Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1

1 Friday, 11 March 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam 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: Well, I believe there's something the parties would

9 like to raise.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. There's just one matter I'd

11 like to raise.

12 Your Honours, as indicated yesterday, we are racing very hard to

13 have ready a witness -- sorry, a document list concerning this witness.

14 Frankly, as the evidence unfolds, it may well be that that list

15 becomes much shorter, and indeed I anticipate that is what's going to

16 happen, quite frankly. So we have draft -- handwritten preliminary list,

17 and Mr. Cengic is absent from court now because he's working on that very

18 list.

19 But what I would ask is that when the learned Prosecutor has

20 finished the evidence in chief in this matter, we be permitted to have a

21 longer than usual break for two reasons: First of all, to enable that

22 list to be completed in a relaxed way, I think is the best way to put it;

23 and secondly, to get some instructions on particular issues. Obviously

24 for a long time this witness has been prepared with particular issues in

25 mind. It may well be now that there are some documents that the learned

Page 2

1 Prosecutor has quite properly put to him and that may relieve us of the

2 need to do that. And if we were granted that small amount of extra time,

3 I think it would mean we'd be able to -- to provide a realistic list of

4 the documents that we're going to use before we start, rather than doing

5 it piecemeal.

6 And secondly, I'm relatively confident that it would mean a much

7 shorter cross-examination, quite frankly. We just want to wait until the

8 end of this -- until the end of the evidence in chief before we make any

9 decisions. So for that reason, I would ask the Court's indulgence for an

10 extra 30 minutes of time to take instructions and to perform those

11 functions.

12 JUDGE LIU: Okay. Could I ask approximately how long do you need

13 to cross-examine this witness? I mean, today is Friday, and we hope we

14 could finish this witness today.

15 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I would have said there was no

16 chance of doing that, but there is now a chance of finishing him today, in

17 my opinion. He was a witness through whom many of these documents

18 concerning the investigation were to be put, as Your Honours might have

19 inferred. Many of those documents were put to Mr. Gusic; many were put to

20 Mr. Jasarevic. But the fact is the Prosecutor has also put some of those

21 documents in now.

22 It -- the situation is unclear, but it seems to me that there's

23 a -- there is a possibility to finish him today, but I -- in order to do

24 that, I really need to get instructions on particular matters. And as you

25 know, we can't visit Mr. Halilovic in person during the week. You know,

Page 3

1 we can in afternoon sessions. But obviously this witness commenced

2 yesterday.

3 So I would ask for that time. But could I -- yes, could I say

4 that normally I was planning for a little over a day of cross-examining

5 for this witness, but I foresee that it will be shorter. And it may be

6 much shorter than that, significantly shorter.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, I still note that next Monday we don't have the

8 courtroom. The Appeals Chamber will take this courtroom for another case.

9 So there's no sitting for us on Monday.

10 If we did not finish this witness today, so that witness has to

11 stay in The Hague for another four days.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Your Honour, I very much bear that in mind.

13 If I could put it in these terms: The -- the witness gives

14 evidence of some importance in the case, and I want to make sure I've got

15 instructions that are quite clear on particular topics. But the substance

16 of the instructions I'm going to be taking and discussing with

17 Mr. Halilovic will be: Do we need to ask any questions about a particular

18 topic? So it will be -- they'll all be designed -- or they'll all have

19 the effect of potentially reducing, rather than increasing the time of

20 this witness.

21 And could I indicate this, too, Your Honours, that I would ask

22 for that time of the extra half an hour because this witness has been

23 brought forward in somewhat of a hurry to accommodate him. But if we

24 should finish before that time was completed, we could of course advise

25 the court deputies immediately and may be we could reconvene earlier than

Page 4

1 that time. And that is also possible, so that -- anyway, those are the

2 matters that I have to raise, and I thought I better raise them at the

3 start.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Any response?

5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I've -- we've got no objection to the

6 additional 30 minutes of break time to -- if it can move the case along.

7 I just wanted to know: Would this be an ex parte list that's

8 being filed, number one? And number two -- since this list that they want

9 to file with the Court, a list of exhibits, will this be an ex parte list?

10 And number two, since the list is already finished, can the list

11 be provided to the Prosecution if it's going to be provided to the

12 registry and the Judges. Also, if there are going to be any long

13 documents that we haven't seen, could we have the documents in paper form

14 in English, because if there are going to be any long documents that are

15 going to be introduced through this witness, we would then request some

16 time to read the document, each document before they be given to the

17 witness.

18 We went through this problem in the last few weeks. I understand

19 they don't want to produce their list of -- of their documents prior to

20 the witness getting on the stand. But once he's on the stand, can they

21 either provide us with a list or -- or once he's completed testimony, the

22 list or the documents themselves, because the system is slow. You have to

23 get out of the regular LiveNote, then go into the history, and then go

24 through page by page. And if it's a long document, it's a very slow

25 process. And we cannot be able to object or even analyse the document if

Page 5

1 we haven't seen it before. It's just going to slow things down. So we

2 would ask that even though they don't have to provide documents ahead of

3 time, when the witness is finished, give us the witness list, and if

4 they're long documents and they're not in English, please provide us

5 whatever they can.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think it's a reasonable request.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, it's not only reasonable in part,

8 but it's one that was -- is the subject of ongoing discussions between the

9 Defence and Prosecutors. So my learned friend is not raising it for the

10 first time now.

11 Discussions have taken place between myself and Mr. Re. Frankly,

12 we understand the Prosecution position about the lengthy documents. There

13 are no lengthy documents that are going to be put through this witness

14 here.

15 One might foresee some with Mr. Karavelic or with a -- or with an

16 expert, so that in those situations we are going to work on some agreement

17 that is viable for both sides but doesn't flout the spirit of the e-court.

18 So in that -- with regard to the paper issue, there are discussions that

19 should happen.

20 As to the providing of a list, the list that's provided to the

21 Court is confidential to the Court and not given to the Prosecutors

22 because a decision hasn't finally been taken to use all of those

23 documents.

24 Some of them are just there to remind a witness in case he

25 doesn't give a testimony. Sometimes the witness will say in 20

Page 6

1 seconds, "Yes, this did happen." Then you don't need to waste the Court's

2 time with a long document. So for that reason we don't want to be

3 giving -- giving a list -- the list that the Court is getting to the

4 Prosecutors in advance in the way that's being asked. And we don't

5 believe that we have to do that.

6 But in terms of embarrassing the Prosecutors with the -- with

7 lengthy documents for the first time, there really is an issue about that

8 because of the way that the e-court is slow to go between pages. And the

9 Prosecutor is entitled to deal with that, I submit, on a case-by-case

10 basis. But I do indicate to the Court, as Your Honour said, it's

11 reasonable that something should be worked out. We are working on it and

12 we are going to provide in some form access by the -- for the Prosecutors

13 to those sort of things.

14 Could I indicate actually where that discussion is up to now. We

15 would prefer from the Defence side to spare us the need for work to

16 release the document electronically but allow the Prosecutors to print it,

17 to have a printer if the Court is happy for them to have such a thing in

18 court so that they can print the document immediately it's released and

19 then they can have it in hard copy. If that's unacceptable, if it can't

20 be achieved, then it may be the Defence will agree to go and photocopy it

21 ourselves and provide a copy to the Prosecutors.

22 I'm being asked to slow down. That's where the discussion is up

23 to the at the moment, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, I don't think the Prosecution was asking too

25 much. It's just a list of the documents you used after the

Page 7

1 cross-examination of that witness. I believe it's a reasonable request.

2 I --

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Your --

4 JUDGE LIU: And especially for those, you know, documents that

5 you had your own source. It's not from the Prosecution but, you know,

6 from your own collections.

7 [Defence counsel confer]

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, in terms of providing a document --

9 a list of documents used after cross-examination of the witness, we see no

10 objection to that being done at all. And the only reason why we don't

11 want to provide it before the cross-examination is because, to keep

12 freedom of action in relation to certain of those documents.

13 MR. WEINER: Your Honour --

14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

15 Yes, Mr. Weiner.

16 MR. WEINER: You said "after cross-examination."

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

18 MR. WEINER: Do you mean after examination-in-chief? I mean,

19 after our examination-in-chief, they provide the list of documents before

20 cross-examination. If it's after cross-examination, that doesn't do

21 anything for us. We still are -- I think that was a slip of the tongue,

22 Your Honour.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, I said "after cross-examination."

24 MR. WEINER: If it's after cross-examination, we're still in the

25 same situation. If it's -- we just need to see the document before

Page 8

1 they -- they question the witness because we're left at a disadvantage.

2 We have to start looking -- we're going to have to ask for a break or a --

3 or time to reach each document before they ask the witness each -- any

4 questions. That's how it's been done in any other case. If you don't

5 want to give them ahead of time, at least when the witness is finished on

6 examination-in-chief, you give us the list -- or give us a hard copy. We

7 don't even want their list. When they ask a witness about a document,

8 just turn it over to us. Just hand us a hard copy so we can look at it

9 quickly. Other than that, we can't look on the screen to see what they're

10 even talking about; quick enough to see what the document is. If it's a

11 three, four-page document, we're at a disadvantage; we can't see it.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that this Bench has already made a

13 ruling on this issue already. I haven't seen any sufficient evidence for

14 us to withdraw that ruling at this moment

15 MR. WEINER: We're not --

16 JUDGE LIU: Secondly, this practice has been used in other cases

17 before. We are not the only case applying this kind of practice. So

18 there's no discrimination against our Prosecution in this case.

