1 Monday, 7 February 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Mr. Court Deputy.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
9 Before we hear the witness, are there anything that the parties
10 would like to say at this stage?
11 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: No. Your Honour, the only matter I mention is
13 that I'm going to ask the witness some questions about Zenica. And I
14 should indicate that there's a transcript and there's a video recording of
15 the Zenica transcript which has been given to the audiovisual people, and
16 we have made a transcript of the relevant parts which -- if the witness --
17 depending on how the cross-examination goes, that may happen. I just
18 mention that's a forthcoming possibility. He may just simply answer the
19 questions without out it, so it might go be quicker.
20 JUDGE LIU: I hope so. And generally speaking, we give the equal
21 time to direct and cross-examination of the witness. I hope during the
22 weekend you have already gone over with all your questions. So I hope we
23 could have this witness back home today.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it -- I'm not optimistic about it.
25 We have, I can indicate, worked very late on the weekend on this
1 particular witness, and we're going to endeavour to go as quickly as we
2 can with him. But as will be seen, the Prosecution has put a large chunk
3 of its case, particularly the de jure case through this witness, and it --
4 he really has to be given -- Your Honour will have noticed I haven't
5 attempted to interrupt him very much or to cut him off, and because it's
6 technical evidence in some ways, it sometimes takes longer and I can trial
7 him less distributively because he has to be given a chance. So yes. But
8 in any event, I will certainly attempt to comply with what Your Honour
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
11 Could we have the witness, please.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, witness.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest during the weekend?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honour, I would
19 like to ask counsel for the Defence something, by your leave, before we
20 begin. It refers to the further course of today's work.
21 JUDGE LIU: You mean the scheduling issues?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. My question is of an
23 administrative nature. It has to do with some of the documents being
24 shown to me. By your leave, Your Honour. If not, it doesn't matter so
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, are there any problem with the documents that
2 the counsel has shown to you?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have certain reserves with
4 respect to certain documents, reservations, that is.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that we will let the Defence counsel
6 to start his cross-examination. Maybe those documents will be used in the
7 future proceedings. If not and if you believe there's something very
8 important, I believe that the parties will ask you some further questions.
9 The Judges will ask you some questions on this respect. And at last
10 you'll have a chance to make a statement on certain matters, at a later
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no problem, Your Honour. I
13 certainly wish to say what I have to say, and I thought it might be better
14 to say it at the beginning rather than at the end. However, if I do get
15 an opportunity to say it, then I will take the opportunity whenever you so
16 decide. I am ready to testify.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
18 Let's continue the cross-examination.
19 Mr. Morrissey.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 Microphone, please.
23 WITNESS: SALKO GUSIC [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey: [Continued]
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.
2 Mr. Gusic, we had finished on last Friday night with evidence
3 about the IKM and how such locations are administered.
4 I now want to take you to another topic, and it's one raised by
5 the learned Prosecutor with you in evidence in chief, and that is the
6 topic of investigations of breaches of military discipline and how and
7 under what rules such breaches are dealt with.
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, could the witness please have displayed to
9 him the Rules on Military Discipline, which are MFI107.
10 Q. Mr. Gusic, do you have in front of you those rules?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Very well. Would you please look at Article 2 of those rules.
13 Does Article 2 describe what military discipline is?
14 A. Just a moment, please. I'll just have a look. Yes, it's all
16 Q. Very well. Now, is that correct? Article 2 in brief
17 summarises --
18 A. Yes. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. Now, would you go, please, to Article 5. Does that
20 provide that for criminal offences or misdemeanours servicemen shall be
21 accountable with the -- in accordance with the regulations regulating
22 criminal offences or the regulations regulating misdemeanours in the
23 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Is that what it provides?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you look, please, at Article 6, which provides: "The
1 accountability of a serviceman for an offence or misdemeanour does not
2 exclude his being held accountable for an offence of a breach of military
3 discipline too according to these rules" -- sorry, if according to these
4 rules such offences constitute a breach of military discipline."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Very well. Now, could the following page please be shown.
7 A. Yes, I do have the following page.
8 Q. Mr. Gusic, you have the advantage over me because unfortunately I
9 do not. Would you just excuse me a moment, please.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, on my screen at the moment the
11 following page is not displayed, and the Prosecutor are in the same
13 Now we have it. Thank you.
14 Q. Thank you. Would you have a look now, please, at Roman
15 numeral II, and under that the heading "Article 7." Do you have that?
16 A. "Negligent attitude"? Do you mean that? "Negligence in respect
17 of property entrusted to his care," or do you mean the entire Article 7?
18 Q. Mr. Gusic, I meant the entire Article 7.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And I want to put questions about the entire Article 7. Does
21 that list the type of military breaches to be dealt with under this set of
22 rules, from Article -- from subarticle 1 right through to subarticle
23 number 13?
24 A. I don't see 17. I see up to 13.
25 Q. Well, if I said "17", I'm sorry. I meant to say "13," but ...
1 A. All right.
2 Q. From 1 to 13. Does that list the disciplinary offences that are
3 to be dealt with under this code?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Now, could we, please, go now over to the next page,
6 both in English and B/C/S.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, while that's being done, can I just
8 indicate my gratitude to the court staff who are performing this function.
9 In preparing cross-examination, we sometimes have to jump from page to
10 page, and we simply haven't had time to specify the correct computer
11 number for each page. Therefore, there may be a little bit of inelegant
12 jumping of this nature, and we appreciate the efforts.
13 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gusic, do you now have in front of you - if you'd
14 just excuse me a moment.
15 A. Yes. Which article?
16 Q. Well, I really -- the article I really wanted was 11 -- sorry,
17 I've jumped over one. But just on this article -- on this page, would you
18 look at Article 18, and then we'll jump back to the one I missed. So look
19 at Article 18, please. Now, does Article 18 provide: "If an action
20 during which a criminal offence or infraction has been committed also
21 involves the commission of a disciplinary infraction, the serviceman may
22 also be held accountable before a disciplinary court for a disciplinary
23 infraction if so required by the special interests of the service."
24 A. Yes, that's what it says here. And then it also says that: "The
25 proceedings before -- are before the disciplinary court shall be conducted
1 independently from and irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings for
2 the criminal offence or misdemeanour."
3 Q. Yes. Would you please look at Article 19. Does Article 19
4 provide for certain time limits governing the commencement of proceedings
5 under these rules?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Very well. Now, could we please return to the previous page, and
8 I want to show the witness Articles 11 to 13. Thank you.
9 Okay. Mr. Gusic, would you just look, please, at Article
10 number 11.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And does that provide that -- for -- sorry, perhaps I should ask
13 you this: You see the term "errors of discipline" and "disciplinary
14 infractions" being used there?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And does Article 11 pick up another piece of legislation which
17 provides for the actual sanctions to be imposed?
18 A. Yes. A decree law is mentioned, the decree law on service in the
20 Q. Certainly. Does Article -- Article 12 deal with one of those
21 sanctions, namely, the loss of seniority for a particular soldier who is
22 the subject of these disciplinary proceedings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And does Article 13 disclose in the first paragraph that: "In
25 some circumstances, the tribunal" -- or sorry, the military court can
1 actually impose a disciplinary sentence of imprisonment of up to 60 days
2 if none of the lesser punishments are? Just read it to yourself and then
3 tell me if I've summarised it accurately.
4 A. Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. That's right, yes.
5 Q. So that the position is that under this code, there is a grade --
6 that's perhaps not the right term. There's a sliding scale of potential
7 punishments available to deal with military infractions. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And if the lesser or less serious sanctions are not appropriate,
10 a sentence of up to 60 days of imprisonment can be imposed; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Very well. Now we need to go forward a number of pages to find
14 Articles 67 and 70. And I request the assistance, if I may, of the court
15 staff to help to find those because we don't have a page number for them.
16 But it's Article 67 that is being sought. Thank you.
17 Mr. Gusic, do you have in front of you under Roman numeral V the
18 short Article 67?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... provide that: "The
21 provisions of these rules shall be applied accordingly in a state of war
22 provided that as a rule in a state of war no measures are pronounced whose
23 execution, given the conditions and circumstances under which they are to
24 be carried out, is inapplicable or impossible."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Does that section give to commanders a realistic discretion as to
2 how to deal with disciplinary offences committed in a time of war?
3 A. They have that right both in peace and in war. It's not just in
4 war. It's their duty and responsibility both in war and in peace.
5 Q. I'm just talking about -- sorry. Stop for a moment, please. I'm
6 just talking about what's said in Article 67 itself, Mr. Gusic, where it
7 refers to a state of war. Do you agree with the proposition I put to you?
8 A. Well, I'm telling you now, this is applied in war but also in
9 peace. And it refers not just to commanders but to commanding officers at
10 all levels who have subordinates. They're all duty-bound to implement
11 this if under the rules there are people whom they can hold responsible,
12 whom they have control over. So this refers to commanders at all levels
13 who have subordinates.
14 Q. Very well. Would you go, please, to Article 70. And this is the
15 last of the articles I'll take you to before some questions. Would you
16 just read Article 70. I'll read it with you: "If it's impossible for the
17 execution of a disciplinary measure or punishment to start within seven
18 days of the day of its communication, its execution shall as a rule not be
19 proceeded with. The disciplinary measures of confinement to barracks and
20 soldier's detention and a disciplinary custodial sentence shall be
21 executed only in conditions of accommodation in a barracks and if their
22 execution does not expose the serviceman concerned to greater danger from
23 war operations relative to the other members of the unit or establishment.
24 The disciplinary measure of soldier's detention and the disciplinary
25 personality of imprisonment shall be suspended or postponed also if this
1 is required by the official needs of the unit or establishment or for the
2 reasons of security and protection of persons referred to in paragraph 2
3 of this Article."
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. And once again, that gives the commanding officer a
6 discretion as to whether and how to proceed with disciplinary measures; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, did the -- I shouldn't ask you what happened in
10 the briefing session, but what I'll -- well, I won't ask you about that.
11 Instead, I'm going to put this to you: You don't deal with 30 murders of
12 civilians, if it be 30 murders, or 15 murders of civilians if it be 15
13 murders, or even five murders of civilians, if it be five murders, under
14 the military discipline code but you deal with it under the Criminal Code;
16 A. You deal with it under both.
17 Q. You don't investigate these matters of significant killings of
18 civilians under the limitations of this code with its three-day limits,
19 its seven-day limits, and its 60-day maximum punishments, do you,
20 Mr. Gusic?
21 A. On Friday or on Thursday I think I was asked a similar question,
22 not the same, however. It's correct. You have taken me through the
23 articles of these rules, and from what we saw today, we saw that two
24 parallel proceedings can be conducted: Disciplinary proceedings and
25 criminal proceedings. The role of the commander in both proceedings is
1 not the same. The criminal proceedings are to be conducted by a trained
2 professional and the commander enables he professional to do so, while
3 disciplinary proceedings are conducted by the commander. The two are not
4 mutually exclusive. The conducting of criminal proceedings is independent
5 from disciplinary proceedings. There are no limitations to criminal
6 proceedings, but there are limitations to disciplinary proceedings and
7 those are conducted exclusively by the commander, who is the superior of
8 the person who has committed a misdemeanour or a breach of discipline.
9 That is how I see it, at least. So the two are not mutually exclusive.
10 Q. Very well. Thank you. I just want to move now to another
12 MR. MORRISSEY: That's -- I'm grateful for that document.
13 The next document I'd ask that the witness be shown is Defence
14 document 65 ter 186. It's DD00.0836, and it's ultimately to be marked as
16 Q. Now, while that's being brought up on the screen, Mr. Gusic, I
17 want to put to you that under the criminal procedure code, a part of which
18 you're going to be shown in a minute, there are certain duties that are
19 enjoined upon all citizens to respond to crimes and in particular crimes
20 of a serious nature. But even before I et to that -- that document, do
21 you agree that that's the case, that under the criminal procedures all
22 citizens, whether soldiers or not, have got a duty to respond to crimes by
23 advising relevant persons?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that have got a particular
1 competence have got further duties to actually investigate such crimes; is
2 that correct?
3 A. I can't recall the details at present, but the essence of what
4 you say is correct, yes.
5 Q. Very well. Now, we'll come to the specifics.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: I ask perhaps -- that if the court staff could
7 assist me again, as I often ask, to go to page 3 of that document -- or
8 the third page of that document. Not page 3 but the third page.
9 We don't have that in English as yet, Your Honour. Now we do.
10 Your Honour, could I just indicate that it seems that there is a
11 delay of about 15 seconds between the -- perhaps the B/C/S going and
12 the -- and the English going, and I sometimes jump the gun.
13 Q. Very well. Now, do you have in front of you there Article 148 of
14 the Criminal Procedure Code?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. And does 148(1) provide -- sorry, 148(2) provide
17 that: "Working people in state organs, organisations of associated labour
18 and other self-managing organisations and communities must report
19 crimes" -- sorry, I withdraw that question. I've misled you. Would you
20 mind just reading that -- reading that section to yourself.
21 A. Yes, that's fine. I've read the first article.
22 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, 148 is -- now, do you agree that that article
23 captures some, if not all, of the -- of the duties that a citizen has to
24 report crimes?
25 A. All the state organs, organisations of associated labour and
1 other self-managing organisations have the obligation to report the crimes
2 to be prosecuted ex officio. Therefore, they are not talking about the
3 working people but, rather, the official organs and organisations.
4 As for the second paragraph, that's where it says "the working
5 people in the state organs, organisations of associated labour and other
6 self-managing organisation have the obligation to report the crimes
7 damaging, prejudicing the socially owned assets or abusing the official
8 line of duty." So they're not talking about the working people in general
9 but, rather, about the organs, the organs of associated labour and
10 self-managing organisations, and that's a different matter. These are not
11 working people and citizens, as is usually phrased in such articles. And
12 then in that case it refers to all the citizens across the board. Here,
13 however, they only refer to the official organs.
14 Q. Yes. But would you now look to the following article, that's
15 Article 149.
16 Now, what obligation do you -- do you think that imposes or did
17 you -- what obligation do you understand that to impose?
18 A. This article provides for the obligation -- I can't read the word
19 at the end of the second paragraph. "In order to exercise the social
20 self-protection, the citizens" - and then I can't read the following
21 word - "to report the crimes" -- can you please help me just with this one
22 word because this isn't really -- it's a very poor copy.
23 Q. Yes. Well, my apologies for providing a poor copy. Could I just
24 give you what the English translation is at this stage, and if there be
25 any dispute about its accuracy, the Prosecutor can take the point.
1 Article 149 - and this is the English translation - provides in
2 subparagraph (1): "For the sake of social self-protection protection,
3 citizens ought to report crimes that are prosecuted ex officio."
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Well, what do you understand to be the obligation arising from
8 that provision?
9 A. This means that all the citizens who learn of a crime that is to
10 be prosecuted ex officio should report one.
11 Q. Yes. Now would you go over to Article --
12 MR. MORRISSEY: And could I ask that the court staff assist once
13 again to go to the following page, and in particular Article 151. Thank
15 Q. Mr. Gusic, have you in front of you now Article 151?
16 A. Not yet. Now I do, yes.
17 Q. Very well. Would you read Article 151. And in order to assist,
18 I'll read with you, the first paragraph. Article 151(1): "If there are
19 reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime prosecuted ex officio has been
20 committed, internal affairs organs must take necessary measures to find
21 the perpetrator of the crime, ensure that the perpetrator or accomplice do
22 not go into hiding or flee, find and secure the traces of the crime and
23 objects that might be used in evidence, as well as gather all information
24 that might be of use to the successful conduct of criminal proceedings."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Very well. Now, does that appear to you to authorise - I'm just
2 trying to find the right phrase there, if you'd excuse me a moment -
3 internal affairs organs to investigate crimes in a proper way. And, in
4 fact -- I take that back. Does that appear to you not merely to authorise
5 but to oblige internal affairs organs to conduct appropriate
6 investigations into crimes?
