

22 his absence? Or was this done without any --

23 A. Absolutely. The commander cannot leave his position without his

24 superior being aware of the fact. This is very dangerous in wartime, it

25 is unacceptable. It is not in accordance with the regulations. That is

Page 18068

1 certain.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does that mean that in time

3 military hierarchy above the commander of the 7th brigade felt that

4 Koricic was present, occupied his post. If authorization had not been

5 requested to be absent, does this mean that the Main Staff of the 3rd

6 Corps command thought that Koricic could be reached around the clock?

7 A. Well, this is something that confuses me too. Because I cannot

8 establish what the truth was. It's impossible for a superior not to be

9 aware that Koricic was absent for such a long period of time. It's very

10 difficult, even impossible. But on the other hand, if he did leave,

11 whether someone authorised him to do so or not -- or if someone authorised

12 to leave, this should have been regulated and certain documents and the

13 status of Brigadier Kubura should have been regulated. This is a key

14 issue. This is the key issue in the puzzle.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand you correctly,

16 you have had a look at all the documents and you didn't find a single

17 document that defined Koricic's status, no documents that said that he was

18 away on mission, ill, et cetera?

19 A. No, I didn't see a single document of that kind.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would prefer to give the floor

21 to the Defence and the Prosecution, if they want to ask any questions that

22 relate to this issue so that we can avoid re-addressing the issue

23 tomorrow. In this way we'll be able to maintain a certain pace. Mr.

24 Mundis, are there any questions you would like to ask the witness with

25 regard to this particular subject?

Page 18069

1 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mundis:

2 MR. MUNDIS: Just a couple of questions, Mr. President, with your

3 leave.

4 Q. Sir, with respect to us in Koricic and his whereabouts, did anyone

5 from either of the Defence teams inform you that Mr. Koricic testified in

6 the Koricic case on the tenth of June of 1999?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Mr. Dixon.

8 You're on your feet.

9 MR. DIXON: I do want to object to this line of questioning,

10 because my learned friend is going to refer to testimony in another case

11 which is not evidence in this case. Mr. Koricic did testify in another

12 trial and he did provide testimony regarding his situation, but the

13 Prosecution never, ever sought to introduce that evidence in this trial

14 and on that basis, although my friend does have a foundation to put the

15 question, that isn't in evidence and I, therefore, would submit it would

16 be unfair to now ask those questions and the answers then to become

17 evidence in this trial. So I would object to this line of questioning.

18 Thank you, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. You may ask the question

20 whether he is aware of the fact that Koricic testified, but please don't

21 mention the content of his testimony that is of no relevance.

22 MR. MUNDIS: I assure you, Mr. President was not my intention to

23 put any questions to the witness concerning the contents of Mr. Koricic's

24 testimony, but simply whether the witness was aware of the fact. And I

25 misspoke; it was actually in the Blaskic trial on the tenth of June 1999.

Page 18070

1 Q. Sir did anyone inform you that Mr. Koricic testified about these

2 matters that we've been discussing here today in the Blaskic case on the

3 10th of June, 1999? Did anyone ever tell you that?

4 A. I heard that he testified, but I don't know in which case. I

5 don't know when and I don't know anything about the contents of his

6 testimony and I don't know who told me about this either, but I heard

7 about it.

8 Q. What steps, sir, if any, did you take in terms of following up on

9 this information to answer these questions that you had concerning the

10 whereabouts of Mr. Koricic?

11 A. This is something I only gave thought to, but I didn't take any

12 steps.

13 Q. And sir, what steps, if any, did you take with respect to asking

14 the Defence team for Mr. Kubura to provide you with information concerning

15 the whereabouts of Mr. Koricic?

16 A. On the basis of the documents that I was provided with. Those are

17 the only steps that I took. I didn't come across anything about this

18 subject in the material that I came across. So the only steps I took were

19 examining the documents.

20 Q. Did you, sir, from a professional point of view, find it curious

21 that there was no documentation concerning Mr. Koricic and his whereabouts

22 during this time period?

23 A. Well a minute ago that is what I said, in response to a question

24 from the Presiding Judge. I said that one might think about what you just

25 suggested, but I don't want to make any sort of projections.

Page 18071

1 Q. Do you find, sir, that the fact that your report, or in your

2 report you were unable to draw any specific conclusions on this point --

3 is a gap in your report?