19 Thirdly, this practice will apply to Defence in the future

20 because when the Defence have their case in chief, they certainly will

21 face the same problem as you do right now.

22 Although there's a doctrine of equality of arms, but I think for

23 the same practice the Defence is still in a disadvantaged position because

24 of limited resources on their part.

25 But anyway, we'll look into the practice and jurisprudence of

Page 9

1 this Tribunal for all other cases to see whether there's some way out for

2 that problem.

3 So could we have the witness, please.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, witness.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

7 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good. Good. Thank you.

9 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

12 Mr. Re.

13 WITNESS: NERMIN EMINOVIC [Resumed]

14 [Witness answered through interpreter]

15 MR. RE: Thank you. Your Honours, could we have on the screen,

16 please, document D -- sorry MFI2626 - 2266 -- 226.

17 Examined by Mr. Re: [Continued]

18 Q. Mr. Eminovic, this -- the document I'm about to take you back to

19 was one I questioned you about yesterday. It's the document of the 17th

20 of September 1993 which was your report to Mr. Jasarevic, the one-page

21 report about the information you had to that date collected about what had

22 happened in Grabovica.

23 Is the document on the screen yet?

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

Page 10

1 MR. RE:

2 Q. You'll see that the date at the -- you'll see that the -- I just

3 want you to comment on some of the dates. The date which you appear to

4 have written or compiled the report is the 17th of September, 1993. I

5 just want you to look above that, the very top right-hand -- sorry,

6 left-hand side of the page. There's a date up there can you -- can you

7 read that?

8 A. The first number is "8" -- "8", then "9". It's possible that it

9 says "18" here. I assume that it's the 18th of September. I'm assuming

10 that. All that you can see here is the number "8" and also at the top you

11 don't see the letter "C." You don't see the letter "S." So some other

12 letters from this document are missing, so I assume it that says

13 the "18th."

14 Q. All right. And next is written "Subota," Saturday, and "07:08."

15 What is that telling you, the writing across the top of the page on what

16 looks like the 18th of September?

17 A. "Communications centre of the Supreme Command Staff." This is the

18 time when this document arrived at the communications centre of the

19 Supreme Command Staff. It's at 7.00 on the 18th of September. It's 7.08.

20 That's what I can see. And then on the right-hand side is the person who

21 received the document and processed it.

22 Q. All right. Can we move now to document D228, which was the last

23 one we were looking at yesterday.

24 Now, the document you were looking at before we broke yesterday

25 was the letter from Mr. Jasarevic of that day, that is, the 18th of

Page 11

1 September. It's an order to you in relation to briefing him about what

2 had happened -- or preparing a report on what had happened in Uzdol, Kriz,

3 and Grabovica.

4 Now, that's dated the 18th of September, that particular

5 document.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. From what you said a moment ago, does it suggest to you that

8 he -- he sent this order to you before he had seen the report, which was

9 D226, that you looked at a moment ago?

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, I object to that question.

11 Apart from having an element of assumption in it, that -- well, that in

12 fact wouldn't be a basis for objecting on it own because he's a

13 professional officer and he'd be able to comment on that sort of thing, so

14 I won't object on that basis. But the previous document showed that

15 the -- it had arrived at the Supreme Command Staff. It didn't say that it

16 arrived at the SVB, Mr. Jasarevic's organisation, so that although my

17 friend points out that it arrived on the 18th at 7.00 in the morning,

18 that's at the cryptographic section, it doesn't say -- it doesn't say

19 anything about it one way or the other, I hasten to add. So asking the

20 witness to comment on that basis seemed to factor in an assumption that

21 the witness hadn't agreed to, that is that Mr. Jasarevic -- that that

22 document would have gone to Mr. Jasarevic from that communication centre.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Re, maybe you could ask some questions to

24 lay the proper foundations for that question.

25 MR. RE: There is -- I'll just say there is a difficulty when you

Page 12

1 can't show a witness two -- two documents at once and have him look at

2 them in his hands and say, "Look at this one, look at that one, which one

3 does it appear went first?" That's the -- the slight practical difficulty

4 I have here.

5 Q. Mr. Eminovic, what I'm asking you is there are two documents.

6 Unfortunately you can only see one at the moment; that's the one which

7 Mr. Jasarevic sent to you on the 18th of September, 1993. A moment ago

8 you gave evidence and yesterday you gave evidence that you had forwarded a

9 report to him on the 17th, and the document appears to have been received

10 at the communications centre on the early morning of the 18th of

11 September.

12 From looking at the date of receipt in the communications centre,

13 the time and date of receipt in the communications centre, and looking at

14 the order that Mr. Jasarevic sent you, which doesn't seem to have a time

15 on it -- sorry, the time at the bottom is 14.44 from the communications

16 centre, my question is: Does it suggest to you that Mr. Jasarevic sent

17 this report to you -- the order to you without having seen your report?

18 Or does it suggest something else?

19 A. To be honest, I don't know. It's quite possible that

20 Mr. Jasarevic did not receive my report when he sent it. It's possible.

21 I don't know what the communications were like at the time. I really

22 couldn't talk about the speed. It is -- my assumption is -- it's just an

23 assumption -- that he did not have it.

24 Q. All right. Can we please move to document MFI229.

25 There are actually two documents I want to show you basically at

Page 13

1 the same time.

2 MR. RE: Is that -- is it possible to do that and have the

3 witness -- it's not. 229 and 230, both dated the 19th of September, 1993.

4 Q. One is an order and warning to Mr. -- from Mr. Jasarevic, and the

5 other one is ostensibly your response on the same date. But if we can

6 deal with the first one, which is D229.

7 Did you -- have you seen that document or did you receive that?

8 A. I probably did receive it, yes. I've seen it before.

9 MR. RE: All right. Now, can we please go to -- I want to go to

10 230.

11 Q. But I want to ask you before we do as we are, what was your

12 response to receiving that document? What did you do?

13 A. Well, I sent an answer, and you probably have it. Part of it was

14 in a document of the 17th. And as for the other information, I was trying

15 to obtain it, but communications were difficult. Something to that

16 effect.

17 Q. The -- the bottom part of 229 is entitled -- the bottom half is

18 entitled "Warning: You must immediately" - which is in capitals, the

19 word "immediately" - request the submitted reports. If you are unable to

20 submit the reports, your obligation is to inform the SVK of the reasons

21 why you were unable to carry out the order, and so on.

22 Can you comment on why Mr. Jasarevic would have phrased that to

23 you in those terms?

24 A. I can comment on it, but that's my opinion. He asked that the

25 report be sent immediately, and this is quite all right because the head

Page 14

1 of the security service had the right and he probably had obligations as

2 the chief of the administration to ask for urgency. And then, secondly,

3 he says: "You are unable to deliver a report," and so on. This is very

4 broad. Reasons -- the reasons may be related to communication problems,

5 to fear. All sorts of reasons. And finally, he says: "By this attitude

6 toward the orders, you are making it impossible for us to carry out our

7 obligations." This is to explain why he's insisting on urgency, and the

8 obligations are, again, being spelled out. That's my comment on this.

9 Q. It's a -- I think we can agree it's a fairly strongly worded at

10 the bottom, because it's headed "Warning," and it says -- the last line

11 says: "By assuming this attitude towards the orders from the SVK security

12 administration, you are preventing us from carrying out our obligations

13 towards the RBiH Presidency and the SVK." Now, implicit on that, I think

14 we could agree on -- everyone in this Trial Chamber -- in this courtroom

15 could agree implicit in that is a suggestion that there is an attitude on

16 the part of maybe you or someone in the 6th Corps towards orders from the

17 SVK, security administration. Now, was that in --

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the witness can be asked a

19 question, not have a proposition put to him like when it's evidence in

20 chief, in my submission.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Maybe a direct question will be perfect.

22 MR. RE: Well, I was actually trying to get to the question. I'm

23 saying if you assume that this is what it says and as a professional, I

24 think everyone can agree that is in fact what it does say. My question

25 is: Why would Mr. Jasarevic have come to that view and how did you view

Page 15

1 him --

2 Q. Well, I'm ask that question first -- I'll ask that question

3 first: How could Mr. Jasarevic have come to the view, if you accept the

4 proposition that it appears he is of the view that his orders aren't being

5 respected?

6 MR. MORRISSEY: I just object again to the second part of the

7 question. The question can just be asked simply: How could Mr. Jasarevic

8 have come to that view? It doesn't need Mr. Re's comment attached to the

9 end of it. That's -- that part saying that "if you accept the

10 proposition," well, this witness is here not to accept Mr. Re's

11 propositions. But the first part of the question is acceptable, and it

12 should be kept to that. The witness can then give his answer to assist

13 the Trial Chamber.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But I believe the more questions asked to this

15 witness, the witness will get more confused.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Look, I'll withdraw the objection to that

17 question, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re. Would you please repeat your question.

19 MR. RE:

20 Q. The question was, Mr. Eminovic: Accepting that Mr. Jasarevic

21 appears to be of the view by that last line that his orders aren't being

22 respected, why would he have come to that view?

23 A. Mr. Jasarevic was the chief of the security service

24 administration. This is neither the first nor the last warning of this

25 kind that I received. He always insisted that matters be dealt with

Page 16

1 immediately.