7 A. Yes, it does. But it does not exclude the role and the duties of
8 the army. However, you are right; they do have the obligation to act
9 ex officio. However, as I've said, this does not exclude the role of the
10 army if the perpetrator is a member of the army to conduct its own
11 investigations and prosecutions. So this is not solely the obligation of
12 the MUP but, rather, of the army as well. Whereas, if the perpetrator is
13 a member of the army, then the MUP can perhaps initiate some actions in
14 relation to the perpetrator, but in essence my answer to your question is
16 Q. Very well.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I tender -- I offer for tender that
18 document, Your Honour.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, you know of a body called the SVB, which is the
20 military security organ of the army; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the SVB operate according to a set of rules; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Now we have finished with the Criminal Code
25 document and I now ask that the witness be shown Defence document 190(a).
1 It is DD00.0903. It is to be marked for Exhibit 137. Thank you.
2 Q. Mr. Gusic, would you just identify whether or not the document in
3 front of you is the Rules for the Military Security Service in the Armed
4 Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 A. According to the cover page that I see, yes.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Now I'd ask the court staff's assistance once
8 again. I wish to show the witness Rules 40 and 41 of this document.
9 A. I've read the text that I see here on the screen. I am -- I'm
10 not sure if this is the entire article -- Rule 41.
11 Q. Mr. Gusic, it's clearly not the entire article, but I'll just ask
12 you to read Rule 40 and I'll read with you and then we'll go to the next
14 Does -- first of all, I'd ask you to note that this is under a
15 heading "The Military Security Service in criminal proceedings." That's
16 Roman numeral V. And does it provide -- perhaps to be complete, I'll ask
17 you to look at 39. Does it provide that the work and powers of the
18 internal affairs organs as laid down by the -- I'm sorry?
19 A. Not the internal affairs -- oh, yes, yes. Yes. You're reading
20 Rule 39 now?
21 Q. Yes. I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, Mr. Gusic.
22 I'm reading Article 39. I'll read it with you.
23 A. These fine.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues]... "...the Internal Affairs
25 organs as laid down by the ZKP relate also to the conduct of an action
1 taken by authorised officers of the Military Security Service in pre-trial
2 and criminal proceedings within the frame of their competence." Now, you
3 notice that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and that is the SVB, the
6 military security, jurisdiction to do the same job in relation to the
7 crimes in the military that the MUP, the MUP internal organs, do in
8 relation to crimes in civilian life; is that correct?
9 A. That -- that is why I've stated a moment ago that one does not
10 exclude the other. I was unable to invoke the specific rule, but you're
11 right, yes. The -- under the law, this organ is vested with the power to
12 conduct these proceedings. However, once again, this does not exclude the
13 possibility for trained professionals and organs to be hired. It does
14 vest this body with the power of conducting the proceedings, but also if
15 it proves to be unable to conduct those, it provides for the possibility
16 for someone else to take over.
17 Q. Mr. Gusic, we're going to come in a minute to the ability of the
18 military security forces to share responsibility with other organs. At
19 the moment, what I'm seeking to do is to establish beyond any doubt that
20 the military security forces have got competence, and in order to do that
21 I want to take you through these. I appreciate it's a -- a slow process,
22 but it has to be done.
23 Would you please go to Article 40.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I -- while Mr. Gusic is reading
25 that, can I just indicate that in the B/C/S version Mr. Gusic has the
1 whole paragraph on one page. But the Court and counsel do not, so that I
2 would ask that now the court staff turn over the page to allow the English
3 speakers or English readers to observe how Article 40 finishes.
4 A. I've read this.
5 Q. Now, Article 40 -- well, perhaps I'll ask you -- I'll ask you to
6 read Article 41 before I put the general questions to you.
7 So Article 41 provide -- and, Mr. Gusic, while you're reading
8 Article 41 could you indicate, please, when you get to the end of the text
9 so -- and then ask the court staff to turn over the page for you and
10 they'll do that. But I'll read with you: "On the basis of the
11 information gathered, officers of the Military Security Service in the
12 command of the brigade or corresponding or a higher ranking officer in the
13 Military Security Service shall submit a criminal report to the competent
14 military prosecutor's office. In cases where it's necessary to carry out
15 certain investigative actions immediately, an authorised officer of the
16 Military Security Service shall immediately inform the competent military
17 prosecutor" -- and there is more there to which you may refer if you feel
18 that it's important to do so. So in order to satisfy yourself, please
19 read the whole paragraph, although I'm not going to question you about the
20 whole thing.
21 A. I've read it.
22 Q. Pursuant to Articles 40 and 41, is it the case that military
23 security goes through a process when investigating a crime committed
24 within the military, the process being to commence the investigation, to
25 gather material, and then to approach an investigating judge or
1 investigating prosecutor?
2 A. That's one course of action. But they can at the same time
3 conduct the proceedings jointly. Although, what you've said is correct.
4 And unless they can get a military prosecutor to appear for an on-site
5 investigation on the ground, then they do it themselves. Because this
6 part has to do with the submission of a criminal complaint -- report only,
7 and this report has to be supported by certain evidence, which means that
8 the investigating judge wasn't -- didn't go up there on the ground. If
9 the investigating judge is there on the ground, then the paper they would
10 produce would be produced jointly. This, of course, if a -- if
11 magistrating -- if an investigating judge is available. And when I
12 say "available," I mean of course keeping the specific wartime
13 circumstances in mind.
14 Q. Yes. In addition to those matters which you've raised, it's
15 apparent, isn't it, that on the face of those provisions there is no time
16 limit governing when the Military Security Service must contact the
17 military prosecutor or investigative judge; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, for the criminal proceedings. But again, as I say, this
19 does not exclude the conducting of a disciplinary proceeding, because we
20 have rules that allow for both proceedings to be commenced on the basis of
21 one and the same criminal act or act.
22 Q. Yes. Mr. Gusic, before I come to that -- that dual approach,
23 could I just conclude by asking you this: Military Security Service being
24 competent -- sorry, that question is badly phrased. I withdraw it and
25 I'll start again.
1 Although the Military Security Service is plainly competent to
2 investigate crimes committed within the military, you would agree that
3 they are entitled to work together with civilian organs in investigating
4 such a crime, particularly when the victims of the crime are civilians; do
5 you agree?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And I take it that an example of that process is the case that
8 you referred to which occurred later on, that being the case in Fojnica
9 involving the killing of the monks.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So that what you'd say is that it's -- where military personnel
12 kill civilians or where it's possible that they have done so, the Military
13 Security Service is plainly competent but you would say the civilian
14 police services are also competent; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Very well.
17 A. In cooperation. They -- one does not exclude the other. They
18 are not mutually exclusive. They have the same common goal, and of course
19 the task will be taken over by the side that is more competent, more
20 professional, and of course the goal is the same, to investigate the crime
21 and punish the perpetrators thereof.
22 Q. Yes. All right. Now,--
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Just excuse me one moment.
24 [Defence counsel confer]
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Thanks.
1 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gusic. Sometimes we have to decide whether to put
2 a particular document at this stage, and we're not going to put that yet.
3 Mr. Gusic, on Thursday last week the learned Prosecutor took you
4 through the provisions of the military discipline regime, but as you will
5 recall did not take you through this procedure; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. He didn't show me those, but what he did
7 show me was correct; the procedure as shown to me at the time, and as we
8 went through it together, shows a disciplinary procedure as was applicable
9 and what you've been showing me today is also true.
10 Q. Yes. Well, do you know what the murderer Enes Sakrak was
11 sentenced to when he pleaded guilty to killing a small -- a small child
12 and that small child's mother? Do you know what sentence he got?
13 A. I must admit that I don't. I've never had occasion to hear what
14 the sentence was. I just know that it was a high one, a very high one.
15 Q. Well, you don't get confined to barracks for 30 days or demoted
16 from a position of seniority for murdering civilians, do you?
17 A. No, not the perpetrator himself.
18 Q. No.
19 A. But those who brought this about of course should be held
20 accountable, because after all it was a heinous crime. And this sort of a
21 sentence -- an appropriate sentence cannot be rendered for the perpetrator
22 within the military. It has to be dealt with by a court, because this is
23 definitely under aggravated crime.
24 Q. Yes. Mr. Gusic, it's quite obvious, isn't it, that the
25 pre-eminent investigation into the incident at Grabovica had to be a
1 criminal investigation by the SVB and possibly civilian police as well and
2 not a disciplinary breach investigation; do you agree?
3 A. I do 99 per cent agree with you, but the perpetrators themselves
4 should -- would definitely not be punished under a disciplinary procedure.
5 There has to be a criminal proceeding instituted, although there could
6 have been a sort of a disciplinary procedure conducted at the same time
7 for some minor breach that was related to this crime. But definitely the
8 perpetrator of the crime should have been prosecuted, meaning that there
9 would be investigations and prosecutions both by the civilian MUP and by
10 the military prosecutor's office.
11 Q. Yes. Well, you've already indicated that -- on Thursday, when
12 you gave your evidence in chief, that this military security way of
13 investigating a crime was not the subject of evidence. And what I want to
14 ask you is this: Did you point out to the Prosecution that in tendering
15 the evidence about disciplinary procedures, that that was capable of
16 creating a highly misleading impression as to the course that the
17 investigation should have taken?
18 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I'm not quite sure --
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MS. CHANA: -- what counsel is really getting to. Would he please
21 put his question as -- is he talking about counsel during proofing and is
22 it an appropriate line of questioning, Your Honour?
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, maybe you could rephrase your
24 question, you know.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, could I seek to justify the current
1 question in this way: That Your Honour will have seen that on Thursday
2 you were presented with evidence about the military discipline process,
3 and in particular focus was laid upon the time limits that were included
4 in that; namely, a three-day time limit for commencing operations, and so
5 on. And that could have only been led, given the case against Mr.
6 Halilovic and the relevance of the evidence, it could have only been led
7 for one reason, that reason being that Halilovic failed to comply and that
8 he didn't do so.
9 Now, we are very concerned to make sure that the Court is --
10 that's the reason why I've gone in the detail I have here. In my
11 submission, it goes to the credibility of this witness. And I want to put
12 it as to the credibility of this witness, rather than making a derogatory
13 comment at a later time without giving him the opportunity. I want to put
14 it to him and ask him whether he was prepared to be part of putting what
15 he must have known to be a very lopsided and misleading picture to this
16 Tribunal. I want to put that to him to give him the chance whether to
17 agree or to rebut it.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, Mr. Morrissey, I believe that you have
19 the full right to attack the credibility of this witness because you are
20 doing the cross-examination, and you have already made your point very
21 clear from the transcript. But there's no need to lead this witness to
22 attack the other party, that is, the Prosecution, so that's why I asked
23 you to rephrase your question.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Well, Your Honour, I've had my try at
25 justifying the question, and I'm not going to try again. Thank you.
1 Q. Well, finally, could I ask you the question directly then and not
2 involve the -- the Prosecutor in any way: Why didn't you point out to
3 this Court at the time when you were being led slowly and surely through
4 the military discipline rules that the truth is this should have been
5 investigated by military security according to the proper rules? Why
6 didn't you point that out?
7 A. It isn't true that we never said that. We just didn't go into
8 detail. I don't remember now, but you showed me the article this morning.
9 We did say that for the crimes committed, proceedings are to be commenced
10 under the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has to do with
11 your question. You -- you have gone through this piece of legislation
12 with me this morning, and the OTP decided not to. But had they done so,
13 they would have reached the same conclusions. I tried to be brief and
14 answer specific questions. It isn't true that we never said that criminal
15 proceedings can be instituted, because the Prosecutor also invoked the
16 Article 3 or 4 - I'm not sure - providing for the institution of a
17 criminal proceeding in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the commission of
19 Q. Very well.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: May I offer for tender MFI -- I'm not sure if I
21 offered 136 already. But if I didn't, I offer MFI136 and MFI137 for
23 Perhaps in order to allay the Prosecutor's concerns, by the
24 previous question I want to make it clear that it was to this witness's
25 credit that the -- that the question was going. Because I can understand
1 sensitivity by the Prosecutor about being attacked sideways. So I make it
2 clear that's what the -- that's what the -- what the questions were all
4 Q. Mr. Gusic, thank you. That completes the questions on that topic
5 for now. And we are going to return later on to how the investigation
6 itself actually unfolded.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Would you just excuse me a moment, please.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. MORRISSEY: My apologies. Thank you.
10 Q. I now wish -- Mr. Gusic, yesterday -- sorry, on Friday I promised
11 a chronological approach, which has not in fact happened. I commenced to
12 take you to some of the conclusions at the Zenica conference, and we went
13 through a great deal of the Zenica material. And after that, you may
14 recall His Honour asked a question about forward command posts, and we
15 then proceeded to analyse forward command posts for a period of time. And
16 this morning we've now covered military security in the abstract.
17 I now wish to return, if I may, to the chronology, dealing with
18 Zenica. Now, Mr. Gusic, you have already indicated that to your knowledge
19 those proceedings were videotaped; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you've already indicated too that you've seen that videotape
22 some several months ago; correct?
23 A. Not the tape but the DVD. It was shown to me in Sarajevo a few
24 months ago.
25 Q. Certainly. Now, Mr. Gusic, a transcript has been prepared, and
1 I'm going to have that transcript shown to you, and I'll make a couple of
2 explanations about that transcript before we do.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: But could --
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I'm instructed now that there's
6 been a technical hitch with that -- with the text of that document. What
7 I propose to do is to put some propositions to the witness, and it may be
8 that if he -- if he adopts those, there'll be no need to -- to go to
9 that -- that extent.
10 Q. Mr. Gusic, I'm going to put some passages of the Zenica
11 discussions to you. If you dispute the authenticity of what's being put
12 or if you think it's being taken out of context, you feel free to make
13 that comment because the transcript can be made available to you and
14 indeed, if needs be, the tape can be made available to you. Okay?
15 Now, first of all, I'm going to put to you something said by
16 Mr. Halilovic, the accused man. And when I say "mister," could I just ask
17 you this: You refer to him frequently as General Halilovic. The fact is
18 that at no time while he was on active service in the Bosnian army was he
19 called "General Halilovic"; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct. But for me he was and will remain a general.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gusic. Anyway, I want to put to you something
22 said by Mr. Halilovic on this tape, and this is early on.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is a passage that's a
24 reasonably lengthy one, ten lines or so.
25 Q. "The goals of the war, meaning the division of the country. In
1 favour of division or against it, I believe that this is the crucial issue
2 Dedo, if I am not off target, I actually -- I just want to share my
3 opinion with you. And there's room for each of us to reach our own
4 conclusion since we do not have a final answer to this question.
5 According to information from the press, the Presidency in its full
6 composition without Ganic has made a decision in Geneva to embark on such
7 a division which is being done now. My opinion in this regard is that we
8 should not dwell on this issue for too long for the simple reason that the
9 aggressor's goals are to destroy the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina and to
10 destroy the Bosniak Muslim people. Because of that, even through these
11 talks, negotiations, they will offer a part of the territory, exactly as
12 much territory as would constitute the defeat of the Republic of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina if this share of the territory is accepted, and that
14 would mean a shameful defeat for the army and primarily for the Bosniak
15 Muslim people. In my view, this would be the first step on the way
16 towards our final destruction. Our task is as follows: To reinforce the
17 army, to step up combat readiness, to get stronger."