4 A. I don't think so because I had access to certain documents. I

5 drafted my report on the basis of those documents. Your question is

6 appropriate to a certain extent, but that is not the only question one

7 could put. Many such questions could be phrased in relation to the

8 voluminous content of this report, but I couldn't find certain documents,

9 there were to such documents, I had no access to them. Whether something

10 was behind this, I don't know. But given what I had access to, I

11 clarified this situation, in terms of the facts that we had access to at

12 that point in time.

13 Q. But you didn't take any steps in order to obtain the information

14 with respect to the whereabouts of Mr. Koricic?

15 A. I don't know what other steps I could have taken. If this

16 Tribunal hasn't been able to obtain any other information -- information,

17 I don't see how an expert witness could have obtained such information.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bourgon.

19 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I would

20 like to object to the question that the Prosecution just put to the

21 witness. The questions that the Chamber put concerned military issues and

22 the status of the commander who was present or absent. My colleague is

23 taking opportunity of this situation to undermine the credibility of the

24 witness, though he complained about the fact that the witness examined

25 material outside of the documents he was provided with. The witness has

Page 18072

1 expressed appear opinion on the basis of the documents. If my colleague

2 wanted to say would things have been different if, this is a hypothetical

3 question, then he can still put to the witness as a military expert. But

4 there is no reason to ask him why he didn't go any further. He was

5 provided with the documents. He did his work.

6 My colleague could ask if Mr. Koricic had left such-and-such a

7 date what would the conclusion have been.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, the Defence is

9 saying that the expert did his work on the basis of his documents that he

10 was provided with. Defence counsel can imagine a hypothesis that perhaps

11 he could have acted otherwise. But that was not the case, he worked on

12 the base he haves the volume news documents that are behind him. Please

13 continue.


15 Q. Thank you, Mr. President. Witness, you testified yesterday and

16 again today in response to a question from my learned colleague,

17 Mr. Bourgon, that you consulted with other former colleagues to verify

18 information that you had. Did you consult with any former colleagues to

19 verify the absence of confirmation concerning the whereabouts of

20 Mr. Koricic in this time period?

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Bourgon.

22 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is

23 the same type of question, and the objective of the question is identical.

24 This has been covered at length. If my colleague wants to ask what the

25 effect of the absence of an officer or presence of an absence is [as

Page 18073

1 interpreted], that is permissible, but I don't think the questions can be

2 put to obtain additional information.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, please move on,

4 because the expert has said that his work was based on the documents

5 alone. He thought it was necessary to see other individuals from time to

6 time, but if he had seen someone in relation to Koricic, I think that he

7 would have mentioned the fact immediately. So please continue, because we

8 only have a few more minutes and I know that Mr. Dixon has some questions

9 to ask.

10 MR. MUNDIS: No further questions on this issue, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Does Defence counsel

12 for Mr. Hadzihasanovic have any questions or would you like to give the

13 floor to Mr. Dixon?

14 MR. BOURGON: [Interpretation] No questions, Mr. President.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Dixon.

16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Dixon:


18 Q. Thank you, Your Honours. There is only one matter which I wish to

19 ask the General about. And that is whether, General, you had access, when

20 you were preparing your report, to all the evidence presented by the

21 Prosecution during the presentation of its case? In other words, all

22 Prosecution documents, and all Prosecution witnesses that the Prosecution

23 sought to rely upon. Did you have access to all of that material when you

24 reviewed and prepared your report?

25 A. I think so.

Page 18074

1 Q. And when you prepared your conclusions, did you review all of that

2 material and draw and base your conclusions upon the material that was

3 given to you?

4 A. Yes.

5 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. I have no further questions

6 on this subject.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have another 19

8 questions that will be dealt with tomorrow, but rest assured we'll be

9 brief. General, tomorrow we will conclude with your testimony and it

10 won't be necessary to continue with your examination on Friday. We will

11 commence the hearing at 9.00 tomorrow but I have been asked to inform you

12 of the following. Next week there won't be any hearings, because there

13 are no witnesses who have been scheduled for that week. The hearings will

14 recommence with Mr. Kubura's witnesses. They will commence again on the

15 11th of April, on Monday, next week. As I have said, there will be no

16 hearings, and theoretically we should be in a position to conclude with

17 the testimony of the expert witness tomorrow. Which means that on Friday

18 there will be no hearing. I invite you all to appear for the hearing that

19 will commence tomorrow at 9.00.

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to

21 be reconvened on, Thursday the 31st day of March,

22 2005, at 9.00 a.m.