2 Here there was a problem. When I say "a problem," I am referring

3 to, on the one hand, the impossibility of carrying out the obligations,

4 the inability of myself and my service to respond with the urgency he

5 insisted on. I cannot comment on the mood of General Jasarevic, who wrote

6 this. I am sure he was under enormous pressure to have this done, on the

7 one hand, and, on the other hand, I also was of the -- I had the feeling

8 that this had to be done as soon as possible. However, he may have had

9 the impression that I was presenting an obstacle. I don't know. But it's

10 possible that General Jasarevic at the time did not have at his disposal

11 full information as to the situation we were in. That would be my

12 comment.

13 Q. Just briefly tell the Trial Chamber what you meant by "the

14 situation you were in" - that's at the time, that's the 19th of

15 September - when Mr. Jasarevic sent that order and warning.

16 A. When referring to the situation we were in, I mean, first of all,

17 our materiel resources and our possibilities. When you speak of a

18 military security service, I think in the corps there were just two of us.

19 At the time, there was another man who arrived but he was with us very

20 briefly. He used to be a judge or, rather, he became a judge afterwards.

21 So there were just two of us. We didn't have fuel. We were not able to

22 go there ourselves on foot urgently. And all we could do was rely on what

23 we had and perhaps collect information through means of communication.

24 That was why the urgency that was requested could not be complied with.

25 We had neither the human nor the materiel resources to respond with the

Page 17

1 urgency that such requests required.

2 MR. RE: Can document D230 -- MFI230 please be shown to the

3 witness.

4 Q. Is -- is that document now before you, Mr. Eminovic? A document

5 dated the 19th of September.

6 A. Yes. Yes.

7 Q. Was that your response to Mr. Jasarevic's order and warning?

8 A. Yes. This is my response. This is it.

9 Q. Just have a look at the top of the page. There's a -- a date,

10 which isn't quite legible. It says: "93, Monday 13.20."

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is that, as with the previous document, showing the time of

13 receipt at the security administration communications centre?

14 A. Yes, I think so. I think that's correct, yes.

15 Q. And just down the bottom of the page, there's a Main Staff of the

16 Armed Forces stamp and a date of the 21st of September, 1993. Do you know

17 what that -- do you know what that signifies?

18 A. I think that this is the seal of the protocol the security

19 administration. You probably know that the communications centre was in

20 the Supreme Command Staff and the security administration was physically

21 separate, so that communication was needed with reference to documents.

22 And there may have been some discrepancies. In our work, all the

23 documents that arrived went first to the chief, who initialled them. And

24 quite a lot of time was lost in that way, in the communication.

25 Q. I want you to comment on a line in the second paragraph, the

Page 18

1 sentence that says: "We have tried on a number of occasions to do the job

2 via other participants in traffic, but it has simply been impossible."

3 Please explain to the Trial Chamber what -- what you mean by

4 that, and in particular "participants in traffic," which is actually

5 underlined on the document.

6 A. I was referring to the sending of documents from me to the

7 subordinate units, and the "participants in the traffic" refers to radio

8 traffic. This means - you may have already heard this - when a document

9 was printed out or typed out in Word, there was some kind of method of

10 encryption used to pack it up, so to speak. And then it was sent on to

11 another participant in the traffic. Sometimes the communications were

12 poor sometimes due to weather conditions; other times due to the size of

13 the document because the bigger the document, the more difficult it was

14 for it to get through the means of communication. And very often during

15 the war communications were hindered electronically. Those who had more

16 powerful communications would somehow cover over the weaker ones and they

17 were unable to communicate. Also, when there was a lack of electric

18 power, then nothing worked.

19 Q. I'm just asking you about the situation as of the 19th of

20 September, 1993 at the moment. Are you saying that those particular

21 situations -- circumstances pertained then, or are you talking generally?

22 A very brief answer to that one, please.

23 A. Generally. Generally. This does not pertain just to that date.

24 There was a lot of activity at that time.

25 Q. You then say that -- "Rest assured that this does not amount to

Page 19

1 our careless attitude towards UB orders but rather to the fact that it is

2 impossible to communicate with Prozor in any way. Going there by motor

3 vehicle takes six hours, and six hours to return, and literally there is

4 not a single drop of petrol."

5 I just want to ask you: Was that accurate, what you've written

6 there?

7 A. Yes. I also have to point out that when the Prozor Independent

8 Battalion is in question, they did not have electric power. They received

9 it intermittently when they switched on the generator. When they switched

10 on the generator, if they had fuel, then they would have electricity. The

11 moment they switched it off, there was then less ability to communicate.

12 Q. Well, what was the effect of the generator being on or off with

13 the ability to communicate with them? Can you please explain that.

14 A. Well, then the following would happen: You could communicate by

15 short wave communications, because a short wave communication can be

16 operated with a generator. These were only UK -- ultra short contacts,

17 but you couldn't count on computer communication and packet communications

18 because a computer cannot operate without the right voltage. This was a

19 usual problem, not just on that day or the previous day; it was a problem

20 that existed at all time.

21 MR. RE: Can we please move to MFI D233.

22 Q. I'm going to -- on the screen will be a -- an order from

23 Mr. Jasarevic addressed to the 6th Corps command military security service

24 and to Namik Dzankovic personally, dated the 21st of September, 1993. Is

25 that a document you saw or received at the time, Mr. Eminovic?

Page 20

1 A. Can you please scroll it down a little bit, please. Can I see

2 the title of the page? Thank you.

3 To be quite honest, I probably have seen this document before

4 because in fact it was sent through me. I am referring to the security

5 services administration in the 6th Corps sending this to Namik Dzankovic

6 through me. This means that I received this document and I had to forward

7 it on to Namik Dzankovic.

8 I was supposed to pass it on to him, so it was sent through me.

9 Q. What I'm asking you is: Now, do you remember now, that is, in

10 2005, having received that document in September 1993 and doing what it

11 basically says to do, that is, to send it on to Dzankovic? Do you now

12 have a memory of having done so, or do you just -- or are you just saying

13 that because it -- that's what it suggests you should do, that's what you

14 think you would have done?

15 A. To forward the document to Namik Dzankovic? Well, I should have

16 done it. There's no reason why I wouldn't have done it. I'm sure that I

17 acted professionally with respect to every document I received.

18 Q. Yesterday you told the Trial Chamber that you -- you thought the

19 first time you had heard about what happened in Uzdol was when you

20 received that order from Mr. Jasarevic, which was Exhibit -- or MFI228.

21 And you've just explained that you -- that there were difficulties in

22 contacting -- in establishing communications with the Prozor area and it

23 would have taken six hours to get there by road and there was no petrol.

24 What -- in brief, what steps did you and -- and/or Mr. Dzankovic,

25 to your knowledge, undertake to find out what had happened in Uzdol?

Page 21

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour --

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: -- it's a compound question. It should be dealt

4 with in steps. The witness can ask what steps he took, and the witness

5 can ask if -- if he knows the answer to it, whether Mr. Dzankovic was

6 asked to take any steps. To wrap it up like that in a compound question,

7 in my submission, could lead to misleading, so I'd ask that it be broken

8 up, please.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that the first part of the question

10 is some background information just to let this witness to be familiarised

11 with the situation and then the question comes up.

12 You may proceed, Mr. Re.

13 MR. RE: Thank you.

14 Q. My question, Mr. Eminovic, is: Just briefly tell us what -- what

15 steps, if any, you, and Mr. Dzankovic, if he took any to your knowledge,

16 undertook to find out what happened in Uzdol.

17 A. This document mentions only the events in Grabovica, not the

18 events in Uzdol. I'm referring to the document before me now.

19 Q. But just -- just -- pause there. I'm not referring to that

20 document. Just -- I'm referring to one which I showed you yesterday,

21 which was 228, but I'm just asking you about -- having received the

22 earlier document, what did you do?

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, the witness should be given the

24 chance to see that document. He's been shown --

25 MR. RE: Of course. Of course.

Page 22

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. What do you mean by "the earlier document"? I

2 mean which document?

3 MR. RE: 228. The confusion was the other document is just

4 sitting on the screen in front of him. I wasn't actually asking about

5 either document. I was asking him what he did. And he looked at the

6 document which happened to be on the screen in front of him, which was a

7 different document. That's the only confusion.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's have the 228 on the screen.

9 MR. RE:

10 Q. Now, Mr. Eminovic, I'm not actually asking about the document

11 which will appear in front of you. If you need to refer to it, please do.

12 What I'm asking you about is what steps you took, or Mr. Dzankovic, if you

13 know whether he took any, to investigate what happened in Uzdol.

14 A. This document is addressed only to me. I did not have to inform

15 Mr. Dzankovic of it. I don't know what his obligations were with

16 reference to Uzdol. These were my obligations. And as I said yesterday,

17 I probably learned about the events in Uzdol from this document. It's

18 possible, but I cannot assert that with any certainty now.

19 Q. What I'm asking you is what you did. Mr. Jasarevic sent you

20 this. What did you actually do?

21 A. I used means of communications with the Prozor Independent

22 Battalion, asking them to give me the information they had with reference

23 to the events in Uzdol, because Uzdol was, I think, in Prozor

24 municipality, so that it was within their area of combat operations.

25 Q. Who did you send it to, your communication?

Page 23

1 A. I sent my communication to the assistant commander for security.

2 It was very seldom that I sent anything to anyone else. When the service

3 was in question, I could only communicate with the organs of the security

4 services, not with anyone else.