18 Now, Mr. Gusic, I don't expect you to remember in your own mind
19 everything that was said by Sefer Halilovic, but broadly speaking, do you
20 accept that he said those words at the Zenica conference? And we can show
21 you the tape, if needs be.
22 A. I think there's no need. I cannot assert that every word is
23 correct, but yes, I think this is the essence of what he said -- or
24 rather, part of what he said.
25 Q. Well, you're quite correct. It is only part. And I'm just going
1 to put parts of what everyone says to you.
2 But from that passage, it's quite evident to you that a couple
3 of -- I want to put a couple of points to you about that passage.
4 The first one is that the meeting at Zenica took place during a
5 political debate in Bosnia, the debate being whether Bosnia ought to
6 accept the partition of Bosnia into different ethnic cantons or whether a
7 unified multicultural Bosnian state ought to be persisted with. Do you
8 recall that debate existing at around this time?
9 A. Yes. Yes. I have to say quite sincerely that I never wished to
10 express my views on such issues because I felt they did not belong to the
11 military domain, but yes, such discussions were conducted at that meeting
12 as well.
13 Q. Mr. Gusic, I can assure you I am not going to seek to paint you
14 into any political position or to delve into your political views. Do you
15 understand that? I'm asking you to comment simply upon what was said.
16 All right. Well, you agree there that in a very brief way Sefer
17 Halilovic was putting the position against the partition of Bosnia;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Very well. I now want to take you to something said by Vahid
21 Karavelic, the commander of the 1st Corps. And I'm going to read this to
22 you. Well, perhaps I'll -- I'll ask you a general question.
23 Vahid Karavelic as commander of the 1st Corps was always concerned
24 that Sarajevo, which was in his zone of responsibility, be very heavily
25 protected by troops; is that correct?
1 A. Any commander would want that.
2 Q. Of course.
3 A. It was his duty.
4 Q. Of course. And what I want to read you is a -- a passage from
5 Karavelic at that meeting, and he says this: "In the zone of
6 responsibility of the 1st Corps, there are Chetnik troops." I interrupt
7 now. I'm just -- I'm going over a part that's lengthy and irrelevant.
8 But he then says: "4.000 to 5.000 troops have left the Igman front with
9 at least 3.000 to 4.000 pieces. That is why I had to pull out a strong
10 company from each of the brigades in Sarajevo in order to close the lines,
11 consolidate the defence, and that is why Sarajevo as such is getting to be
12 somewhat vulnerable."
13 Now, do you accept that Vahid Karavelic said those words at
15 A. I don't want to comment on the correctness of this information,
16 but I think this is what he said -- or rather, that was the context in
17 which he spoke, among other things.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gusic, at the moment I'm just asking you to
19 confirm the facts and I'm not asking you to look into Mr. Karavelic's
20 mind. Okay?
21 Now, I've got some questions about the speech made by Arif
22 Pasalic, the commander of the 1st -- of the 4th Corps, who had the
23 responsibility for Mostar. Did he say this -- sorry, did he in general
24 speak about the activities of the HVO in his area of operations?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In particular, did he say - and I'm quoting now - "The recent
2 goal of the aggressor, particularly of the extreme part of the HVO,
3 recently has been to destroy the ABiH forces, that is, the 4th Corps in
4 the Dreznica-Blagaj area." Do you accept -- do you accept that he said
5 that at the Zenica meeting?
6 A. I think he did. I don't want to have the transcript shown, but I
7 think the essence is what you said, yes.
8 Q. Well, as I've said, at any time you're concerned, you can ask for
9 the transcript.
10 Now, I've got some other questions about Mr. Pasalic.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: And could I indicate perhaps for the benefit of
12 the witness, the Court, and the Prosecutor that some of these questions
13 will get answers that are irrelevant elsewhere to other witnesses and some
14 of them don't fit into the narrative in a very attractive way. But some
15 of it is in the narrative and what's coming now is in the narrative.
16 Q. Mr. Gusic, by way of background to the next set of questions, I
17 just want to ask you some general questions. I understand your
18 sensitivities about commenting on other army officers, but unfortunately
19 in this Tribunal you're a witness rather than a military man, and to the
20 extent that the questions are relevant, you're going to have to answer
22 There was some tension between yourself and Arif Pasalic
23 concerning the role of and the zone of operation of your 6th Corps, which
24 was a new corps; is that correct?
25 A. I wouldn't say there was tension, but perhaps our opinions
1 differed, in view of certain units. And I responded to those issues at
2 the meeting.
3 Q. Yes, to which I'll take you.
4 Mr. Gusic, did Mr. Pasalic at the Zenica meeting say this: "In
5 cooperation with the forces of the 6th Corps and other units which are
6 deployed in the territory of the 6th Corps, there is a realistic
7 possibility for active combat activities towards Raska Gora, that is,
8 Vrdi, or from the direction of Dreznica, Vrdi, Raska Gora, Goranci, with a
9 view to liberating the road, which I consider the lifeline. In our view,
10 if Mostar is not opened towards Jablanica and if the road is not opened by
11 the beginning of the autumn rains and winter, we will find ourselves in
12 very dire straits. We as well down there in the zone of the -- of
13 responsibility of the corps will be in a very, very difficult situation
14 for the ABiH units in the north, that is, for the 6th Corps and others."
15 Then a little bit further down the page, he says this - and for
16 the Prosecution's sake, if they want to check it, it's about 13 lines down
17 the page - "We have food for five to seven days. I've already informed
18 you of that. The war hospital is in an extremely difficult situation. I
19 believe this will improve with the arrival of the team you've dispatched;
20 however, three elements are important, in that we are lacking -- three
21 elements are important: Anaesthetics, sterile dressings, and blood, i.e.,
23 Now, do you recall -- well, do you accept that Mr. Pasalic said
24 that at the Zenica meeting?
25 A. That was the context in which he spoke, yes.
1 Q. Yes. I want to put another passage to you here. And this is the
2 comment perhaps that you were referring to earlier: "The division of
3 4th Corps and its forces, that is, the establishment of the 6th Corps, was
4 wrong in my mind."
5 Now, do you recall Mr. Pasalic giving that opinion at Zenica?
6 A. He probably did, yes.
7 Q. Finally for Mr. Pasalic, did he say this: "You have to deal with
8 my problem of food urgently, within three to five days. If this
9 humanitarian convoy does not enter, we now have only one meal a day. If
10 the convoy does not enter, people will have nothing to eat. This is
12 Did Mr. Pasalic say that?
13 A. I think he did.
14 Q. I want to now take you to some things that you said at this
15 meeting. And this is referring now to the problems between the 6th Corps
16 and the 4th corps. Did you say: "The problem with the 4th Corps is the
17 problem of various missionaries in the territory of Jablanica, Neretvica
18 who are trying with using all sorts of means to return one part of the
19 units onto the strengths of the 4th Corps even as we speak."
20 Now, did you make that comment and that complaint at Zenica?
21 A. Yes. Yes. But with respect to this comment - and when I heard
22 the tape, I said the same thing - I think that there was a comment by the
23 late General Pasalic just before I spoke referring to part of the units
24 located in that area, which he referred to as "paramilitary," and that's
25 what I was responding to actually.
1 Q. Yes. So what you say is you were talk about paramilitary units
2 there. Well, did you --
3 A. Not I, but General Pasalic. And I said to him that he was
4 referring to these units as "paramilitary units," and now he wanted them
5 to be part of the 4th Corps. So that's what I was talking about. The
6 units he was referring to, he himself had referred to as "paramilitary
7 units" just before.
8 Q. All right. Well, did you go on to say this: "They are trying --
9 they have tried in the 44th Brigade with the brigade commander. He
10 immediately informed me of their arrival. They did not have any success
11 with him. Now they are targeting the battalion and company commanders. I
12 believe that this has a major impact on the mood of the soldiers in the
13 44th Brigade, as the Ustasha forces are now trying to regain lost
14 territories around Pisvija." [phoen] Now, did you go on to say that?
15 A. In that context, yes.
16 Q. Well, that's not paramilitary, is it? That's the 44th Brigade,
17 which was the Jablanica Brigade under the command of Kovacevic, which was
18 part and parcel of your 4th Corps and no paramilitary unit; is that
20 A. That's what I said, and the late General Pasalic referred to
21 the 44th, the 45th, the Zulfikar Detachments, and the other units there
22 that he contacted as "paramilitary units," and he even called the military
23 police battalion a paramilitary unit, and my response was actually a
24 response to what he said, and I probably read out what I said verbatim.
25 But I was referring to my own units, which were within the composition of
1 my corps, and to this very day I think that they were regular units and
2 not paramilitary units.
3 Q. Certainly. Mr. Gusic, did you go on to make this -- did you then
4 give some details about an attack on Makljen? I'll read you a passage and
5 then I'll ask you the question.
6 Question: "If the 317th" -- sorry, not question. This is a
7 passage here. "If the 317th Brigade which, according to some
8 organisational order, belongs in the strength of the 6th Corps managed to
9 do its job, Operations Group West, even at one moment yesterday evening
10 when I was with its commander, he told me our target is Makljen, I agree.
11 Our target is Makljen. We could have already been on Makljen if the
12 decision had not been changed."
13 Now, Mr. Gusic, I'm not asking you about the -- why things
14 happened like that, but do you agree that at Zenica you spoke about a
15 6th Corps operation in the direction of Makljen?
16 A. Would you read this passage again. If you do, you will see that
17 it wasn't I who spoke about this but the commander of OG West, and I asked
18 whether this brigade was on my strength, if it -- and it was. Makljen,
19 its true, was a very important facility, and it's a good thing that we
20 managed to take it and control it. But this was done by OG West,
21 including the 317th Brigade without my knowledge; although, they were part
22 of my organic composition. And that's what I was talking about.
23 Q. But the point is, what I'm getting at here, that there was an
24 operation by 6th Corps units at that time towards Makljen; is that
1 A. The units of the OG West, yes. But the units of the 6th Corps,
2 no. The 317th Brigade was engaged without my knowledge, although it was
3 part of the 6th Corps. And that's the reason for my reaction. I said
4 that if it belonged to the 6th Corps establishment-wise, and I agreed that
5 Makljen was a good target, but I should have been informed. I should have
6 known about this, and I might have been able to assist. And those may not
7 be the words I used, but that's what I meant to say. Who recruited my
8 unit and why and what for; that's what my question was about.
9 Q. Could you just point on that map that's behind you to your right
10 the direction in which an attack from the Bosnian army positions towards
11 Makljen -- in fact, I'll rephrase the question. Just listen to the
12 question and then you can stand up and do.
13 Just point on that map to the direction of the attack that is
14 referred to in the discussion I've just read out to you.
15 A. What you asked me about just now, I can say now that I don't
16 know. I was not involved. But I can show you the direction I was talking
17 about. I am not certain what the exact direction of attack was. I know
18 as much as you know about it from the transcript. But these are these two
19 axes, the two directions, here and here, one and two.
20 Q. I'd just ask you to confirm this: Those two axes that you've
21 just pointed out on the Neretva 93 map -- sorry, the two -- the two
22 directions that you've just pointed out on that map correspond, do they
23 not, to the arrows ultimately drawn on that map by those who drafted it;
24 is that correct?
25 A. I'd like to see anyone draw them differently. That's what the
1 terrain makes possible. Any other way of drawing those lines would be
2 unrealistic. You wouldn't be able to defend such axes. These were the
3 two best axes that existed, and anyone with any knowledge of the terrain
4 and of the course of combat operations would have chosen the same
6 Q. Yes. But, Mr. Gusic, what I'm putting to you is this: By the
7 time the Neretva 93 map came to be drafted some 10 to 14 days later,
8 whenever it was, the directions that it proposed were directions that the
9 6th Corps unit, 317th Brigade was already pursuing; do you agree or
11 A. Those are the only two possible axes, the only two realistic
12 axes, the ones offered by the terrain. How can I not agree that this was
13 underway when I was asking why the brigade had gone in that direction? It
14 had gone as part of Operative Group West, yes. And if you wanted to do
15 something similar today, you would use the same two axes again.
16 Q. Last question about Zenica: Did Bakir Alispahic, the Minister
17 for the Interior, appear there and did he say, "I think that this area of
18 Herzegovina is very unstable and that at the moment we all need to help,
19 for I am afraid that we are going to fail the test on the subject of
20 Mostar, Jablanica, and Konjic. I shan't meddle in combat tactics with
21 your military evaluations, but I think it would be wise to freeze all
22 fronts and move the combat operations down there." Did Mr. Alispahic say
23 that or do you accept that he said that at Zenica?
24 A. On Thursday, when I enumerated the participants in the meeting, I
25 wasn't sure whether Minister Alispahic had been there or not. But now,
1 when you showed me the list and when I saw the list of participants, I
2 think he was there.
3 With respect to what he said, what I can recall is that he did
4 say something. I have no reason to doubt that what you've read out is
5 correct. It's probably what you read out, because where else could you
6 have got this but from the transcript or from the video recording that I
7 myself saw? So yes, that's probably correct.
8 Q. Well, bearing in mind that you'd actually seen this video
9 yourself some months ago, can I ask you, then, what is the reason for not
10 mentioning this to Alispahic?
11 A. I wasn't sure -- I simply wasn't sure whether he was there or
12 not. I am sure I recognised him on the video recording when I saw it in
13 Sarajevo, and if I saw the recording today, I would recognise him again.
14 But there was no special reason for me to recall his presence. I was
15 focussing on the military men there. Maybe that's why.
16 Q. Is Bakir Alispahic a powerful figure politically in Bosnia?
17 A. I don't know that, but I do know he was a minister and that
18 ministers have a great deal of authority. So he was probably one of the
19 more influential people in that period of time, because he was a minister,
20 a minister of the interior, in fact.
21 Q. Mr. Gusic, you indicated in your evidence in chief to the
22 Prosecutor that you were given three directions by Rasim Delic as a result
23 of the Zenica meeting. This is at page 56 of the transcript, Your
24 Honours, 56, line 24. Did you say this: "The 6th Corps were given three
25 axes along which it was supposed to carry out." In paragraph 3: "The
1 reassigned to the 6th Corps T-boundary between the 3rd and the 6th Corps
2 being -- this is the axis towards Prozor. The second one" -- I won't --
3 I'll stop. I won't read the whole thing.
4 Can I just put to you that there was three directions that were
5 specified: Prozor, Kiseljak, and Mostar? Do you agree with that?
6 A. Yes. And there was another task in connection with fortifying
7 the lines reached in the direction of Igman, Bjelasnica, Visocica, but no
8 active combat activities were required there. And along the three axes
9 that you mentioned, active combat activities were required. That's why I
10 spoke about three directions, because that's where active operations were
12 Q. Very well. I now want to take you to the week after Zenica.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, you know, since we have finished
14 the -- the Zenica conference, I believe that it's quite time for us to
15 take a break.
16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I can imagine it's high time. I
17 agree it's high time.
18 Can I just indicate that went slower than I anticipated, so I'm
19 going to reorganise things a little bit here, because that was -- that was
21 JUDGE LIU: Let's take a little bit longer break. We'll resume
22 at 11.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, we'll have our next break at 15 minutes past
1 12.00 or 20 minutes past 12.00. It depends on how it goes.