5 Q. What's the name of the person you sent the communication to? Do

6 you remember?

7 A. With reference to the Independent Prozor Battalion, there was a

8 large turnover of staff. I wasn't always satisfied, because these were

9 people who were simply not able to perform their duties properly. But I

10 think in this case - and I cannot be absolutely sure - it was Bektas,

11 Mustafa Bektas. If I'm wrong, please don't hold it against me, but I

12 think it was either Muhamed or Mustafa Bektas. That's what I think now.

13 Q. And without any explanation, can you just please tell me: Was it

14 an oral or a written communication you sent to him? Just tell me whether

15 it was oral or written.

16 A. Well, we just talked about this communication. I'm almost sure

17 that it was in writing.

18 Q. Thank you. Did the assistant commander respond to your

19 communication? And if so, was it in writing or orally?

20 A. If I remember correctly, it was in writing -- no, I think I

21 didn't get a reply. I think. But I can't assert that. It's very

22 difficult to remember.

23 Q. Who was the commander of the Prozor Independent Battalion?

24 A. The commander of the Independent Prozor Battalion was Enver Buza.

25 Q. Did you receive an account from him as to what had happened in

Page 24

1 Uzdol?

2 A. As a rule, I did not get any reports from the commander. They

3 always went up the chain of command and control. So the documents

4 Commander Buza sent on would be sent to -- to the commander. This was an

5 unusual form of communication -- would have been unusual, I mean.

6 Q. What did you find out at the time had happened in Uzdol or what

7 were you told, if anything, had happened in Uzdol?

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I'm sorry. It's just brought to --

9 I apologise to my friend for intervening. It's been brought to my

10 attention there that the interpreter may have missed a word after the word

11 "commander." I would just it to be clarified whether the -- what the

12 witness said, whether he said "commander" or whether he said "Commander

13 Gusic." That passage is at page 23, line 24. I'd just ask for a

14 clarification in regard to that from the interpreter.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes. The answer of this witness is: "As a

16 result, I did not get any report from the commander. It always went up to

17 the chain of command and control." Is that right?

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry. Just a team member

19 indicated to me that they thought they heard the witness indicate the name

20 of the commander. And we just want to clarify whether the interpreter

21 heard that or not.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Well, maybe Mr. Re could re-ask this question

23 to this witness.

24 MR. RE:

25 Q. Mr. Eminovic, you heard the exchange just then. Did you say the

Page 25

1 documents will be sent to the commander, Gusic?

2 A. Yes. The documents sent by commanders of subordinate units,

3 reports, would go to the corps commander; namely, the commander of the

4 Prozor Independent Battalion would send reports to Commander Gusic. That

5 would be the usual channel of communication.

6 Q. What did you find out at the time had happened in Uzdol or what

7 were you told, if anything, around that time that had happened in Uzdol as

8 a result of your inquiries?

9 A. Yes. The unit comprising mostly -- for the most part- I can't

10 say that it was 100 per cent like that- but mostly comprising of members

11 of the Prozor Independent Battalion, perhaps numbering the size of a

12 platoon or a little bit less. Perhaps I can make a mistake there when I'm

13 talking about strength.

14 In the course of the night, they went to the Uzdol Valley. They

15 entered the valley. It's a valley, slightly larger valley accommodating

16 several hamlets. According to what I know, in the morning hours they

17 approached some building, a school or something like that, where there

18 were soldiers of the HVO. That's when the conflict broke out. Fire was

19 exchanged. Most of them were around the school. But as I said, the

20 combat disposition was quite disrupted.

21 After that - let's say when the exchange of fire started - there

22 was chaos, which is what can happen in an inhabited area. There were

23 houses with people in that area. There was intensive fire, shelling of

24 that area. And then these forces withdrew. I think that there were some

25 wounded. I don't know if anybody was killed or not. Well, they lost some

Page 26

1 of the equipment. That's more or less all that I have to say about that

2 at this time.

3 Q. What was your information about who was in the village, that is,

4 of Uzdol, when the Prozor Independent Battalion went there?

5 A. I don't know exactly. Uzdol -- all I'm saying I'm saying based

6 on some information that I had at the time. Uzdol is a territory which

7 before this event and after this event was under the control of the HVO

8 units. It was never the territory where the B and H army was. So all the

9 information that came from Uzdol practically came from the participants,

10 those who took part in this conflict, in these combat operations. Let me

11 put it that way.

12 According to what I know, they got to this school. Firing broke

13 out after that. There was chaos, firing, pulling out, and so on and so

14 forth, shelling and so on.

15 Q. But what, if anything, was Buza saying about whether there were

16 civilians or HVO people in the village at the time?

17 A. Buza wrote a combat report. I saw that report. To be honest, I

18 don't know exactly when I saw it, but I did see it. Probably sometime

19 later. I'm not sure. So please don't hold me to it. When other

20 documents are in question, I'm not really prepared to say that I saw it a

21 day before or a day after or a month before or a month after, but I did

22 see the report at that time and he wrote that during the fighting in

23 Uzdol. I don't know. They destroyed several scores of members of the

24 HVO. I don't know the exact number. And I think - and this is the key to

25 everything - they mentioned 30 armed civilians, something like that.

Page 27

1 Q. What do you mean by "armed civilians"?

2 A. I don't mean anything. I mean if you want my comments, I can

3 give them, but I think the best person to provide the comment would be

4 Buza, because I don't understand the term "armed civilians." I personally

5 don't understand what is an armed civilian, what's the difference between

6 an armed civilian and a soldier. This is the issue. I know that our

7 soldiers did not have uniforms. But as soon as they had a -- a rifle,

8 then they became soldiers. I think that this is something that is very,

9 very difficult to define.

10 Q. Your evidence -- excuse me, your evidence yesterday was that a

11 forward command post had been established in Jablanica.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: I think the terms used by the witness were that a

13 forward command post had been established as far as he knew in Donja

14 Jablanica.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, in Donja Jablanica.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. In Donja Jablanica, Mr. Eminovic -- I'll just go back and start

18 my question again.

19 Your evidence yet -- yesterday was that a forward command post

20 had been established in Donja Jablanica and that it was the most senior

21 officer at the forward command post -- the most senior officer at the

22 forward command post was the Chief of Staff, General Halilovic, who was,

23 in your words, "the greatest military authority there." What was your

24 understanding from your professional experience of whose responsibility it

25 should have been to investigate crimes that occurred in Grabovica?

Page 28

1 A. It's like this: The responsibility primarily of the command,

2 which commands certain units, or the commander who commands certain units,

3 judging by this, according to my understanding, actually -- actually, we

4 have here a whole set of circumstances and I have some new knowledge in

5 relation to what I knew before, and so on and so forth. It's my opinion

6 that all the possibilities need to be reviewed, everything that was

7 undertaken by the top military authority at the time; namely, the

8 commanders and komandirs of the units who were commanding those units at

9 the time. And in my opinion, that's where the responsibility lies, in

10 that chain, because we have namely a criminal act that was carried out; we

11 have victims, casualties. We have perpetrators. All that is necessary is

12 to establish the responsibility when we're talking about the line of

13 command and control, and I think that's where the responsibility lies.

14 I'm speaking this as a professional. This is something that is logical to

15 me. I don't want to say that General Halilovic commanded that. I was just

16 speaking on the basis of facts that I had at that time in that period.

17 Q. I'm not sure I understand your last -- the last sentence: "I was

18 just speaking on the basis of facts that I had at that time in that

19 period." What I really want you to concentrate on, if you would, is that

20 your -- of your understanding at the time, when you were in Konjic and

21 there was a forward command post in Donja Jablanica, what was your

22 understanding at the time of whose responsibility it should have been to

23 investigate the crimes in Grabovica.

24 A. The forward command post. That was my understanding at that time

25 in that period. That was my understanding of the problem at that time.

Page 29

1 That's what it looked like.

2 Q. And what about Uzdol? Did you have the same understanding or a

3 different understanding?

4 A. When you say "did I have the same understanding," are you

5 thinking of responsibility. Could you please clarify that.

6 Q. Yes. You just said that it was your understanding that the

7 forward command post should have had the responsibility to investigate the

8 crimes in Grabovica. The question is in relation to Uzdol. Does -- is it

9 the same, or did someone else, in your opinion -- professional opinion,

10 have that responsibility?

11 A. If within these activities which the forward command post

12 conducted this, let's say, crime at the time was committed - at the time,

13 we were not sure that that was that - if that was within the framework of

14 that operation, then that would be the logical sequence. If an order was

15 issued for implementation from one place, then that would be the logical

16 sequence.

17 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Eminovic.

18 MR. RE: That's my examination -- that completes my

19 examination-in-chief.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

21 So we'll have a break for an hour. We'll resume at 11.15.

22 --- Recess taken at 10.16 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.18 a.m.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 30

1 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey:

2 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Eminovic.