2 Yes, you may proceed, Mr. Morrissey.
3 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Mr. Gusic, what's coming now, so that the questions are clear,
5 I'm going to ask you some questions about the week that follows Zenica.
6 I'm then going to ask you some questions about the role of Chief of Staff,
7 deputy commander, and senior person on the terrain. And you'll recall the
8 Prosecutor asked you questions about that. I'm going to press you about
10 After that, you'll be asked some questions about the order by
11 Rasim Delic of the 30th of August, which you've already commented on to
12 some degree with the Prosecutor.
13 After that, you'll be asked some questions about the arrival of
14 the inspection team and what they did early in September.
15 And after that, we'll come to the visit on the 4th of September
16 of Rasim Delic and then on to the meeting at Dobro Polje on the 5th of
18 So that's where the direction of questions is going, for your
20 After the meeting at Zenica, did you meet with Vahid Karavelic,
21 Sefer Halilovic, and Sevko Hodzic at the front of your command post in
22 Konjic on the 22nd of August?
23 A. Not outside the command's post, but we did meet in Konjic. It
24 wasn't outside the command post though.
25 Q. Very well.
1 A. The command post was situated in the town itself and was exposed
2 to firing from the positions, so that we met outside the army command post
3 of the former JNA. And Karavelic spent the night in Konjic at the time
4 when we met.
5 Q. And at that time, it was discussed that the 6th Corps was going
6 to conduct operations towards Vrdi and towards Makljen; is that correct?
7 A. We commented on all the three axes assigned to the 6th Corps:
8 The Mostar, Prozor, and Kiseljak axes. And we did not attach particular
9 importance to any one of these three.
10 Q. Very well. Now, two days later, on the 24th of August, did you
11 receive an order from Sefer Halilovic?
12 MR. MORRISSEY: And I'm going to ask that the witness be shown
13 this document. This is Defence document 198. It is DD00.1036. And it's
14 to be Marked for Identification 138.
15 Q. Do you have that document in front of you now, Mr. Gusic?
16 A. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. Mr. Gusic, in the future, it might help when -- when the document
18 comes up onto your screen, if you wouldn't mind just indicating to us.
19 That would help.
20 Now, would you just look --
21 A. Very well.
22 Q. -- at the address. Is that -- at the start of the letter, does
23 that appear to be a document that's addressed to the command of the
24 6th Corps?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the form, is it an order?
2 A. Yes, for their information.
3 Q. Yes. Yes. Yes. Would you --
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the court staff please assist by turning
5 this over to the second page of this order. Thank you.
6 Q. Do you have that second page? Sorry, pardon me.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.
9 Q. Is that a command from -- sorry, an order from you -- from Sefer
10 Halilovic directed to you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, although that's in the form of an order, that was -- Sefer
13 Halilovic in his capacity as Chief of Staff had no power to command you at
14 that time, did he?
15 A. He could if so authorised by the commander and if acting as his
17 Q. Yes. And perhaps picking up from that answer, the truth is that
18 a Chief of Staff is not structurally speaking in the -- in the line of
19 command; is that correct?
20 A. Not the Chief of Staff, but a deputy commander, yes.
21 Q. Yes. But I'm not asking about deputy commanders right now. I'm
22 asking --
23 A. The Chief of Staff, no.
24 Q. However, a Chief of Staff can issue orders if specifically
25 authorised by an order of a superior; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And it's in that capacity that you tasked your own Chief of Staff
3 on another occasion to perform command functions at an IKM at Fojnica; is
4 that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Yes. All right. Well, yes, well, I offer that document for
8 Mr. Gusic, you did receive that document, didn't you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Very well. Now --
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, could I next ask that Mr. Gusic be shown,
12 please, another document. Okay. Now, we've just got to find the proper
13 number for this, Mr. Gusic.
14 Q. But this is an order from Commander Delic to you dated the 26th
15 of August, and that is Defence document D12, and its number is DD00.0050,
16 and it's to be MFI139.
17 A. Yes, I do have the document.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. Your Honours, sometimes there's a
19 temporary mix.
20 Q. Mr. Gusic is that correct an order from Commander Delic to you
21 dated the 26th of August?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in that order, does he direct you -- look at -- look at
24 paragraph number 1 of that order, please.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Does he direct you to engage your forces to help the defenders of
2 Mostar in a particular direction, that being the direction of Vrdi
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Using the pointer, would you please indicate on the map that's
6 just to your right there what the line of advance was.
7 A. Not the line of advance but the line of attack that was assigned.
8 Q. I accept your correction, Mr. Gusic. But you've just -- anyway,
9 you've appointed the line of attack assigned there, haven't you?
10 A. [No audible response].
11 Q. And do you agree with me that it's the line of attack that
12 ultimately happened in Neretva 93, the operation?
13 A. That was the line of attack requested by Arif Pasalic, and as
14 I've shown on the map here, this is one of the axes along which Neretva 93
15 took place.
16 Q. All right. Would you please look to paragraph number 4 in that
17 order, and could you observe there that attacks are ordered in the area of
18 responsibility of the 44th and 45th Mountain Brigades? Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could you just point on the map there that's behind you
21 whereabouts the 44th and 45th Mountain Brigades are located. Start with
22 the 45th and then go to the 44th.
23 A. [Indicates].
24 Q. Okay -- which one. Point to the 45th. Just point to the 45th,
25 if you don't mind.
1 A. [Indicates].
2 Q. All right. Now, could you point to the area of responsibility of
3 the 44th.
4 A. [Indicates].
5 Q. Very well. And it's just so that later on the Court can
6 understand where these units were base. The 45th Brigade was under the
7 command of a individual named Haso Hakalovic; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And Haso Hakalovic's unit was sometimes known as the Neretvica
10 Unit; is that correct?
11 A. Yes. The Neretvica Brigade, I believe it was called. It was in
13 Q. Thank you. And it's the fact also that some units from the
14 Neretvica Brigade played a part in Neretva 93; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, the 44th Brigade was based right in the town of Jablanica;
17 is that correct?
18 A. Yes. But answering to your earlier question, the 44th Brigade
19 Battalion was engaged along this axis up here, because the -- one of the
20 battalions -- battalion commanders of the 44th Brigade -- that is, the
21 45th Brigade got killed up there. So the battalion commander of the
22 45th Brigade was killed in Neretva 93 operation.
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name.
24 MR. MORRISSEY:
25 Q. Can I just put to you that the name of that person was Padalovc;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Seid Padalovc, yes.
3 Q. Okay. Well, that happens later on when Neretva 93 is actually
4 occurring; is that correct?
5 A. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. At this stage, we are still in August, and in fact in particular
7 on the 26th of August.
8 Other questions about the 44th Brigade: The commander of that
9 brigade was Enes Zukanovic; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Very well. Now, paragraph 4 urges engagement by the 44th and
12 45th Brigades; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In other words, Commander Delic was asking you to get the 44th
15 and 45th Brigades into battle to help Mostar at that time; correct?
16 A. Not to introduce the brigades into action. They are asking for
17 combat actions, that is, active defence actions, which means that I was
18 not ordered to engage the entire brigade but to, rather, take positions
19 opposite the enemy along those axes in order to create conditions for
20 combat action to be taken along the assigned axes. Therefore, active
21 combat actions, yes, but for defence purposes.
22 Q. Well, could I suggest to you that it was for a little bit more
23 than that. And we'll see if you agree with this. Part of the strategy in
24 this order here, the order of the 26th, was that there would be attacks at
25 Makljen, at the top, Vrdi, at the bottom, and you would engage the 44th
1 and the 45th in the middle in order to keep the HVO busy and prevent them
2 from reinforcing the areas attacked. Now, is that accurate or inaccurate?
3 A. I cannot agree with you when you say that this was an operation
4 taking place at the time. At the time, it was merely an activity. I
5 don't know what the commander's idea was at that particular point in time,
6 but I can offer my comments as to what his reasoning was at the time, but
7 I cannot claim that this was really the case. He perhaps wanted to
8 deceive the enemy -- or rather, conceal the actual line of attack. But it
9 is true when you're mentioning this particular zone that the -- in the
10 entire sector there were active combat actions but not in the form of an
11 operation, especially when we are talking about the central part, where
12 the 44th and the 45th Brigades were engaged. It was just a smaller
13 portion of their units engaged with the aim of deceiving the enemy as to
14 what was in reality going on in the -- on the ground. The aim of the
15 action was to link up Mostar with a part of the Jablanica area.
16 Therefore, it wasn't really an operation; it was a limited action with the
17 forces that we had at our disposal. Later on it turned out that these
18 forces by themselves were insufficient.
19 Q. Mr. Gusic, it does -- you can comment on this, whether it's
20 accurate or not, but it does rather appear that the 6th Corps was engaging
21 on all of the lines which Neretva 93 ultimately adopted in that last week.
22 Now, do you agree or disagree with that proposition?
23 A. Well, you're looking at a part of the zone of the 6th Corps, and
24 I can tell you that at the same time on that same day - please allow me to
25 finish - there were combat activities in the area of Kiseljak,
1 therefore -- throughout the zone of responsibility. Therefore, I cannot
2 say that what you are saying is true. It was just a part of the zone of
3 responsibility throughout which there were combat activities. But it is
4 true that there were combat activities taking place along these lines that
5 you're interested in.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. But they were of a limited scope.
8 Q. Very well. But so far as the areas shown on that map are
9 concerned, it remains the case that what ultimately was drafted on the
10 Neretva 93 map was in all its essentials already part of the 6th Corps'
11 plans and already part of the 6th Corps' actual operations. Do you agree
12 with that?
13 A. I've already told you this once this morning, that these were the
14 only possible axes to be taken. Other justifiable axes do not exist.
15 They are the only ones along which the forces can advance and can be
16 expected to perform successfully. If today you or somebody else were in
17 position to conduct such an action, you would opt for these axes because
18 they are determined by the configuration of the terrain.
19 Q. Mr. Gusic, I'm going to show you another document now.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is the first blatant treachery
21 against the e-court system by the Defence. In this case, we have only
22 recently had this translated, and we are going to have to do it by paper.
23 What we are planning to do is to upload it as soon as we can.
24 But could the witness please be shown document D311.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. MORRISSEY: And I think this will be MFI140.
2 Q. You haven't been given that yet. Sorry, might I ask the court --
3 sorry. Pardon me. Could the court usher please give that to ...
4 Q. Mr. Gusic, would you -- you may take as much time to read this as
5 you wish. I'm just going to direct you to some formal details of it
6 before anything else happens.
7 Could you look firstly at -- at its address, and do you agree
8 that it's addressed to the 6th Corps command personally to the commander?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Very well. I understand you haven't read the -- the text as yet,
11 so I'll -- I'll delay those questions.
12 Would you look to the final page, please, and look to see that
13 it's signed by a member of ONO -- I don't know whether they're the right
14 letters, but by a man called Enes Zukanovic.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Before you read it, can you just tell us who Enes Zukanovic was.
17 A. Enes Zukanovic was an officer from the operations and training
18 unit. He basically dealt with intelligence. He was an officer of the
19 Yugoslav People's Army who was also an officer in the army of the Republic
20 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And for the most part he performed duties of
21 an intelligence officer.
22 Q. You've mentioned he was an intelligence officer. He was an
23 intelligence officer attached to the staff of the 6th Corps; is that the
25 A. He wasn't an assistant of mine but was an intelligence officer
1 within the intelligence organ.
2 Q. Of which corps?
3 A. The 6th Corps.
4 Q. All right. So this is a document from somebody -- from
5 Mr. Zukanovic within the 6th Corps to you.
6 Now, would you just take the time to look at that document,
7 please. And then I'm going to ask you some questions about it. And just
8 to be sure, while you're reading it, I'm just say something to you about
9 the questions I'm going to ask. There are no tricky questions about this.
10 I'm simply going to ask you to confirm certain of the details in there,
11 and perhaps ask you to point them on the map.
12 Now, as you read, are you in a position yet to agree that this is
13 a proposal that particular -- it's nothing more than a proposal, but it is
14 a proposal that particular attacks be carried out by three specified units
15 of the 6th Corps?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And those units are the Prozor Independent Battalion, the
18 45th Brigade, and the 44th Brigade.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You've already shown the Tribunal members where the 44th Brigade
21 and the 45th Brigade are. Could you mind just breaking off your reading
22 for one second and point on the map to the position where the Independent
23 Prozor Battalion was located at the time of this order.
24 A. [Indicates].
25 Q. Very well. And would you confirm that as events proved, later on
1 the Prozor Independent Battalion did indeed fight in a battle in the area
2 of Uzdol?
3 A. That was opposite its area of responsibility. The battalion was
4 deployed to that area. This was the area of responsibility of the Prozor
5 Independent Battalion.
6 Q. But the answer to my question is yes, is it not?
7 A. Is it only logical that the battalion was charged with -- with
8 providing defence within its area of responsibility.
9 Q. Very well. And according to the normal chain of command, you
10 received this document on or about the 29th of August, as dated; is that
12 A. Probably so.
13 Q. Very well. Well, I offer that document. Thank you.
14 At around that time, on the 29th -- perhaps I'll preface my next
15 question with this: Appreciating that you don't have a precise memory for
16 exact dates, do you accept that on or about the 29th of August an
17 inspection team arrived in your zone of operation consisting of Rifat
18 Bilajac, Zicro Suljevic, Vehbija Karic, and one other individual whose
19 name escapes me, but I think it might be Hubic, H-u-b-i-c.
20 A. I don't recall this man Hubic either. But a lot of time has
21 elapsed and I cannot confirm with certainty, but it is true that shortly
22 afterwards this team of people did come to the area of responsibility of
23 the corps.
24 Q. Yes. Well, could I -- Mr. Gusic, let me assure you I'm not going
25 to pick a quarrel on the topic of Mr. Hubic, but he's mentioned on an
1 order which I'm about to show you, so that's why I mention him.
2 MR. MORRISSEY: But could the witness please be shown Defence
3 document --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: D15, and it's DD00.0053, and it will be -- it's
6 to be marked MFI141.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I have it on full screen?
8 That's better.
9 MR. MORRISSEY:
10 Q. Very well. Now, do you see that there's an order from -- sorry,
11 just using your knowledge of the way orders are constructed. You can see
12 there that this is an order from the 29th of August, 1993 which authorises
13 a team consisting of the four individuals I just mentioned to coordinate
14 combat operations between the 4th and the 6th Corps in the Neretva River
15 Valley and to perform another function regarding the 3rd and the 6th
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. By the terms of that order, you don't suggest that any of those
19 individuals have got the power to issue commands to combat units in that
20 area, do you?
21 A. This is not an order. I just want to give you my comment. This
22 is an authorisation whereby this team is authorised to coordinate, which
23 means to provide a specialist assistant and coordinate actions. So that's
24 what it's about.
25 This is the first time I see this document, but I did not
1 necessarily have to see it, because there were people in the field and if
2 I ever had any doubts as to what had been asked of me, they could have
3 shown it to me. I really don't recall him being down there. He might
4 have. But I do recall the three generals -- or rather, one of them was a
5 brigadier. So I remember the three of them being there.
6 Q. Just a quick matter of terminology. None of these people were
7 brigadiers or generals at that time, were they?
8 A. No, not really. But if you don't mind --
9 Q. Sorry, they were senior staff officers effectively.
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 Q. And -- and each of them, because of their experience and -- and
12 perhaps also their age -- well, I'll withdraw that. I'll ask you
13 questions about the most senior person in the field doctrine a bit later
15 Very well. Now, with regard to those people there, you can see
16 that the preamble to this authorisation provides that it's done with the
17 objective of coordinating combat operations. Now, I just want you to
18 focus on that word "coordinating" for a moment. Coordinating -- the power
19 to coordinate is very different to the power to command, isn't it? It's a
20 different function altogether.
21 A. In this authorisation, for them to be able to command, it would
22 have to say that in accordance with their opinions they were able to reach
23 decisions. But this is missing. So this means they were not able to
24 command troops on the ground.
25 Q. Now, I appreciate you didn't see this -- you've got no
1 recollection of seeing this document, but I take it -- well, I suggest to
2 you that being senior and sensible staff officers, they would have made
3 it -- they, being Karic, Suljevic, Bilajac -- would have made it quite
4 clear to you what they were doing in the area, seeing as you were the
5 corps commander in the area; is that correct?
6 A. Yes. Yes. But I was not bound by their opinion. If I made a
7 decision different from theirs, they would probably inform the commander
8 right away. That is the role of coordination. But I was not bound by
9 their requests. I did not have to make decisions in accordance with what
10 they were offering me. But they could influence my decisions by reporting
11 to the commander on any decisions I made.
12 Q. Yes. Very well.
13 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I offer that document for tender.
14 Q. And perhaps for completeness on that question, they told you --
15 when you -- when you met these three at the end of August, they told you
16 nothing to contradict what was in that order, did they? In other words --
17 sorry, perhaps I'll put that a different way.
18 What they told you about their role was consistent with what's
19 contained in that order; is that correct?
20 A. I don't think they mentioned the authorisation at all. As I
21 said, they often came to my command even before this document was issued.
22 They were assisting me, because I did not have the required experience,
23 the experience required by the situation. So these were people I
24 frequently consulted. I'm sure I never asked for this document or saw it,
25 nor was there any need for them to mention it. I felt that their presence
1 in my area of responsibility was a great contribution because I could only
2 gain by their presence.
3 Q. Yes. Mr. Gusic, I think perhaps my question wasn't very clear
4 there. I'm not suggesting that you should have demanded the document.
5 What I'm putting to you is they told you they were there in the area with
6 the objective of coordinating combat operations and that they were there
7 to coordinate combat operations between the 4th and the 6th Corps in the
8 Neretva Valley and between the 4th and the 6th Corps in the Vrbas River
9 Valley and the general Fojnica area. Do you agree that that's in broad
10 terms that's what they told you at that time?
11 A. Yes. They were members of the superior command and they knew
12 what my tasks were and they came to assist me.
13 Q. Okay. So I've got some questions -- so that brings us to the end
14 of that week. And what's happened in that week is that you've been -- so
15 you agree in summary that the week after Zenica, you were given some tasks
16 by Delic, you were given a report by your intelligence chief, which we've
17 tendered, and -- and Karic, Suljevic, Bilajac arrived to perform -- to
18 perform --
19 A. Intelligence. Intelligence.
20 Q. I'm sorry, pardon me, yes. Thank you for that correction. But
21 that's the case, isn't it? Those three things happened?
22 A. And he was not an assistant. He was neither a chief or an
23 assistant. He was just an ordinary officer of the intelligence organ.
24 Q. Now, I want to take you now - and perhaps the Court should be
25 aware of what's about to come here - Mr. Gusic, to some matters of
1 doctrine which lie behind the drafting of orders. And perhaps I -- I
2 mention that it's important to do this in the abstract in order to explain
3 certain matters that come later on. So that I'm going to take you to that
5 Now, first of all, is there a system within the army known as
6 RIK, that is, commander and control?
7 A. [No interpretation].
8 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't get a --
9 A. Yes. Yes.
10 Q. My apologies. Thank you.
11 A. Yes, RIK. RIK. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Now, I'll come to the details of that in a moment. But is
13 there overlying the whole system of command and control a principle known
14 as the principle of single authority?
15 A. Certainly, yes.
16 Q. Now, I'm going to read you a passage, and you tell me if you
17 agree with this as a relatively adequate summary of the principle of
18 single authority or not.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is a passage I'm going to
20 read. It's about eight lines long or so, so -- so that's what's coming.
21 Q. And the quote is this: "In the system, RIK, consists of the
22 inviolable right of the commander to command and control subordinated
23 units, ensuring the appearance of only one superior in command and control
24 who commands. It is the right of the commander to make decisions, so he
25 alone bears the responsibility for this. The commander can transfer some
1 of his rights and obligations to the Chief of Staff, assistants, or
2 subordinated commanders but he cannot transfer responsibility for the
3 state and use of units. The command relationship is established by the
4 principle of subordination in a military organisation. A command
5 relationship is founded on the duty, right, and responsibility of
6 superiors to make decisions and designate tasks and the duty, right, and
7 responsibility of subordinates to carry out these tasks."
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Morrissey, would you please lay a
9 foundation for that quotation.
10 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, can I indicate it's something that's
11 likely to be led in evidence in the Defence case from a witness. It's
12 not -- I'm not seeking to put it as an authoritative quote from a rule.
13 Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "quote" at all. It's not my words.
14 It's just somebody who initially understood this better than I did. And I
15 use the term "quote" because I'm quoting from the notes that I have.
16 I'm not putting a document to him as an authoritative document.
17 I'm putting it as a view which he may choose to adopt. I do not seek to
18 put it as something that I rely on independently in any way. And, yes, I
19 apologise, I did use the word "quote" at the start. Your Honour is right
20 to point it out. But that's what I'm doing. I'm putting a view which I'm
21 inviting him to adopt, to reject, or perhaps comment on it in various
22 aspects. And I'll seek to --
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes. Ms. Chana.
24 MS. CHANA: I'm sorry if I interrupted counsel. I have no
25 objection to this quote being shown as a rule, but it's such a long quote,
1 and I think it's not fair to the witness to be able to try and remember
2 and questions -- I think a quote of this length should be before the
3 witness for him to see as he answers questions.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. In principle, I agree with you. But we will
5 see how much the witness get it.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I can now advance the situation.
7 This is taken from a Prosecution document, the original of which is called
8 [B/C/S spoken] and with which the witness might be vague and ambiguous.
9 And if it would assist, I'll just give it to the witness. The witness
10 would know this book, I would think, better than anyone else in the court;
11 at least that side of the court.
12 So it has -- it has a 65 ter number -- a Prosecution number P117.
13 And the -- and the relevant scan numbers are L0063322-L0063474. And what
14 we're seeking is pages 27 to 28. The heading is -- in English, the
15 heading is on page 27 and the bulk of the text is on page 28.
16 [Microphone not activated]
17 Q. Very well. Mr. Gusic, has that appeared on the screen or is it
18 being sought still?
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. We'd seek that that be turned to page 27
20 and 28. In B/C/S, 25. So Mr. Gusic will need 25.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you just put the beginning of
22 the page, because I don't have the chapter entitled "Single authority." I
23 think we need the previous page. I think it must be on page 27. Because
24 what I see here is "Operativeness and secrecy." I wish to comply with
25 what I am being asked, but I'd like to see what it's about.
1 Q. Of course. One moment, please. Mr. Gusic, just one moment
2 please. Can I inquire what page number you have in front of you there in
4 A. 28.
5 Q. Very well. Could Mr. Gusic please be shown the B/C/S version 25.
6 It's the English version that needs to be page 27.
7 While that's being done, can I indicate to the Court as a sign of
8 what must be seen as intellectual cowardice I had obviously copied in my
9 notes the precise terms of the manual which I was proposing to put at the
10 end of this line of questioning. So I apologise for reading it out if was
11 my own. I don't know where I got that idea.
12 Q. Do you now have page 25 in front of you?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And in the middle of that page, is there a section headed "Single
16 A. Yes. Yes, "Single authority." That's right, yes.
17 Q. All right. Well, rather than reading it out again and torturing
18 the Court and the witness, do you agree that that passage there accurately
19 states in a brief and manageable form the meaning of the concept of single
21 A. This here is the principle. It discusses the principle of single
22 authority. However, there is a more detailed account, more precise, and
23 that's in the rules of service. There is a chapter there on subordination
24 and superiority. This is simply the principle governing the rules.
25 Q. Mr. Gusic, should there be a need to go to that detail, that will
1 be done. But we have to proceed at a certain level of generality in this
2 court, and you confirm that that is -- that that's an accurate statement
3 of the general overarching principle of single authority?
4 A. Yes. But it is clarified in greater detail in the rules of
5 service more precisely, and the rules of service were binding.
6 Q. Very well. I understand that.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I tender -- I offer that for tender -- in
8 fact, I'd seek to tender those rules now at this stage. They would
9 be MFI412 -- sorry, 142. Thank you.
10 Q. Now, there's one more matter that I would seek to -- to ask you
11 to explain, and that is the five functions of command and control. Do you
12 agree that under the heading of command and control there are five
13 distinct functions, the names of which I'll now read to you: One,
14 planning; two, organisation; three, command; four, coordination; and five,
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is it accurate at this high level of generality of principle to
18 state that the system of command and control, RIK, contains "command" as
19 one of five elements?
20 A. All of this is command and control. I can't say there's only one
21 element called "command." All of this is command. The five elements you
22 listed contains "command," which is understood to mean issuing orders
23 directly. But all these five elements together constitute command and
24 control. We would be going very far if we were now to analyse
25 what "command" means and what "control" means. It would take a long time.
1 Q. Well, don't be concerned by that question of time for this
2 purpose. The word "rukovodjenje" is a distinct word from the word
3 "komandovanje," isn't it?
4 A. Certainly, yes. Control, to try explain it, is something similar
5 to direction or management; while "command" implies these five elements,
6 because simply issuing an order without planning and without taking into
7 account all these five points, is not a proper order. An order has to
8 have its five basic points. All of this together is command. And in the
9 context of your question, the command element that you listed implies
10 issuing orders, but all of this together is command and
11 control. "Control," however, does not imply issuing orders. Services and
12 control and commands command.
13 Q. Yes. And in short, the term "rukovodjenje" - and you'll have to
14 forgive me for the pronunciation problems.
15 A. Yes, I understand.
16 Q. "Rukovedjenje" itself, that word alone, does not include the
17 power to command but refers to the other, one might say, more --
18 A. No, it doesn't.
19 Q. Thank you. Whereas command --
20 A. These five functions refer both to command and control. I cannot
21 assert that "command" means simply issuing orders. No, "command" is not
22 merely issuing orders. There has to be an assessment, a plan, a decision,
23 a task, a coordination, who is to do what, and there has to be control,
24 how this is to be executed. All of this is command. So mere issuing of
25 orders is not commanding. Anyone can read an order, but the entire system
1 of command is more complex than what you are trying to say. What you're
2 talking about is simply issuing orders; whereas, "command"
3 includes -- "command and control" includes all the five elements you
4 listed. I agree with that.
5 When you are talking about control, "rukovodjenje,"
6 unlike "command," it means you can control personnel, certain services,
7 give guidelines. It's more like management. It's more management than
8 command. In the case of command, you're assigning tasks. That's why I
9 cannot agree that any one of the five elements you listed can be excluded.
10 All of them together constitute command.
11 Q. Yes. Thank you. Very well. We now leave the area -- the realm
12 of general principle for a moment in relation to military doctrine and
13 turn to some questions governing the powers of the Chief of Staff, the
14 powers of the deputy, and also some questions about what is the effect of
15 the most senior person on the terrain. And just so that you understand,
16 we remain in chronological terms. We remain at the end of -- at the end
17 of August effectively, having analysed Zenica, having gone through that
18 last week when the 6th Corps was undertaking the actions that you've
19 indicated. We're now pausing for these management sort of issues in order
20 to lay a basis for future questions.
21 Now, I have some questions for you about the Chief of Staff and
22 his or, indeed in theory, her functions. You were questioned by the
23 Prosecutor on Thursday about the powers attaching to the Chief of Staff,
24 the powers attaching to deputy commanders, and the powers attaching to
25 most senior people in the field. Do you recall that series of questions?
1 A. [No audible response].
2 Q. And isn't the -- the fact that -- I just want to do a very brief
3 background question here. I promise not to get sidetracked in it too
4 much. The Bosnian army effectively evolved out of the TO, the territorial
5 organisation; is that correct?
6 A. [No audible response].
7 Q. You'll have to speak because it's recording. I'm sorry.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And without going into the -- the precise appointments --
10 A. Not just the Territorial Defence. One unit was Territorial
11 Defence, but there were other units. There was the MUP, the reserve MUP
12 forces, the units of the Patriotic League, the units of the Green Berets.
13 There were different kinds of units. But the largest force were the
14 reserve MUP forces and the TO forces -- or rather, the Armed Forces of
16 Q. When you referred to the Green Berets, you're referring to one of
17 the many, if you like, local units that sprang up as volunteers under a
18 leader that -- that the unit effectively chose for itself; is that
20 A. [No interpretation].
21 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I've lost any audio connection.
22 A. I can't say that I personally selected them. These were
23 volunteers. I didn't choose them. This was a movement. I see it as a
25 Q. And although the -- look, I won't ask you for general comments.
1 I'll just -- we'll do that if we get the chance a bit later on.
2 Anyway, certainly by later in -- in -- in 1992, Sefer Halilovic
3 was effectively the senior military commander; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. He was my commander, among other things.
5 Q. And the head of the armed forces per se was in fact Alija
6 Izetbegovic, the president?
7 A. As the civilian commander, yes.
8 Q. Okay. Now, as we've seen -- now, you are a person who's very --
9 you don't wish to be -- or you didn't wish at the time to be involved in
10 the politics of Bosnia but you wished simply to serve as a soldier. Is
11 that your position?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right.
14 A. I attempted to adhere to that up to the end of my career, to
15 remain simply a soldier.
16 Q. Yes. Well, Mr. Gusic, without attempting to draw you personally
17 in any way into a political dispute, you remember Sefer Halilovic's
18 political position as he articulated it at Zenica was against the
19 partition of Bosnia under the plans such as the Vance-Owen Plan or the
20 Stoltenberg Plan; do you agree with that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Very well. Now, we've had evidence already that on the 8th of
23 June of 1993 Sefer Halilovic ceased to be the commanding officer in the
24 army and was replaced effectively in that condition by Rasim Delic, who
25 took up a newly created position as commander; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. When Sefer Halilovic was in charge of the army, people used to --
3 in the absence of formal ranks, people often used to refer to him as
4 simply "chief"; is that correct?
5 A. Chief, commander, depending on the situation.
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. On the ground, the soldiers addressed him as "commander." But
8 his close collaborators probably addressed him as "chief."
9 Q. Yes. Now, once Commander Delic became the commander on the 8th,
10 Sefer Halilovic functioned as the Chief of Staff of the Bosnian armed
11 forces; is that correct?
12 A. He was both deputy commander and Chief of Staff, because the OTP
13 showed the order where both these functions are listed.
14 Q. I'll stop you there --
15 A. But I didn't see it up until the moment --
16 Q. That's okay. I just want to stop you for one moment. This is an
17 important matter or can be an important matter later. He became the
18 deputy -- now, what I want to put to you is that he became the deputy
19 commander only five weeks later, when he was appointed under -- under
20 another order to be both Chief of Staff and deputy, that order being dated
21 the 18th of July of 1993.
22 A. I don't recall the date of the order I was looking at, but if I
23 saw it clearly - and I told you that I didn't have to see the order and
24 that I only saw it here - it seems to me that this is the order that the
25 OTP showed to me where it says that he was also deputy commander. I don't
1 want to sound as if I'm contradicting myself.
2 Q. No, no, no, Mr. Gusic. There's no -- it's okay. I'm going to
3 show you the order so that you can comment on it, and don't be concerned
4 about that.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: All right. Could the witness please be shown
6 D110. And I'll just provide you with the relevant numbers. It's
7 DD00.0439, and it's to be marked for exhibit 143, 143.
8 Q. Mr. Gusic, what I'm going to do is show you this order, and I'm
9 going to ask you to look at a couple of details of it in terms of the
10 power that was given to Sefer Halilovic.