3 Just excuse me a moment.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you permit me, I would just like

7 to address you for just one minute.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, please.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The last question by the Prosecutor

10 is something that I would like to define my answer a little bit earlier --

11 over the break -- actually, I thought about it. My opinion when we're

12 talking about responsibility for a criminal -- for the criminal act that

13 was committed in September 1993 is that the responsibility lies in the

14 chain of command and control and that it is necessary to establish the

15 exact chain of command and control and based on that draw the conclusion

16 about responsibility. Everything that I said stands; meaning that

17 General Halilovic was the greatest authority and that at the time there

18 was also the IKM, the forward command post. That's how I understood it at

19 the time. This is all I wanted to say. Thank you.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

21 Mr. Re, do you have any follow-up questions?

22 MR. RE: No. No. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

24 Yes, Mr. Morrissey, your cross-examination, please.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 31

1 Cross-examined by Mr. Morrissey:

2 Q. And thank you once again, Mr. Eminovic.

3 I just want to ask you some questions, first of all, on the topic

4 of that IKM. You indicated that you at a later time saw it. Are you --

5 and you noticed that it was at Zuka's base at Donja Jablanica.

6 Could I just ask you: At the -- at that time, how long after

7 the -- the events, in particular the killings, was that? Was it one day

8 or two days, or was it a few weeks later? Doing the best you can, what's

9 your estimate?

10 A. I don't understand this question. Could you please clarify it

11 for me.

12 Q. Yes. Look, I will. It's -- it's really a question concerning

13 your knowledge of that particular IKM. Now, you indicated to my learned

14 friend in questions that you'd heard certain things and that on one

15 occasion that you went past it. And I just wanted to ask you -- well,

16 look, perhaps I'll ask you -- I'll ask you some simpler questions. Pardon

17 me. That was long, convoluted thing.

18 Did you ever attend any meetings at the IKM concerning military

19 operations in that area?

20 A. No.

21 Q. No. And did you ever attend at that so-called IKM for any other

22 reasons during September of 1993?

23 A. No. Not at the IKM, no.

24 Q. No. And did you ever go inside the -- the rooms where the IKM

25 was said to be?

Page 32

1 A. Did I ever go in there? Maybe later I did. I don't know. I

2 really don't know. I did not go there at the time when this was going on.

3 Q. Yes, I understand. And you had no involvement yourself in

4 planning any military operations in the area between Gornji Vakuf and Vrdi

5 in September 1993; is that correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And I just have to ask you a couple of questions, specific ones,

8 about that. Did you ever see or were you ever shown a large map signed by

9 Rasim Delic as commander in the top left-hand corner and by Sefer

10 Halilovic as Chief of Staff in the bottom right-hand corner with the

11 heading "Neretva 93" on it?

12 A. No, I never saw that map.

13 Q. Okay. Very well. And just finally on that topic: You took no

14 part in discussions -- well, I'm sorry, you've really answered that

15 question already, and I won't repeat it.

16 Very well. Now, I just want to -- I want to ask you some

17 questions about the situation of certain units in the 6th Corps in the --

18 in the weeks leading up to the said events. First of all, the military

19 police units within the 6th Corps had been in existence for how many

20 months? In other words, when was the 6th Corps formed, to the best of

21 your recollection? And after that, how quickly did it get military police

22 units?

23 A. The 6th Corps was formed in June. More serious work, however,

24 started sometime in early July by the move to the building in Konjic, the

25 Univitz building. That was the start.

Page 33

1 Q. Yes. And how long after the move to the Univitz building were

2 the two military police companies - one in Konjic and one in Jablanica -

3 established?

4 A. The military police companies were actually military police

5 companies. I don't know whether there was one or two. I think there were

6 two. But they belonged to the former 4th Corps. In other words, most of

7 the manpower by the formation of the 6th Corps were transferred to the

8 command of the 6th Corps, but they already were in those units.

9 Q. Yes. You've indicated that -- in evidence already that the --

10 although the units had an establishment strength of 76 men, these two

11 companies, to the best of your recollection, were somewhat under strength

12 and were running at approximately 60 men each.

13 Now, I just wanted to ask you something about that. Of the 60

14 men in each military police company, how many of those were in effect

15 active policemen and how many were, if you like, support staff?

16 A. I couldn't really -- well, let me try to answer that. Perhaps

17 about 20 men a day were in a position to be actively used, from 15 to 20

18 people. Everybody else had certain assignments. That's more or less the

19 answer.

20 Q. I understand. And the figure of 15 to 20 persons available on

21 any given day, does that take into account that some people were on leave

22 or were rostered off their shift, or should we subtract an additional

23 figure from the 15 to 20 because of leave and rostered matters?

24 A. It's very difficult for me to answer this question. I can try to

25 give you an answer though. If I say 15 to 20 people a day, I mean these

Page 34

1 to be people who came for the implementation of certain tasks. Some tasks

2 are already planned the day before, so there would be 5 to 10 people who

3 would be free there, free for other action. But I'm really giving you

4 estimates. It's very difficult for me to talk about this. I really don't

5 recall all of the details.

6 Q. That's okay. But the estimates are still helpful.

7 Very well. So just using the Jablanica company as an example.

8 On any given day, a randomly chosen weekday, for example, you would expect

9 to find 15 to 20 people reporting for duty on that day of which maybe 5 to

10 6 already had assigned duties. Now, is that a -- broadly speaking, is

11 that an accurate statement?

12 A. I don't know whether it would be accurate, but it's an

13 estimate -- a rough estimate. I daren't assert it with any certainty.

14 Q. No, that's okay. I understand that.

15 And could I just indicate, I'm -- I'm grateful to you for

16 indicating when you're estimating. That helps us too when you state that.

17 All right. Thank you. The 44th Brigade was a unit within the

18 6th Corps structure which was led by a commander named Enes Kovacevic?

19 Does that accord with your memory?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Very well. And that unit was based in Jablanica and was

22 sometimes called the Jablanica Brigade; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Okay. And who was the SVB chief in that brigade? Was that

25 Mr. Sihirlic?

Page 35

1 A. Yes. He was the assistant commander for the security services

2 for --

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the last part of

4 the answer.

5 MR. MORRISSEY:

6 Q. I'm sorry, the interpreter didn't catch the last part of your

7 answer. Would you mind just repeating that -- that last part.

8 A. At that time, the assistant commander for security was Zajko

9 Sihirlic, Zajko or Zajka.

10 Q. Thank you. At that time, was the 44th Brigade in the process of

11 forming a company of military police? And by "at that time," I should ask

12 you this: In late August and early September of 1993, was the 44th

13 Brigade in the process of forming a company of military police?

14 A. I think it was a mountain brigade which according to the

15 establishment could not have a company. It could only have a platoon.

16 Q. Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry. That was a -- that's my mistake.

17 Well, let me correct myself then. Was the 44th Mountain Brigade

18 in the process of forming a platoon of military police in late August and

19 early September of 1993?

20 A. I really wouldn't know that. I can't answer your question.

21 Q. Very well. Now, just excuse me one moment -- very well. I'm

22 going to show you several documents now concerning the way these events

23 unfolded. Some of them you may have seen before; some you may not have;

24 some you may not recall. You are entitled to read them through, if you

25 wish to. I'll take you to specific aspects of them.

Page 36

1 Just excuse me one moment.

2 [Defence counsel confer]

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown -- it's an

4 exhibit already admitted D153.

5 Q. Just while this is being brought up on the screen, I just

6 indicate this: What I'm about to show you is a note which seems to

7 emanate from the 44th Brigade, and in particular from Mr. Sihirlic. It

8 may be a document to which you've already referred in your evidence in

9 chief, so I'll ask you to have a look at it and then you see whether it's

10 familiar and whether it is indeed a document you've already spoken about

11 or not.

12 A. Can you zoom in on this? Yes.

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I'm sorry to say I don't have the

14 English version just yet.

15 Q. Just forgive me a moment, please, Mr. Eminovic. I haven't got

16 the document myself yet.

17 JUDGE LIU: Neither have I.

18 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, I have it.

19 Does Your Honour have it?

20 JUDGE LIU: No, no English version at this moment.

21 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I have an English version. I don't

22 know if the Prosecutors have.

23 Q. Mr. Eminovic, just forgive us a moment, please, while we make

24 sure that everyone has got the document in front of them. The Defence

25 does have it now.

Page 37

1 While the technicalities of that are being sorted out, could I

2 just ask you, Mr. Eminovic: Do you have the Bosnian version of that

3 document in front of you now?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Very well. And are you able to see the whole document, or do you

6 need it to be scrolled for you?

7 A. Could it please be scrolled up a bit. I've read part of the

8 text.

9 Q. Mr. Eminovic, in relation to these documents, you're allowed to

10 be proactive and ask for the document to be scrolled or changed when you

11 need it to be. But --

12 JUDGE LIU: Now we have it.

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.

14 Q. Mr. Eminovic, has that yet been scrolled in the way you asked?

15 A. Yes. I'm just reading it now.

16 Is there more text? Can it be scrolled a bit more?

17 Q. Yes. There's a second page. But perhaps if you scroll to the

18 bottom of that first and then we'll ...

19 A. I've read this page to the end.

20 Q. Okay.

21 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please have the opportunity to

22 look at the second page of the B/C/S version.

23 A. This is illegible.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: Could it please be enlarged for the witness.

25 A. Yes, there's just signatures here.

Page 38

1 Q. Yes.

2 A. Well, it's the end of the document, in fact.

3 Q. All right. Does it appear to you to be a letter from Zajko

4 Sihirlic -- sorry, not a letter, a report sent to the 6th Corps Command

5 military security sector at Konjic and dated the 9th of September, 1993?

6 A. Yes, that's what it says here. I did not receive correspondence

7 of this nature, but that's what it says here on the document.