11 While that document is being brought up, I'll just ask you some
12 general questions, if I may.
13 A. I have the first page.
14 Q. Yes. Very well. Okay. Well, just -- you can look at it if you
15 feel that you need to, but just let me ask you some other questions first
16 before I take you directly to it.
17 Normally speaking, a Chief of Staff has certain functions. It
18 has certain branches of the staff attached to his office. Is that
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And as far as you know, the usual situation is that the Chief of
22 Staff has got authority over the intelligence administration section; is
23 that correct? In the normal course of events, that's what a Chief of
24 Staff has?
25 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.
1 Q. And also has --
2 A. Over the administration for intelligence affairs, yes.
3 Q. Thank you. And also, the Chief of Staff normally has direct
4 control over the -- over the organ for mobilisation and organisation; is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. All right.
8 A. Again, it's an administration. You're talking about the Chief of
9 Staff at the level of the Army of BiH.
10 Q. Yes. Now, what I want to do now is to get you to look, please --
11 the page that's currently on is page 1. Could we please have the
12 following page, page 2.
13 We're just going to get you another page, Mr. Gusic. In fact,
14 the -- it's likely to be page 3, but if we take page 2 first and see if
15 that's the one.
16 Okay. Page 2 is the correct page.
17 Now, this decision has got two matters of importance. Because
18 we're talking about Chief of Staff, I'd like you to look at Roman numeral
19 III and look at number 3 underneath that.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, do you see here it describes the office of the Chief of
22 Staff -- of the Chief of the Main Staff command operations centre.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And he's -- it says that: "The Chief of the Main Staff is
25 directly linked" -- sorry. Pardon me. I'll take that -- I take a step
1 back from that.
2 This section directly links the office of the chief, the command
3 operations centre, the headquarters, administration, and combat arms
4 administration section. It directly links those to the Chief of the Main
5 Staff. Do you agree with that? It's in the first sentence there, and I
6 may be phrasing it wrongly, but ...
7 A. That's item 3.
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. That's all the organs and units linked to the Chief of the Main
11 Q. Correct. But would you please look now at the second sentence.
12 And I'll read it with you. It says: "The RV" - that's the air
13 force - "PVO," anti-aircraft defence, administration, "intelligence
14 administration, organisation and mobilisation administration, and
15 training, education, rules and regulations administration and the navy are
16 indirectly linked to the Chief of the Main Staff and directly to the Main
17 Staff commander."
18 Now, looking at that document, what that shows you, does it --
19 isn't it, is that Sefer Halilovic as Chief of Staff was in fact deprived
20 of the usual control that a Chief of Staff has with respect to the
21 specifics, intelligence administration and organisation and mobilisation
22 administration? Do you agree with that proposition, looking at that
24 A. Partly, yes. Because here there's the direct link with the
25 commander, yes. But that doesn't mean that he had no links with these
1 administrations. This was partly conditioned by the direct link that the
2 commander had. Now, what this actually meant, the persons who would be
3 best placed to answer that would be the Chief of the Main Staff and the
4 commander himself. But the way I can interpret it is that the commander
5 has the direct link and the Chief of Staff has the indirect link, and
6 that's not item number 2, as you said a minute ago, but item number 3.
7 Q. I thought I'd said 3, but in any event you're correct that 3 is
8 the one I'm referring to.
9 Mr. Gusic, can I put another interpretation to you and you tell
10 me if you agree with this. What this represents is an attempt by the
11 leadership of Bosnia to make sure that Sefer Halilovic was given as little
12 power as possible as Chief of Staff. Do you agree with that or not?
13 A. Again, you're inviting me to make a comment on something that I
14 am not aware of and cannot comment upon. It is a bit peculiar, the
15 provision as I see it here, and I don't know what reasons lay behind this.
16 Q. Very well. Let me just -- I'll have to -- because we've got the
17 document open in front of us now, I have to jump forward to a section that
18 concerns deputies. I'm sorry it is out of order, but because the document
19 is here, it will save time.
20 Would you please just look to paragraph 1 that's on the page in
21 front of you there, still under Roman numeral III, and look at the second
22 paragraph of that. Does that provide now that: "The Main Staff consists
23 of Main Staff commander, Main Staff commander's office, three deputy
24 commanders (Muslim, Serb, and Croat), the commander operations centre with
25 headquarters administration, branches, combat armed forces, and support
1 arms administration. The Chief of the Main Staff is also deputy commander
2 according to the establishment."
3 Now, do you agree that by virtue of that last sentence there Sefer
4 Halilovic became ex officio as Chief of Staff also a deputy commander and
5 that's how he came to be a deputy commander?
6 A. Again, you're inviting me to provide a comment that I cannot give
7 you with certainty. I cannot say how it was that it came about that he
8 became deputy commander. But it is a fact that he was deputy commander.
9 And now you're suggesting that this was ex officio. Now, I really don't
10 know whether he became deputy on the basis of that or whether it was on
11 the basis of -- of his knowledge and the influence that he exerted on the
12 arms developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. Well, it's quite obvious -- I understand you don't want to
14 speculate, but you don't have to. If you look at that last sentence, it's
15 quite clear that the Chief of Staff becomes the deputy commander simply by
16 being the Chief of Staff. Do you agree with that?
17 A. I don't know how to comment on this. I am not an author of this
18 order, nor did I have occasion to look at this order earlier on and
19 examine it more closely. I don't believe that his function as Chief of
20 Staff was the reason why he became deputy. I believe that Sefer Halilovic
21 was one of the men who was rightly placed and that he was one of the
22 deserving officers in the initial stages of defence. Now, if you're
23 asking me to agree with what you're saying, I cannot agree with that.
24 Now, I can only go into the realm of interpreting, and I've already told
25 you that I do not wish to interpret the orders of my superiors.
1 Q. Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Gusic.
2 Well, now I want to ask you some questions about the powers of
3 the Chief of Staff. We'll come back the that deputies issue, and I really
4 raised it because I occur there is.
5 MR. MORRISSEY: May I offer that document for tender, please.
6 Could I turn now to the question of the powers of Chief of Staff
7 to issue commands.
8 Q. In the past, you have been asked questions about the powers of
9 Chiefs of Staff by -- by investigators from the -- from the Office of the
10 Prosecutor here and -- sorry, you'll just have to excuse me a moment here.
11 [Defence counsel confer]
12 MR. MORRISSEY:
13 Q. Did you say on the 16th of November 2000 in a statement to the
14 Office of the Prosecutor at page 5 as follows? I'm quoting now from that
15 statement: "As far as I remember, there were no written regulations in
16 the BH army, in the Bosnian army, concerning the Chief of Staff. In
17 practice, in the Bosnian army the Chief of Staff did not have the power
18 to" -- sorry, "did not have the authority to issue binding orders. Only
19 in one case could this Chief of Staff issue binding orders, and this was
20 if the corps commander gave him such authority in writing. His only
21 authority was that he could order commanders of units to provide him with
22 information about the unit and order reports from them. The Chief of
23 Staff could not give binding orders to military security, military
24 intelligence, or military police."
25 And in the context of which you spoke, you went on to say: "This
1 was the prerogative of the corps commander."
2 Now, do you acknowledge the truth of what you said to the -- to
3 the investigator at that time?
4 A. What I said is what is contained in the rules that you showed to
5 me now during your examination. I was merely saying what was contained in
6 the regulations. I never saw this particular decree, and that's why I
7 spoke from memory that I believed that there were no other regulations
8 concerning Chiefs of Staffs, but I was not aware of the provision -- any
9 special instruction for the Chief of Staff -- of the Main Staff other than
10 those that were assumed from the JNA. I don't think that there were any
11 Bosnian ones, and I -- in the period of time we are talking about, for the
12 lower levels, and I still believe so today. Whereas, at the time I didn't
13 necessarily have to know whether there were such instructions because I
14 wasn't at that level of command.
15 Q. There's one other thing that you said. And I'd just ask you to
16 adopt the truth of this. This is at page 3 of the statement dated 16 to
17 17 November 2001.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: And could it I point out to the Tribunal that he
19 was interviewed on the same dates in 2000 and in 2001, so you have to look
20 at the -- at the years.
21 Q. You said: "In disciplinary terms, the Chief of Command Staff
22 could not directly punish any corps or brigade commander for any failures,
23 omissions, or violation of military discipline or law. However, he could
24 suggest to the commander of the Supreme Command Staff to take disciplinary
25 measures against the corps commander or any other commanders."
1 Is that true and is it based on the rules as you've described?
2 A. Yes. Unless he had the authority to command and then there was
3 breach of discipline in the course of a task being executed, he could in
4 that case impose some sort of a measure that he was authorised for, but
5 under normal circumstances this fell exclusively under the competence of
6 the commander.
7 Q. Excellent. Could I turn now to the deputy commander issue. Now,
8 as deputy -- a deputy commander could exercise command powers if and only
9 if authorised to do so by the commanding officer; is that correct?
10 A. I'm talking about the level that I'm familiar with, but I suppose
11 that the same is true for the Main Staff. It is true that he had to have
12 the authority of the commander to issue commands. And if we're talking
13 about normal circumstances, then usually the deputy would have some duties
14 related to the TO staffs on the strength of the corps. I'm talking about
15 this territorial principle of commanding. Whereas, the manoeuvre type of
16 commanding was entirely within the authority of the commander.
17 Q. Yes. Now, to summarise therefore the position relating to Chiefs
18 of Staff and deputies, you can't infer that a Chief of Staff is in command
19 of a particular operation merely because he is the Chief of Staff. In
20 order to find that he's the commander of an operation, you need to point
21 to an order authorising him to command that operation; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I believe that's quite customary.
23 Q. And the same applies for deputy commanders. A deputy commander
24 can command an operation but there needs to be an order specifically
25 permitting him to do so before he can; is that correct?
1 A. That's one and the same thing. But I don't want to contradict
2 what I said on Thursday, because at the time -- the period of time we were
3 referring to, there were no ranks, so people used to sign their orders
4 with their function. So they would put "deputy commander" in addition to
5 his name. So you'd always have the function discharging by the person and
6 then the name of the person signing. So the function was something that
7 was placed at the time instead of a rank. However, of course, this person
8 was unable to issue any such orders without having been authorised by the
10 Q. There was an additional reason why -- and sorry, and perhaps I
11 should say this: The custom was and in fact the rule was for deputy
12 commanders when signing an order as deputy to sign it, for
13 example, "Stjepan Siber" on behalf of the commander Rasim Delic; is that
15 A. Now you're actually cornering me to say that for a given period
16 of time the practice was different than the one I just mentioned. There
17 was the custom of signing with a "for," meaning "on behalf." You would
18 have a person signing "for" and then signing in their hand. So if we
19 received this letter by electronic mail, we would not know whether it was
20 signed by Rasim Delic or one of his deputies. Later on they would
21 write "under the authorisation of the commander," and then the function
22 and the name.
23 Now, I can't really remember whether it also applied to this
24 period in time that you would write "under the authorisation of" a given
25 person and then you would write your full name and function. So there
1 were different practices at different points in time. But one should be
2 able to trace and find these orders in the files, to find out -- to
3 establish what the practice was in a given period of time. But you are
4 right; there was a period in time when you were obligated to write "under
5 the authorisation" of a given officer and then your name.
6 Q. Okay. Well, --
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I just indicate -- I
8 understand we've gone a couple of minutes past the time designated, but
9 this section can be finished in about 60 seconds and I'd just seek the
10 Court's indulgence, if you don't mind. And I'm grateful for it.
11 Q. Just to conclude that matter. If the orders before this Court
12 shows Stjepan Siber signing in the way that I suggested on the 4th of
13 September and on the 16th of September, you wouldn't dispute that that was
14 the practice at that time, would you?
15 A. No, I wouldn't.
16 Q. Very well. The final question is that -- in terms of deputies,
17 there was a -- an additional reason why clarity was needed in giving
18 authority to deputies. When Rasim Delic had to authorise a deputy, unlike
19 most commanders, he had to make a choice between three deputies, didn't
20 he, pursuant to that order I just showed you of the 18th?
21 A. Well, this is definitely the case. This lay within his authority
22 to take decisions, and there was probably some sort of an order, a
23 procedure in place that he had to follow that I am not aware of, but it
24 was either his own discretion or there was a procedure in place for him to
25 follow, some sort of a schedule so to say, maybe on a rotational basis,
1 when was such-and-such's turn to be given authorisation. So there are
2 three possible options of how this could have taken place, but I don't --
3 I'm not aware of that.
4 Q. All right. You've been shown -- or there's been evidence in this
5 court and there'll be more evidence frankly of orders by Stjepan Siber
6 signed on behalf of Commander Delic. What I'm going to ask you now is:
7 Can you point to any order signed by Sefer Halilovic as deputy on behalf
8 of Commander Delic within your own knowledge?
9 A. That he was deputy, that he signed both as deputy and Chief of
10 Staff you mean?
11 Q. No, no. I just want you to point to any order where he signed as
12 deputy. Whether as Chief of Staff as well or not, I don't mind. But a
13 single order. Just -- you tell us if you know of one or if you've seen
14 one and if you have one, where he signed as deputy.
15 A. While I was talking to the Prosecutor, I saw an order where it
16 said "Chief of Staff," and below that "deputy commander." So I did see
17 one such document during proofing. But I can't tell you what the contents
18 of the order are. I did see it though. There were both functions signed
19 there. I never saw, however, only the function of deputy commander being
21 Q. On that map that's behind you, is there any mention of deputy?
22 A. No.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm going to move to a new topic, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, we'll take a break for 20 minutes.
25 We'll resume at quarter to 1.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: [Microphone not activated]
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, Your Honour, and sorry to the
9 Could I indicate for the convenience of the Court I will not
10 finish by the appropriate time today. I expect to finish very comfortably
11 within tomorrow.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes. But we have to stop today at 1.45 because
13 I don't want to eat time of the next case.
14 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. As the Court pleases. Thank you.
15 Q. Very well. I've completed my questions now about the Chief of
16 Staff and about the deputy. The Prosecution also asked you questions
17 about the powers to command attaching to the most senior officer present.
18 I want to just ask you about an example.
19 You will recall I showed you a minute ago an order dated the 26th
20 of August from Commander Delic to you ordering -- ordering you to
21 participate in certain combat activities in the Neretva Valley. Do you
22 recall me showing you that particular document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, clearly you were bound to obey that direct order of your
25 commander; correct?
1 A. Yes. It was carried out.
2 Q. Yes. Now, if Zicro Suljevic arrived at your corps headquarters
3 the day after you received that order and told you, "Do not carry out the
4 order of Rasim Delic," was that order of Suljevic binding on you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It is the fact that --
7 A. No. But if General Suljevic had made that comment, I would have
8 told General Delic about it.
9 Q. Yes. Well, I'm going to get to that in a moment. And I
10 understand your answer. But of course if Suljevic had authorisation from
11 Delic to do that, then his order does become binding; correct?
12 A. Yes. But he only had an order to coordinate combat operations,
13 not to annul the orders issued by the commander.
14 Q. Yes. I'm using this as an example to test a particular
15 proposition -- not a proposition I understand you to be advancing but a
16 proposition nevertheless. And that is this: That Suljevic was, if you
17 like, a senior commander to you, in terms of experience, age, and rank in
18 the former JNA and all the other indicators. Is that true?
19 A. No. No, not in the position he held down there. The
20 authorisation he had was only to coordinate combat operations, not to
21 change any decisions regarding the combat operations. It said explicitly
22 in his authorisation and that General Suljevic never attempted to overstep
24 Q. No. I -- Mr. Gusic, do you understand that I was -- I was
25 putting a hypothetical to you in that situation?
1 A. Well, he could have -- had he been authorised, he could have been
2 superior to me, but he never showed me any such authorisation nor did he
3 ever invoke it. But in principle yes, the commander could have authorised
4 him to do that. He could have written an order authorising him to do
5 that, but I know he never had any such authorisation, nor did he show it
6 to me, nor did he take any such measures. He never attempted to issue
7 orders to me. He never ordered me to do anything.
8 Q. And at a general level, is it the fact that the question of
9 whether a senior -- a more senior officer can command perhaps someone of
10 less experience really depends not so much on their seniority but on the
11 nature of the authority given to them by the commander? Is that a fair
13 A. The commander or whoever was with the commander. It worked two
14 ways. But yes, authorisation was very important.
15 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, I want to turn now to the -- to the
16 order given by Commander Delic to the inspection team in which he
17 appointed Sefer Halilovic as head of that team.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: And could the witness please be shown MFI108.
19 Q. Mr. Gusic, you've looked at this already.
20 MR. MORRISSEY: Actually, I just wish to recant that one. I'm
21 terribly sorry. Could the witness first be shown another order. I
22 apologise for that. And that is my fault. My notes were not in order.
23 Could the witness please be shown Defence document D41, the number
24 of which is DD00.0123. And it's to be marked for exhibit as MFI144.
25 Q. Mr. Gusic, I apologise for that sudden change. There's a
1 document I want to show you first before we get to the Delic order.
2 A. Yes, I have the document.
3 Q. Very well. Now, does this appear to be an order from back in the
4 year -- the year 1992 dated the 20th of August appointing -- just excuse
5 me a moment, please.
6 MR. MORRISSEY: Just excuse me, please.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 MR. MORRISSEY:
9 Q. Sorry. Before I ask you that question, could the witness please
10 be shown the following page.
11 A. Yes, I've seen that page.
12 Q. Very well. Now, is the document you're looking at there a
13 document which appoints an individual to command -- to a temporary
14 command, that individual being Dzemal Najetovic?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in addition, do you see the second in command there is Asim
17 Dzambasovic, who's also present in court here, being appointed as Chief of
18 Staff and deputy commander of that temporary command?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, does this order plainly and unequivocally state who is the
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And does it --
24 A. This is not an order. This is an appointment. And since you're
25 asking, probably because of the time in which it was written, you can't
1 see what formation this is. This is a command group. But of what? It
2 doesn't say. You can see clearly, however, who the commander is and the
3 officers assigned certain sections.
4 Q. Let's -- could we just go back now to the -- to the first page.
5 Do you have that?
6 A. Yes, I have it now.
7 Q. Very well. Now, do you have here a decision creating a temporary
8 command, JUG.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And is the effect of this decision an appointment which you have
11 before you to clearly state what the temporary command is and who is to be
12 in command of it?
13 A. It doesn't say clearly what this temporary command is, but it
14 does state clearly who is at its head. In item 2, the appointed commander
15 is authorised to form an organisational structure, so the commander will
16 say what it is. He is authorised to say what is being formed. But that's
17 not specified in this document. It forms only a command, not a unit.
18 Q. Yes. Now, because it forms only a command and not a unit, that
19 decision explicitly gives the power to that command to organise the unit
20 subsequently; is that correct?
21 A. [No interpretation].
22 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Gusic, you have to speak because it's recording --
23 A. To form a unit or a temporary formation, such as an operational
24 group or a combat group or something like that.
25 Q. Okay. Thank you very much.
1 MR. MORRISSEY: I offer that for tender.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Gusic, the reason I showed you that document is to -- to
3 enable you to comment on a proposition I want to put, that is, that in the
4 Bosnian army in -- in its early two years because of the situation,
5 because people -- because many of the officers and soldiers were not
6 trained, because there were some commanders who from time to time didn't
7 like to obey every order they were given, and for all the reasons that
8 we've heard about in this court, it was very important that when a person
9 was appointed to a command, that the person being appointed to the command
10 be clearly explained in an order. Do you agree with that?
11 A. In 1992, yes. Later on, there was a procedure to be followed and
12 it was slightly different, in the period after that. In 1992, yes, that's
14 Q. And in general -- well, perhaps I want to put this to you: In
15 1993, it was still crucially important that the creation of command
16 responsibility for any individual be made perfectly clear so that there
17 could be no confusion and no breach of the single line of authority which
18 is so important in military matters. Do you agree with that?
19 A. When a certain organisation was established, it was known who was
20 at the head of the army, who the corps commanders were, who the brigade
21 commanders were, so this whole procedure had already been defined.
22 Authorisation within the framework of posts to which people were appointed
23 followed from specific tasks. Depending on the task at hand, appointments
24 were written or authorisation to command was given.
25 Q. Yes. Very well. Now, with apologies again to the court staff,
1 may I return, please, to the document, marked for exhibit 108, that being
2 the order of the 30th of August from Commander Delic.
3 Okay. Do you have the document, Mr. Gusic?
4 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Very well. Now, could I just put some general propositions to
6 you about this order first of all. Firstly, you agree with this --
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay. Well, sorry, something has just occurred
8 to confuse us. That's okay.
9 Q. Mr. Gusic, sorry, it's not your problem.
10 Would you please now, just looking at that document, confirm this:
11 There is no reference to any particular military operation -- well,
12 perhaps I'll put it another way. There's no -- there's no reference to
13 Operation Neretva 93 at all on that document, is there?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And it follows blindingly obviously that there is no commander of
16 Operation Neretva 93 mentioned on that document. Is that also correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In fact, what you say is that at this time, that being the 30th
19 of August, 1993, you'd never even heard the name Neretva 1993 -- or
20 Neretva 93, I'm sorry; is that correct?
21 A. No. That's correct, that is. I hadn't heard of the name of the
23 Q. So whatever the basis is upon which Sefer Halilovic acted later
24 on, this order does not appoint Sefer Halilovic to be the commander of
25 Operation Neretva 93; do you agree with that?
1 A. He is not appointed by this order, but it gives him the
2 possibility of planning and conducting the operation.
3 Q. Very well.
4 A. In item 3.
5 Q. Yes. I'm going to come to each item in -- in due course,
6 Mr. Gusic. But at all events, you agree with my primary proposition,
7 don't you?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, look at the preamble at paragraph 1 and the bit -- the
10 preamble that comes before the words "I order." That -- the preamble of
11 that focuses upon conclusions reached at the consultations between members
12 of the supreme HQ and corps commanders by which I take it -- you would
13 take it to be a reference to the Zenica conclusions? Or perhaps I won't
14 ask you to speculate, but does that appear to be consistent -- does that
15 appear to you to be consistent with the Zenica conclusions as you knew
16 them to be?
17 A. Yes. Because there was no other meeting apart from that one in
18 this period.
19 Q. Yes. And it -- and it specifically aims -- addresses the aim of
20 eliminating current shortcomings and weaknesses in the zones of
21 responsibility of the 4th and 6th Corps; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I'm not going to bring it up on the screen now unless you
24 positively need it to be done, but you'll recall I showed you a document
25 earlier which was the document with the four people in the inspection
1 team, Karic, Suljevic, Bilajac, and Hubic? Do you recall that document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And do you recall that that referred to coordinating combat
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you agree that -- well, I'll come back to that, but anyway,
7 you recall it.
8 Now, look at -- under the order. The main tasks of the team are
9 as follows. And do you see that it sets out four main tasks for the team?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Very well. I want to ask you a question about the first of those
12 four tasks. Could you just look at that closely.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, do you remember that you explained before the break to this
15 Court the meaning of the word "rukovodjenje." Do you remember explaining
16 the meaning of that word?
17 A. Certainly, yes.
18 Q. And you -- you used terms -- you can't comment on the
19 translation, of course, but you used -- but as words to help explain the
20 meaning of that term to the lay people here, you equated "rukovodjenje" to
21 some degree with the concept of management or the concept of direction.
22 Is that an accurate way of paraphrasing what you told us about that word?
23 A. Yes. Yes. Yes. It is, yes.
24 Q. Now, could you just tell us that -- at the end of that sentence,
25 could -- well, would you please read the sentence out to the Court in your
1 language, in Bosnian, that first one.
2 A. You mean the first subparagraph in paragraph 1?
3 Q. That's exactly what I mean, yes. Read it to the end.
4 A. "Review of the combat readiness of the commands and units in the
5 field and control of combat operations."
6 Q. Stop there. Thank you. It's that last phrase which was
7 mentioned, "the control of combat operations." The word that you -- that
8 has been translated to us as "control" is "rukovodjenje"; correct?
9 A. No. No.
10 Q. Where does the word "rukovodjenje" appear in the -- in the
11 Bosnian version that you have in front of you there?
12 A. "Rukovodjenje" can mean "management," but "kontrola" [phoen] may
14 Q. Okay. But the word that's used in the original document in the
15 original order is "rukovodjenje" and not "komondovanje"; is that correct?
16 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.
17 Q. You've already explained the difference between those two words,
18 haven't you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Several times.
21 A. But now you say -- you now say that "rukovodjenje" equals
22 "kontrola." This is not correct because kontrola is only one element of
23 command and control or "komondovanje rukovodjenje."
24 Q. Very well. But although you -- you are correct to -- well,
25 perhaps -- I say -- you say that I should not substitute "kontrola"
1 for "rukovodjenje" but you'd equally agree that no one should
2 substitute "komondovanje" for "rukovodjenje" in that context.
3 A. Please, please. "Rukovodjenje" has five principles, just
4 like "komondovanje." It has five principles. "Kontrola" is one of the
5 elements of issuing specific orders In order to be sure that an order has
6 been carried out, we need to control or monitor this. This is only a
7 small segment of command. "Kontrola" in "rukovodjenje" is only a segment
8 of what we are conveying to the people we are managing, whether they are
9 carrying this out or not, whether they are complying. "Rukovodjenje"
10 cannot be the same as "kontrola." It includes "kontrola." It includes an
11 element of control but it cannot be control only. It is a much broader
13 Q. Mr. Gusic, I -- I must have misled you about the nature of the
14 questions, because you have made that clear already and -- and I'm not
15 attacking you about it. You -- I think you did answer my question, and
16 I'm sorry if I suggested that I was attempting -- I'm sorry if I tried to
17 suggest that "kontrola" equals "rukovodjenje," because that's not our
18 position, and I understand very well it's not your position.
19 Could I ask you to look at the second of those prongs, and
20 perhaps also just glance at the third and the forth of those as well.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, it's true to say that those four tasks are classic staff
23 functions, aren't they?
24 A. Yes, both the staff and the command. They are classic command
25 functions, not only functions of the staff but also of the command,
1 because this part which refers to cooperating with civilian authorities,
2 this is a function falling outside the domain of the staff. These are
3 functions of the command.
4 Q. You'll just have to excuse me. Sorry, Mr. Gusic.
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MR. MORRISSEY:
7 Q. Mr. Gusic, just -- there may be an interpretation problem here of
8 some significance, so I would ask you, please, to read out paragraph 1 --
9 just a moment -- just a minute -- commencing at -- you see the words "I
10 hereby order"?
11 A. I don't see that, but I do see the entire paragraph 1.
12 Q. Yes. Well, could you please read -- and read slowly so that we
13 can have it interpreted to us, because there may be something missing from
14 the English version that seems to have been provided here. Would you
15 please just read from -- from that -- the words "I hereby order" or "I
16 order," and the interpreters will -- will interpret and we'll then know
17 what it says.
18 A. "Form a professional inspection team to coordinate the work and
19 tasks in the zone of responsibility of the 4th and 6th Corps. The main
20 tasks of the team are as follows: Review of the combat readiness of the
21 commands and units in the field and rukovodjenje of combat operations.
22 Q. Thank you. Just stop there for a moment, please, Mr. Gusic.
23 Thank you for that.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it's evident that the English
25 translation is missing. And I don't know if it's missing on yours. I
1 presume we're looking at the same thing. It's quite evident that there is
2 a -- a segment missing, and the segment says "Form a professional
3 inspection team to coordinate the work and tasks in the zone of
4 responsibility of the 4th and 6th Corps."
5 MS. CHANA: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Ms. Chana.
7 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I might be able to assist in this. I
8 asked our case manager to look up, and we have -- there were two
9 translations done on this particular document, and this is not the one
10 which had been put forward. The one we have is this particular passage
11 that counsel is trying to read, it says "To evaluate the combat readiness
12 of the command units in the field to direct combat operations," is what
13 the CLSS translation -- the word is -- we can put it on the ELMO, Your
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me that there are several places
16 missing in the English text in front of me at least.
17 MS. CHANA: Yes.
18 JUDGE LIU: This is a document used, I believe, by both parties
19 in the direct and cross-examination. And could I order that the language
20 section of this Tribunal check the language in this document compared with
21 the two versions of the translations this afternoon and, if possible, to
22 provide us with a more or less correct copy for tomorrow because tomorrow
23 I'm sure that we are going to deal with the admission issues. I want to
24 admit the most correct document, you know, into the evidence.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, could I assist the Court in this
1 regard. The Defence has prepared a -- or has had prepared a further
2 revised translation of this document. Now -- perhaps -- might I just
3 say -- sorry, could I just issue an apology to Mr. Gusic. This has got
4 nothing to do with him. It's a translation issue and perhaps he should be
5 made aware of that.
6 That, Your Honour, what we have is -- we've got copies of this.
7 And perhaps if I could -- if I could provide hard copies for the purpose
8 of discussion now because it's a matter of some significance. So could I
9 provide these.
10 JUDGE LIU: So you are suggesting that at this moment we will
11 have three copies of the translation --
12 MR. MORRISSEY: It may be -- it may be that this one will suffice
13 as an accurate translation.
14 I must say, Your Honour, I'm going to confess to be caught by
15 something there. My learned assistant, legal assistant here, helped.
16 But, Your Honour, we -- this translation is from the head of the CLSS
17 translation division and it was done on a specific request for -- by us.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Could I --
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Chana.
21 MS. CHANA: This is a document the Prosecution has always been
22 working on. This is the version that the CLSS translated and that's the
23 one I used in my opening speech and that's the version I've been -- the
24 Prosecution has put in as an exhibit.
25 Now, Your Honour, obviously there --
1 JUDGE LIU: So at this proceedings, my suggestion is that we'll
2 use the document, whatever available at this stage, and after today's
3 sitting the language section will provide us with a more correct
4 translation, taking into the consideration of the three copies of the
6 Am I right? Is it agreeable?
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, I'm going to -- it will be
8 agreeable unless Your Honour agrees to the other suggestion that I have,
9 because it is -- it's a sensible one, if I may say so, with respect.
10 But what's happened here, I should explain why it is that it's
11 come up, because it's a matter of some significance, if you -- in this
12 case, this is a command responsibility case, as the Court knows, and in
13 one of the translations, at point 1, if you have on the -- the order in
14 front of you there, you'll see the English order that's currently on the
15 screen ends the sentence: "To estimate the combat readiness of the
16 commands and units in the field and to command the combat operation."
17 Now, the Defence says that that word "command" there is an
18 absolute terrible error and that it's obviously wrong because the word
19 used is "rukovodjenje" and not "komondovanje."