8 Q. Yes. Well, that's -- I wanted to ask you questions. It's not

9 addressed to you personally, this document, I can see, but since it's 11

10 years ago or more that these events happened, I wanted to ask you: When

11 you first found out about the -- the deaths or the potential for killings

12 in Grabovica, was it because of -- of seeing this document or being told

13 about this document by someone in your office? Using your memory to the

14 best you can now.

15 A. As I said yesterday, I first learned about this from the

16 commander of the Military Police Battalion, and that was orally through

17 means of communication on the 10th. All the information that reached

18 me -- well, it came through the corps command. I assume that this

19 document arrived on the 10th or thereabouts.

20 Q. Well, that was going to be my next question, that -- although

21 it's dated the 9th of September, that doesn't mean you received it on the

22 9th of September, does it?

23 A. Precisely so, yes.

24 Q. Is it possible that you did see this document at some later

25 stage, or are you able to confidently state that you've just never seen it

Page 39

1 before?

2 A. I can't say whether I saw it or not. If it was sent to me as a

3 report, then I should have seen it and probably did. But what could have

4 happened was that these reports were with my then-assistant, and he would

5 summarise them, so I would not read the entire document in detail. That

6 might have happened. However, I did have the possibility of seeing this

7 document.

8 Q. Well, I understand. Very well. Well, bearing in mind, and I

9 understand it's very many years ago, but just to ask you a matter of

10 detail: Did you become aware at that time, let's say the 9th or 10th of

11 September, that some new camp inmates from the Dretelj camp had passed up

12 the road and -- and had arrived in Jablanica that night? Or sorry, the

13 night of the 8th and the 9th.

14 A. As for the camp inmates, I don't know. At that time, over a

15 period of several days or maybe even weeks -- I can't recall -- please

16 excuse me -- camp inmates arrived sometimes in large numbers, sometimes

17 individually one by one.

18 Q. Okay. Well, I understand that. I'm going to ask you some

19 questions about the -- the various disasters which your organisation faced

20 in the middle of early -- early on and in the middle of September, and

21 I'll come to those in some detail in a moment. But before I get to that,

22 I just want to take you to another document which you've already been

23 shown by the Prosecutor and just ask a couple of questions about that.

24 Sorry, just excuse me a moment, please.

25 [Defence counsel confer]

Page 40

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, could the witness please be shown

2 document -- it's MFI224.

3 Q. The document I'm going to show you is the brief note which you

4 looked at yesterday from Jusuf Jasarevic which was addressed to you and

5 dated the 12th of September, 1993. It will come up on the screen in just

6 a moment.

7 A. I have it.

8 Q. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thanks.

9 Now, at that stage, I just want to clarify a couple of matters

10 here -- the steps that -- that Jasarevic instructed you to take at that

11 time were to take immediate steps to verify the information and document

12 it, and to make an assessment -- carry out a assessment and make a

13 proposal to the commander for the arrest of the persons who are the

14 culprits for this crime, if one has been committed and, finally, to submit

15 a report on these matters urgently to the SVK, Supreme Command Staff,

16 security administration.

17 Now, I'm not going to repeat the questions that you were asked by

18 my learned friend about those documents other than to say that with

19 respect to these instructions and with respect to all the instructions

20 given by -- given to you by Jusuf Jasarevic, you tried to carry those out

21 in good faith and to the best of your abilities; is that correct?

22 A. These were orders. I had nothing to say about it. These were my

23 duties, my obligations.

24 Q. Yes.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, I'd just like the witness to be shown

Page 41

1 another document.

2 Q. This is one I believe you weren't shown, but I'd just like you to

3 have the opportunity to have a look at it now.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: This document, Your Honours, is Defence -- sorry,

5 this is a document admitted into evidence as D154.

6 Q. Just excuse me while that comes up onto the screen now.

7 This is a document concerning Mr. Sihirlic again. And I'd just

8 like you to have a look at it, first of all, and see if you recognise the

9 document.

10 A. This is my document.

11 Q. Okay. And that's your signature, I take it, upon it?

12 A. There's no signature here, but according to everything I can see

13 here, it was my document.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Based on the text --

16 Q. I'm sorry, I'm making the grave mistake of proceeding from the

17 English version there. I understand what you say.

18 You mentioned to my learned friend Mr. Re yesterday in -- when

19 you were asked questions by him that you had made some contacts with Zajko

20 Sihirlic. And now that you see this document, is this one of those

21 contacts that you indicated in evidence yesterday?

22 A. Yes. Probably, yes.

23 Q. I understand. And can I just ask this: Is the reason why you

24 gave these tasks to Zajko Sihirlic in part because you were based in

25 Konjic, far away, and because you had many other jobs that you had to do,

Page 42

1 as well as consider these matters?

2 A. You're asking me why? Am I supposed to comment on this? Is this

3 a question?

4 Q. Yes. No, sorry. Pardon me. It is a question. And I just

5 wanted to ask -- I was asking you to -- to comment on why it was that you

6 asked Mr. Sihirlic to perform the tasks that you set out in that order.

7 A. For the simple reason that Zajko Sihirlic was located in

8 Jablanica and he was one of the closest members of the service to the

9 Grabovica area, so he was able to get certain information. It would not

10 have been logical for me to send this to some other brigade which was far

11 away and not close to the source.

12 Q. Yes. The reference there -- I just want to clarify something in

13 it. There's a reference on the second line of the English version, but

14 it's in the first sentence. It says: "Take all necessary measures to

15 shed light on the massacre of Croatian civilians in Dreznica. Identify

16 the perpetrators of this heinous crime and obtain the documentary evidence

17 for the whole case and report all findings to the 6th Corps SVB."

18 I just want to clarify which crimes we're referring to. Although

19 it uses the term "Dreznica," that's talking about the killings in

20 Grabovica, isn't it?

21 A. Yes. Yes. You see -- by your leave.

22 Q. Yes.

23 A. At that time, there was a lot of disinformation going around, and

24 one of my tasks -- or this might have been an error, because Dreznica is

25 nearby. It might be the same local commune. But I'm sure that this

Page 43

1 actually refers to Grabovica.

2 Q. Yes. We're not disputing that with you in any way, and -- yes,

3 well, thank you for that clarification.

4 And with respect to that, the -- the tasks that you have assigned

5 to Zajko Sihirlic are really tasks belonging to the pre-criminal phase of

6 an investigation; in other words, not the criminal proceeding itself but

7 simply the -- the pre-criminal or investigative stage. Is that accurate?

8 A. Yes, in my view, this is the pre-investigative stage.

9 Q. Yes, I understand. And really --

10 A. Excuse me.

11 Q. Sorry, yes.

12 A. By your leave.

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. These are documents which constituted our daily communication,

15 and then sent through closed channels. These are operative documents.

16 They contain imprecisions. They did not then have the importance they

17 have now. So if you find anything that is imprecise or not quite clear,

18 you should not insist on it.

19 Q. Well, with my record in this case, let me assure you, I -- I

20 won't. No, I'm grateful for that indication too, and we'll attempt to

21 bring a realistic perspective to bear upon these -- upon these documents

22 too?

23 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I tender -- I offer that document

24 for tender. Oh, sorry. Pardon me.

25 [Defence counsel confer]

Page 44

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Oh, pardon me. I misunderstood. It is already

2 in. I'm sorry.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, do you have the MFI numbers on it?

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, pardon me. No, Your Honour. That was a

5 slip by me. It is already tendered into the evidence as D154.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. With the same MFI number on it?

7 THE REGISTRAR: It's already tendered, Your Honour. He made a

8 mistake.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. No, the Defence counsel has made a mistake,

10 Your Honour. It was already tendered and, I think, accepted into the

11 evidence. So it ceases to be an MFI number altogether. It went in -- it

12 was -- it went into evidence through the witness Salko Gusic, I'm

13 instructed, Your Honour. No, my -- the fault lies with me for attempting

14 to re-tender it again. I simply forgot that it was in. Thank you.

15 JUDGE LIU: Okay. And the situation is the same with the

16 document D153?

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: It is.

20 Q. Yes. Pardon me. Thank you for that, Mr. Eminovic.

21 The next document -- I'm showing you -- I'm not going to show you

22 August of the documents that the Prosecutor went to before. I am just

23 going to show you a couple of extra ones just to seek clarification about

24 them, to the extent that you can.

25 MR. MORRISSEY: I would ask now that the witness be shown --

Page 45

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MR. MORRISSEY: Now, Your Honour, this next document will take a

3 little time, and I shall explain what the process is. This is a document

4 which has some handwriting on it by Defence investigators at a later

5 stage. And because it's commentary about the case and is directly

6 relevant about the case, we don't think it's appropriate to show that to

7 the witness.

8 What we've produced, therefore, is two versions of the document:

9 One which has got the Defence annotations on it. We'll give that to both

10 the Court and the -- and the Prosecutor. But it might seem like a prompt

11 or in some way an influence or something that the witness shouldn't be

12 troubled by. And he -- it was done after he -- the document had anything

13 to do with him. So what we were going to do is show a -- a clean copy of

14 the document to the witness and provide the copies which have got our

15 handwriting all over it to the Court so that they know exactly what's

16 being done. That's the course we propose to take.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Well --

18 MR. MORRISSEY: And it will be done in paper copy.

19 JUDGE LIU: But what's the purpose for you to furnish us with a

20 copy with the handwriting of the Defence?

21 MR. MORRISSEY: It's just because that's the way the document

22 appears on the -- uploaded, so that --

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 MR. MORRISSEY: We don't have to show it, Your Honours.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

Page 46

1 MR. MORRISSEY: It's really just to have the -- yes. Yes.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's have that clean copy first.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.

4 Q. Very well. Sorry, Mr. Eminovic. It's -- it's an old document

5 that we want to show you. And the reason for showing you this copy is

6 because we wrote all over it ourselves and you don't need to see all of

7 that.

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours --

9 [Defence counsel confer]

10 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, the Prosecutor doesn't have it yet.

11 While that -- those documents are being circulated --

12 Q. I'll just indicate to you and perhaps indicate to the Court as

13 well: This is a -- a document that is -- we think it is, anyway, a direct

14 carbon copy of --

15 [Defence counsel confer]

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this document that's being shown

17 is -- in another form is already admitted as MFI225. But this version

18 that we're showing the witness has got a piece of handwriting on it which

19 we want him to comment on, so it's appropriate to deal with it separately.

20 THE REGISTRAR: Would you like me to call MFI225?

21 MR. MORRISSEY: No, that's okay.

22 [Defence counsel confer]

23 MR. MORRISSEY:

24 Q. In front of you, do you have the -- a B/C/S document and in

25 particular do you have a bit at the bottom which seems to be a note

Page 47

1 saying: "I am too busy. Namik, please take Zajko and finish this with

2 him. Nermin." Do you see that passage? It seems to be under the words

3 "Chief Jusuf Jasarevic."

4 A. Yes. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Was that a note that you placed on this document?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. I would just like to clarify. It's a document which through me

9 was sent to Mr. Dzankovic, and I had the opportunity only to communicate

10 with the assistant security commander at the 44th Brigade. Along with the

11 document of Mr. Jasarevic, I just added the text that's here.

12 Q. Yes. Thank you. And I just wanted to ask you a couple of

13 questions about that. What is -- what is it that you were asking Namik to

14 do and what was the role of Zajko to be in that, according to this note?

15 In other words, what is it that you were asking Namik and Zajko to do

16 here?

17 A. It's like this: At the beginning of the text, it

18 says, "Regarding the events in the village of Grabovica, a representative

19 of the military security administration, Namik Dzankovic, and the" -- I

20 can't read it now -- "in cooperation - excuse me - with the sector chief

21 of the military security service of the 6th Corps will" -- I can't read

22 what it says here exactly. But the point is that we are together to make

23 a report, and the reason why I sent this remark at the bottom for -- is

24 for Zajko to do this assignment instead of me.

25 Q. Yes. Thank you. That's -- that -- good. Very well. Thank you.

Page 48

1 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I tender that document -- or offer that

2 document for tender.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, my question is that: Is it the same document

4 with the document MFI225?

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, it's different, as I understand it,

6 because it has the note to which this witness has attested, so it should

7 be a different document altogether.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Any objections?

9 MR. RE: I don't know. Again, we have a difficulty. We have to

10 pull up 225 on this screen and check it against the one on that screen.

11 If Your Honour could just give me a moment to that. I can then

12 indicate whether -- what our position is.

13 [Prosecution counsel confer]

14 MR. RE: The -- the documents -- maybe if Your Honours pulled

15 them up on your own screen, you could see the difference, if you retrieved

16 MFI -- or D225. Your Honours can see that they appear to be the same text

17 but in a different format.

18 The Prosecution just -- just requires some explanation from the

19 Defence as to why -- it could be that one is the received version and the

20 other one is the retained -- or the other one is the sent version. But

21 225 has a large stamp and a signature on it. This one, the original of

22 this one, doesn't have a stamp or a signature on it or the handwriting.

23 Now, the handwriting is probably explicable, they say, by

24 Mr. Dzambasovic, but that doesn't explain the stamp or Mr. Jasarevic's

25 signature. They appear to be the same document but in two different

Page 49

1 copies.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Morrissey, do you have something to say to

3 this.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, I don't, Your Honour. I'll just have to be

5 after inquiry made. My friend, I take it, is referring to the original

6 Bosnian versions? Yes.

7 Very well. Your Honour, look, I'll -- I'll have to have an

8 inquiry made about that. Would you just excuse me a moment, please.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think that the witness has already testified

10 to the additional words appearing in this document and the contents of

11 those two documents are the same, more or less the same. The only problem

12 is the format. I think during the custody of the document there might be

13 some different formalities.

14 So taking this into consideration, we'll admit it into the

15 evidence with a new number on it, but later on it is the Defence

16 responsibility to find some explanations on that.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Very well. Your Honour, we'll -- we'll

18 comply with that.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. What's the new number for this document?

20 MR. MORRISSEY: MFI268.

21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

22 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you.

23 Q. Very well. Now, you've been shown other correspondence already

24 by the Prosecutor and other reports and taskings. There's one that I wish

25 to show you now, which you may have seen before. You may not. You may

Page 50

1 remember it; you may not. But it is Defence 65 ter D573. Its ERN

2 number -- sorry, now this document is MFI227.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Is it in paper form, 227? Well, it's not linked.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Mr. Eminovic, I apologise for the delays.

5 Sometimes these happen in the course of these documentary matters.

6 Would Your Honours just excuse me a moment, please.

7 [Defence counsel confer]

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, the ERN number of this document is

9 DD002797.

10 Q. [Microphone not activated]

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry. Pardon me.

13 Q. Sorry, Mr. Eminovic, about that delay.

14 Would you mind just having a look at this document now and

15 reading it as -- at your leisure. And then I've got a couple of questions

16 to ask you about it.

17 A. I've read it.

18 Q. Okay. Now, does that appear to you to be a document that was

19 sent from Sarajevo on the 16th of September, 1993 to your service by Jusuf

20 Jasarevic concerning events at Kriz and Prozor -- or Kriz, near Prozor?

21 I'm sorry.

22 A. Yes, according to what it says here, this act was sent to me.

23 Earlier on I said something that had to do with a different document that

24 obviously happened before. You will have to forgive me, but I cannot sort

25 out many things by date. So this is probably a document that I had and

Page 51

1 that was addressed to me, that was sent to me.

2 Q. No, that's okay. And there are no tricks here. It's really for

3 your comment that I offer this document, rather than to surprise you in

4 any way.

5 Looking at it now, do you have any specific recollection of -- of

6 receiving that document? And in any event, are you able to comment on

7 when that document arrived at your service?

8 A. I really couldn't say. The document is clear. It's brief. I

9 have no idea. My memory would have to reach very far, and it would be

10 much better had I had all the documents in sequence. But obviously I will

11 make a mistake here and there in dates, in the times, and so on.

12 Q. Let me assure you that there's no intention to get you to make

13 mistakes, and it's really your comments that assist the Tribunal here.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Very well. Could the witness please be shown

15 another document. This document's admitted into evidence already as D149.

16 Q. What you're going to be shown here is a document that appears to

17 be a combat report from the Independent Prozor Battalion to the command of

18 the 6th Corps. And I'm showing you this document because of the answers

19 that you gave about where you got your information about Uzdol. This is a

20 document I'm going to show you and ask whether this is one of the sources

21 of information for your reports about Uzdol. When you see it, read it,

22 and then you can answer those questions.

23 And remember, while you're looking through it, you feel free to

24 indicate when you'd like the page turned, or any other assistance.

25 A. Could you please scroll the document. Just a little bit, please.

Page 52

1 Very good. Thank you.

2 Could you scroll it up a little more, please.

3 This is a combat report which in principle did not come to me, so

4 that I couldn't really comment on it. Perhaps I saw it. It's possible

5 that I didn't. Possibly it didn't even get to me.

6 Q. I understand in the normal course of events that would not come

7 to you in your service as a combat report. But in terms of the sources on

8 which you relied to compile your information, you mentioned the

9 possibility, I think, of seeing a combat report. And I just wondered: Is

10 this the combat report that you were referring to, or is there another

11 document that you haven't been shown that you're talking about?

12 A. I think that there was another document, something perhaps that

13 was at the level of the Supreme Command Staff. It was a kind of military

14 information. As far as this document is concerned, I'm not sure. I

15 really can't say anything. It's possible that it reached me. I cannot

16 say that it did or that it did not. It's possible. I don't know.

17 Q. Okay. In preparing the reports that you did prepare for

18 Mr. Jasarevic, you relied -- I take it you relied on what you were told by

19 Namik Dzankovic and also Mr. Sihirlic and also other persons within your

20 service who would give you information from time to time. Is that correct

21 or is that wrong?

22 A. Which report are you thinking of and which events? Could you

23 please be a little clearer.

24 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my apologies for that.

25 Well, first of all, with respect to the Uzdol matters

Page 53

1 specifically, did you get material in relation to Uzdol from other SVB

2 persons down the line, in the 6th Corps and also in the Independent Prozor

3 Battalion itself?

4 A. I don't know. Namik Dzankovic -- well, the information, how did

5 they arrive? All that was relevant would be collected. I tried to

6 establish such a relationship that the information that I received would

7 be checked through the service. I did not give up on any single piece of

8 information, but the only proper way was to channel them through the

9 service. The reason for that was always to check the information. At the

10 time, there was also disinformation, things like that, so ...

11 Q. Yes. You mentioned the disinformation before. And let me ask

12 you a question about that now. Once you heard that there had been

13 killings in Uzdol, did you become aware of reports in Croatian media to

14 that effect?

15 A. The Croatian media? To tell you the truth, the media was not

16 available to me. I didn't have access to the media at that time. I

17 personally did not.