20 I wonder if the Court now -- as a result of seeing that, we
21 became aware of that sometime ago and we had intentions, which obviously
22 events have passed by, of attempting a coup in cross-examination, which we
23 now are not going able to do because events have moved past us. However,
24 we did as a result of that have a -- what we think is a correct
25 interpretation made, and that's the document that's been given to the
1 court usher. Now, that's been done by the head of CLSS, and what might be
2 acceptable is if we produce that now, have the inquiry made of CLSS that
3 they authenticate it, but it's authenticated in the materials that's
4 given, and proceed on that more correct document, if that's agreeable to
5 the Court.
6 JUDGE LIU: Is this agreeable to the Prosecution?
7 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, may I just take a moment to see what
8 Mr. Morrissey has said?
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 MS. CHANA: I was not concentrating.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course.
12 MR. MORRISSEY: While my friend is doing that, I might mention
13 something else that -- it appears --
14 JUDGE LIU: Wait a minute, please.
15 MS. CHANA: Yes, Your Honour. I mean, I think that's -- that's
16 probably the most sensible thing to do, is to eventually get the, as
17 Mr. Morrissey said, CLSS to authenticate as to which one is the correct
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, I mean, at this stage do you allow the Defence
20 team to distribute the copy they believe is more authentic translation?
21 MS. CHANA: Yes. The -- the Defence counsel can continue with
22 this line of cross-examination, but they must be -- have in mind, Your
23 Honour that, we have a different translation and we just bring it to the
24 attention of the Court. I don't know how much value that would be to
25 continue in that regard, but we leave it to the Court whether it --
1 JUDGE LIU: Is it possible to distribute forwards your copy at
2 the same time?
3 MS. CHANA: I think that's probably -- would be more sensible,
4 Your Honours, if they can have both as their -- as they examine this
5 witness on the meaning and put it to the witness.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's have the both copies distributed.
7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, we are bound by what Your Honour
8 says, and we'll proceed on that basis.
9 But I just want to mention something else that's a matter of
10 significance, that we think the Prosecution has two copies, two different
11 and competing translations circulating in this court, because we saw one
12 the other day where that word "command" on the second line was rendered
13 as "direct." So that -- and I believe -- it was either shown on the
14 Sanction system or during the opening, but I think it was done in evidence
15 in chief with this witness on the Sanction system. And what that means is
16 that there has been shown in this court a document that's new, that's
17 different to what we had, and it would have to be said, quite frankly,
18 different to what the Confirming Judge had, different to what the expert
19 witness was shown, and in short different in a way that is -- well, the
20 Court can see exactly how it's different and the evidence is quite plain
21 as to how it's different, so I won't rehearse that.
22 Now, we're concerned about that because the basis on which this
23 whole case proceeds has been opened in rather broad terms, and the Court
24 has extended some latitude in order to let the Prosecution develop its
25 case. We have made our protest. Your Honours have made a ruling. But
1 precision in terms is important. And if that document, as has always been
2 part of the Prosecution's case, is said to form somehow part of the
3 Neretva 93 command structure, which attaches to Halilovic, then it's a
4 document which was always of central significance. And in that situation,
5 to have two competing translations floating in the court, even before the
6 Defence made its contribution by adding a third, is a matter of concern
7 because it's just not clear that the Prosecution themselves know which
8 version they want to run with, because they've shown two.
9 Now, this is not an attempt to attribute impropriety or
10 sneakiness at all. It's just a demonstration that -- that the Confirming
11 Judge seems to have proceeded on the basis that this was an authority to
12 command. And that's been shown and it's been shown to you now as command.
13 Whereas, earlier in the case there was one that said "direct" and the
14 evidence of the witness is pretty plain as to what it all means.
15 So I make those comments. We'll have to make submissions about
16 them tomorrow. The witness is now here. And if I might proceed with the
17 questions, I will. But I think I have to put those matters on the map,
18 otherwise it's going to become difficult to ...
19 MS. CHANA: Your Honour.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
21 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry may I just make one point so that my friend
22 can respond now in general.
23 It's for that reason, among others, that we ask for a detailed
24 chain of custody of exhibits over a long period of time. We just wanted
25 to know how this came about and how such a mistranslation could happen.
1 And you'll see the comments made when the inquiry is made of CLSS. We've
2 got correspondence from CLSS about it and frankly it's a weird error, a
3 very big error. Well, it's one that could be detected even by me,
4 frankly. That means it must be very big.
5 So that -- yes, those are the matters that I'd raise now. We'd
6 seek to make some submissions about them tomorrow while my friend can
7 respond, and then I'll proceed with questions.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Ms. Chana.
9 MS. CHANA: Your Honour, I just want to make this point which I'm
10 advised by my case manager, that we did produce -- this is the translation
11 of CLSS. We produced it. Only the technicians did not get it into the
12 system. Otherwise, we would not have this problem we're having today had
13 the technicians succeeded in getting it into the system after we displayed
14 it on Sanction --
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MS. CHANA: We showed it on ELMO and -- via the ELMO, and that's
17 when it didn't get into the system.
18 But be that as it may, Your Honours, I think that perhaps a short
19 break now so we can go to CLSS and find out which is the definitive copy,
20 because this is the Defence's own -- they have asked the CLSS to translate
21 their copy, and that's why we have competing translations.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Thank you.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I think my friend misunderstood the
24 point. The point is which of the two Prosecution ones do they want to
25 rely on. We know that our one is different and we know that that will be
1 discussed. The Prosecution have two of them. Now, let them say now
2 clearly that this should not be something they need to go to CLSS about.
3 It's something they can answer themselves, which of their two do they rely
4 on? The one on the screen or the one that was shown earlier.
5 So I'm sorry, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, --
7 MR. MORRISSEY: We need an answer to that.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, another subject: Mr. Morrissey, could you
9 please at this stage indicate how much time you still need to finish your
11 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm just troubled by how long this section is
12 going to take now, but leaving this section out of -- out of account as a
13 wild card, I should think two hours.
14 JUDGE LIU: Two hours?
15 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. I've covered most of the theoretical
16 topics. There's now factual matters which -- which do involve documents,
17 and that takes time. The theoretical topics are now --
18 JUDGE LIU: My concern is that we have to finish the testimony of
19 this witness tomorrow because on Wednesday and Thursday we'll have the
20 videolink, you know, witnesses.
21 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
22 JUDGE LIU: Otherwise, this witness has to stay here for another
23 two or three days.
24 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I -- I bear in mind those problems,
25 and we -- Your Honour may have seen there's been some slicing of -- of --
1 of areas, but it's -- there are some areas that are just central to our
2 case that I can't leave. And certainly in relation to the issues of
3 deputies and Chiefs of Staff and so on, they were opened very broadly.
4 And I have to shoot those down if I -- I have to deal with those. I mean,
5 I have to endeavour to shoot those down. And -- and I have to do that in
6 the abstract because the Prosecution led the evidence the way they did.
7 I have completed so much of the cross-examination as I'm meaning
8 to do on the theoretical side of it. This witness is now going to be
9 cross-examined about this document, and as I indicated, about the -- the
10 early days of the inspection team in Herzegovina, about the visit of
11 Delic, the Dobro Polje meeting where plans were made, and we're going to
12 part company. And then what happened after that, in terms of Grabovica,
13 Uzdol, the involvement, if any, of this witness in that era, the
14 cease-fire orders, and I've already finished after the 20th, as Your
15 Honours will recall. We did that part quite early on. So that's what
16 remains. It's directly relevant. None of it's scene-setting any more.
17 It's all relevant material.
18 I expect that we will finish this witness tomorrow, including
19 redirect, including Your Honours' questions, even if they be relatively
21 JUDGE LIU: I hope you could have it done in 90 minutes, that is,
22 one hour and a half.
23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I shall set myself the goal. I --
24 yes, well, all I can say is I shall do my best, but it is -- this witness
25 has given crucial evidence.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course, I agree with you.
2 And since this issue is a very important issue in this document
3 which may be just a mere issue of translation, and at this moment we have
4 three copies of the translation floating on the floor of this court, so we
5 might stop here, which is about 12 minutes early, for today and ask the
6 translation booths to give us a more proper or more correct translation by
8 As for the reason why there's so many copies of the translation,
9 I believe that we'll find some other time to look at it without the
10 presence of the witness.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I'll be guided by the Court, but I
12 can certainly -- if it would assist, I can use the 12 minutes to ask
13 questions about something else, if -- but it's a matter for Your Honour.
14 If that seems to be an inelegant way, I'll stop now.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you change your topic, you're welcome to
16 make the best use of the time available.
17 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
19 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.
20 Q. Very well. Well, Mr. Gusic, my apologies for that -- that swerve
21 away from questions. We'll quickly turn to some other matters. Because
22 of the translation situation, which is not your fault, we're going to have
23 to move to something else. And I want to ask you some questions about the
24 position as you understood it to be in the villages of Uzdol and Grabovica
25 in that first week or first two weeks of -- of September.
1 Now, in Grabovica, you -- sorry, perhaps I'll -- first of all,
2 you are familiar with the village of Grabovica; correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And --
5 A. I know where it's situated.
6 Q. Yes. At that time -- we have had in this court sworn evidence
7 that two units of the Bosnian army, one called the Handzar Division and
8 one called Cedo's Wolves, were billeted in huts or buildings on the
9 left-hand side of the village of Grabovica at which location also lived
10 Croatian villagers.
11 Now, my question to you is this: Did you know that at that time
12 there were living and had been living for some time Bosnian soldiers
13 living effectively next door to -- to Croatian -- old Croatian villagers?
14 Did you know about that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Mr. Gusic, the fact is that in towns -- or in Jablanica -- I'll
17 take Jablanica as an example. But in Jablanica, there was a multi-ethnic
18 community; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Perhaps predominantly Bosniak, but there was a significant Croat
21 presence as well; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And in that time --
24 A. What does "a significant presence" mean? It's not really
25 specific. What do you mean by "a significant presence"? But there were
1 both Croats and Bosniaks present there. Now, the numbers, that's a
2 different matter.
3 Q. And throughout July and into August -- well, perhaps I'll put it
4 another way. In August of 1993, there was a significant flow of refugees
5 into that area from HVO-occupied areas; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Jablanica began to fill up with refugees; is that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And although you weren't directly involved with the civilian
10 authorities, you knew that the civilian authorities were having a lot of
11 trouble finding places to put these refugees; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And among other people, it was Dr. Safet Cibo who had that job,
14 who was a member of the War Presidency in Jablanica?
15 A. He wasn't a member of the War Presidency. He was the president
16 of the Presidency of three municipalities: Jablanica, Prozor, and Konjic.
17 So he wasn't a member; he was the most responsible person in the civilian
19 Q. Certainly. Now, that flow of refugees did not stop in August but
20 simply continued as prisoners -- as ex-prisoners came across from
21 HVO-controlled territory; is that correct?
22 A. I don't have any reliable information about that matter, but
23 probably the answer is yes. Probably so.
24 Q. And certainly from the point of view of accommodating soldiers,
25 you knew yourself that accommodating soldiers became more difficult
1 because refugees were taking up much of the available accommodation in
2 various towns; is that true?
3 A. I did not myself deploy them to these areas in order for me to
4 know that. Probably the circumstances were quite difficult.
5 Q. As a higher-level commander, a corps-level commander, was it your
6 duty to directly supervise the deployment of troops under your command to
7 various huts, houses, or barracks?
8 A. You mean the soldiers under my command?
9 Q. Yes. I just mean the soldiers under your command and not to
10 enter into the controversy about who was in command of Neretva 93 at this
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And --
14 A. But the soldiers of the 6th Corps were not billeted to private
15 homes to share these premises with the civilians. There were barracks or
16 bases where they were billeted. They were not put up in private housing
17 and thus share the housing space with the civilians.
18 Q. But you're aware, aren't you, that Cedo's Wolves were living in
19 the village of Grabovica in September of 1993.
20 A. I'd know it if I hear it from you. I know that they were engaged
21 in the Neretva operation, but I don't know that they were living in
22 Grabovica, because I did not command the Neretva operation nor did I
23 deploy the units, the forces.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you.
25 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, just one -- I'm reminded. Could I
1 mark the distributed translation document, one of the three, as MFI145,
2 subject, of course, to what happens at a later time?
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm afraid not at this stage because we are not
4 going to use this document at this stage. I hope --
5 MR. MORRISSEY: As Your Honour pleases.
6 JUDGE LIU: The documents you distributed are just for the
7 reference purpose, you know. And later on - I hope before tomorrow's
8 sitting - that both parties, as well as the court's deputy, could meet
9 together and to reach kind of an agreement which document we are going to
10 proceed on.
11 MR. MORRISSEY: As the Court pleases. Yes.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
13 MR. MORRISSEY:
14 Q. All right. Now, your -- the flow of refugees was capable of
15 interfering with or impacting upon military operations; is that correct?
16 And perhaps I'll expand that question. The flow of refugees was relevant
17 to your military operations and you were kept therefore informed about it
18 by your own staff; is that correct?
19 A. Well, this lay within the jurisdiction of the civilian
20 authorities. They were the ones to take care about the arrival of
21 refugees, their accommodation, food provided to them, so that the corps
22 command had no obligations whatsoever in that respect. What's more, it
23 had its own problems in terms of finding food for the troops, because
24 there were very few staple foods and there was no fuel to prepare them on.
25 We didn't have our own stock to draw upon, and we had to rely on the
1 presidents of the municipalities for food.
2 Q. Two -- sorry, perhaps -- could I stop you there for a moment.
3 There's two things I want to raise out of that. The first one is: When
4 troops came in from outside of your zone, they had to be accommodated as
5 and where a place could be found for them; for example, in schools in
6 Jablanica. Is that correct?
7 A. Whatever premises were available. I cannot confirm now with
8 certainty what these premises were. I only know that we did not have any
9 camping gear, and we could only put them up into the existing facilities
10 or let them sleep outdoors, which would have been the worst possible
11 option, one not to be drawn upon. They had to, therefore, be put up
12 wherever available.
13 Q. Yes. And frankly -- and first, you've mentioned the issue of
14 tents. It wasn't until many years later that the Bosnian army had enough
15 tents to accommodate its troops outside; is that correct?
16 A. It was only with the signing of the Dayton Accords and the
17 receipt of donations that it provided with equipment to put its troops
18 into tents.
19 Q. The Dayton Accords are in which year?
20 A. 1995.
21 Q. Mr. Gusic, this is a weather question. I'm going to ask you
22 whether it was raining on a certain night 12 years ago. But you may
23 recall it because it's the night when Commander Delic came to town in
24 Konjic. And we have the book of Sevko Hodzic and we have statements of
25 other witnesses. So maybe if you cast your mind back to when Delic was in
1 town. Was there a major storm, a major rainstorm on that night and on
2 those days around it, to your memory?
3 A. I kindly ask you not to enquire of me such pieces of data.
4 Whoever had any information available about the weather conditions
5 probably had -- relied upon some sources. The month of September is a --
6 is one with changing weather, and that's true. Now, whether it was
7 raining at the time or not, I don't know.
8 Q. Okay. The final question for today, and this relates to the
9 village of Uzdol and perhaps to the front line more generally: Was it
10 your intelligence at the 6th Corps at that time that the HVO was planning
11 a large-scale attack on parts of the front line that are depicted on that
12 map next to you, the Operation Neretva 93 map?
13 A. I think that there were certain indications that preparations
14 were underway for a mass-scale attack on the other side, but we did not
15 have any specific intelligence as to when the attack might commence.
16 These were simply assessments based on intelligence pointing to the
17 movement of some forces.
18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, those are the questions for today.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
20 And we are adjourned for today and will meet again 9.00 in the
21 same courtroom.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 8th day of
24 February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.