18 Q. Yes. Okay. Well, I understand that.

19 Now, turning to the Grabovica report that you sent. The

20 information that you had there came from Nusret Sahic, from Mr. Sihirlic,

21 and Mr. Namik Dzankovic; is that accurate?

22 A. I did not receive information from Namik Dzankovic. I wasn't

23 informed by Namik Dzankovic. As for information that I did get, it came

24 from Nusret Sahic, the commander, as well as the military police and the

25 assistant of the service. Perhaps information did come that was given by

Page 54

1 Namik, but I didn't receive it directly. I got it from -- I mean, he

2 didn't inform me. That was the relationship.

3 Q. Okay. It's correct to say that he didn't report to you in any

4 line of authority and you didn't report to him in any line of authority;

5 is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that would -- could be a correct answer. Although, in the

7 seniority chain, he did have the right to ask me for certain assistance or

8 help in accordance with the expert line relating to questions from the

9 military security service.

10 Q. Yes. Now, I have a question for you just concerning the duty to

11 investigate crimes. Leaving aside the question of who the particular

12 commander was of -- well, I withdraw that question.

13 When a crime is committed, it's the obligation of the commander

14 at whose level that crime is committed to initiate an investigation by

15 deploying his professional units to do that; is that correct?

16 A. It depends on the criminal act in question, whether it's about

17 the unit, the individual, the service. But the obligation of the

18 commander is to initiate, let's say, an investigation. That is his duty.

19 Q. Now, to your understanding, Namik Dzankovic was given the task of

20 investigating the killings at Grabovica by Sefer Halilovic; is that

21 correct?

22 A. I really don't know. I don't know about assignment of tasks from

23 the general to Namik Dzankovic.

24 Q. Well, I'll just ask you one question which might put an end to

25 this line: Did you ever see the report that was -- that was provided by

Page 55

1 Namik Dzankovic dated 13th of September to General Jasarevic? Did you

2 ever personally sight that report?"

3 A. I definitely don't know, because at that time I didn't see it. I

4 assume that I didn't see it at the time. I didn't have the possibility to

5 see the communication between Namik Dzankovic and the chief of the

6 administration. Maybe sometime later, but I don't know what it's about.

7 Q. That's all right.

8 A. Perhaps later. I don't know.

9 Q. But you have no recollection of seeing it; is that accurate?

10 A. Look, maybe I saw it and maybe I didn't. Until I see it, it's

11 possible during the process of identification, let's say, of these

12 documents with The Hague investigators in Sarajevo. Perhaps there I had

13 the opportunity to see it. I don't know.

14 Q. Okay. Well, I -- I've got a different question to ask you

15 arising out of these matters. Were you ever shown a document dated the

16 30th of August of 1993 by which Rasim Delic, the commander of the army,

17 appointed an inspection team, including Sefer Halilovic as the team leader

18 and Namik Dzankovic as the -- as the SVB security person?

19 A. Are you trying to ask me -- or to say did I see that document?

20 Q. I'm asking you, first of all: Have you ever seen that document?

21 A. I think that I did see the document at some point, but much, much

22 later, not at that time.

23 Q. I see.

24 A. I didn't have it in my hands much, and so on.

25 Q. No, that's okay. Were you familiar -- did you know though

Page 56

1 that -- that Namik Dzankovic was in Herzegovina as the security member of

2 an inspection team headed by Sefer Halilovic? Did you know that at the

3 time?

4 A. Namik Dzankovic, as a member of the military security

5 administration, was in that team. I knew that.

6 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Very well.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Just excuse me a moment.

8 [Defence counsel confer]

9 MR. MORRISSEY:

10 Q. There's a document that's still on the screen. It's the combat

11 report emanating from the Independent Prozor Battalion.

12 Would you please look at the very top left of that document.

13 There's some handwriting at the very top left. And I just want to ask you

14 whether you're able to identify that handwriting. Do you have the

15 document in front of you?

16 A. I do.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness -- could that please be zoomed

18 in upon so that the witness can see it closely.

19 A. It's okay. I can see enough.

20 This is definitely not my handwriting.

21 Q. Are you able to identify whose it is?

22 A. According to what I can see, this is the handwriting of Aziz

23 Kadic, my deputy. But I'm not 100 per cent sure. It's possible that this

24 report the way it is, perhaps with some changes, was sent to the military

25 security administration. It's possible, but I'm not sure. Why do I say

Page 57

1 that? Because of all of these scribbles.

2 Q. Yes, I understand. It's really -- and look, I preface the

3 question by recognising that it's a long time ago, but I'm really just

4 pursuing what your sources of information were. And looking at that

5 document and in particular that handwriting in the top left, do you agree

6 that it's likely that your deputy explained the substance of this document

7 to you, enabling you to make reports to General Jasarevic?

8 A. That's probably the way it was. Probably.

9 Q. Okay. Thank you.

10 Now, you --

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, just excuse me a moment.

12 [Defence counsel confer]

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry. Pardon me.

14 Q. To your knowledge, the units who were based in Grabovica were

15 actually sent back to Sarajevo on or about the 20th of -- of September; is

16 that correct?

17 A. I'm not sure, but that would be that time. Whether that's the

18 20th or not, I really don't know, but that would be the time period.

19 Perhaps the second half of September. I don't know if it was the last --

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. -- third or not.

22 Q. Very well. And I just want to ask you this -- a couple of

23 questions about your knowledge of the inquiries and where that -- where

24 those inquiries had reached at the time when the Sarajevo units went back

25 to Sarajevo.

Page 58

1 First of all, during that time, did you ever have the name of one

2 single perpetrator advanced to you by any of the people you talked to? In

3 other words, was there a concrete suspect or more than one concrete

4 suspect people who were named? And I'm talking now about Grabovica, not

5 Uzdol.

6 A. As far as I know, there was no name of the perpetrators in -- of

7 the criminal act in Grabovica.

8 Q. And furthermore, to your knowledge was there at that time --

9 well, I withdraw that.

10 So far as the Uzdol investigation is concerned, all the

11 information that you had after the inquiries that you made was that there

12 was no crime committed in Uzdol but that civilians had been killed in the

13 course of fighting; is that correct?

14 A. My information that I had was that the crime could not be proved.

15 I did not consider one or the other to be true or untrue. It was

16 impossible at the time to prove what the truth was. You see, one of the

17 problems of the service was always the following: Wherever you turned up,

18 everybody avoided you. And so the story was closed. There was no

19 information indicating that a crime had really been committed in Uzdol.

20 It couldn't be proved.

21 Q. Yes. Okay. But in addition to that, you had positive assertions

22 from the battalion commander that in fact no crime had been committed; is

23 that correct?

24 A. When the battalion commander was in question, this report was not

25 a very serious one. Some of the statements he made -- well, I wouldn't

Page 59

1 like to comment on them. It might be best to ask him or if you can ask me

2 a more specific question, I might try to answer it.

3 Q. That's okay. I'm really just -- I'm not asking you to evaluate

4 the truth or otherwise of it at this stage. I'm just trying to get a

5 sense of what your -- what the information available to you was, and

6 you've answered the question, frankly.

7 Very well. As to the -- the Sarajevo units - I'm returning now

8 to Grabovica again - as to the Sarajevo units, when they returned to

9 Sarajevo, did you -- did the 6th Corps part of the SVB have the

10 possibility to interview the soldiers who had been in Grabovica any more,

11 or was that a responsibility that had passed over to the 1st Corps

12 military security?

13 A. The military security service and the Military Police Battalion

14 of the 6th Corps was not able to interview the soldiers. And in my view,

15 this should have been done within the units. You say the 1st Corps, the

16 units from the 1st Corps ...

17 Q. Well, I'm referring to those units that went back to Sarajevo

18 into the zone of responsibility of the 1st Corps.

19 A. Yes. But I don't know whether all these units were in the 1st

20 Corps. I think the 9th was and the 10th was, but I'm not sure about the

21 independent battalion or whatever its name was, whether it was part of the

22 1st Corps. Probably it was, but I'm not sure. That's what I was trying

23 to say.

24 Q. Well, that's okay. I won't press you if you don't know about

25 them.

Page 60

1 But at all events, all of those units that -- that were part of

2 the 1st Corps, upon returning to Sarajevo, they could be questioned by the

3 SVB of the 1st Corps but not by the SVB of the 6th Corps; is that correct?

4 A. Yes. Yes.

5 Q. So in short - and I'm just going to summarise now, if -- if I

6 can, and you tell me if this is accurate or not - the SVB -- sorry, during

7 the time when those Sarajevo units were in Herzegovina, the SVB performed

8 a number of tasks. And I'll list them. The SVB sought information about

9 the crimes; is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The SVB considered the possibility of a site inspection but

12 established that it was impossible and dangerous to conduct that; is that

13 correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. The SVB considered the possibility of interviewing soldiers but

16 was unable to do so because the soldiers were involved in combat

17 activities; is that correct?

18 A. Well, this is the same question as you asked before. What I'm

19 trying to say is there was no possibility of interviewing soldiers who

20 were involved in the crime.

21 Q. Yes. And, in fact, after less than two weeks had passed after

22 the crime, the soldiers from Sarajevo left the area of operations of the

23 6th Corps and, therefore, of the 6th Corps SVB; is that correct?

24 A. Yes, it is.

25 Q. You were aware that Namik Dzankovic was corresponding with and

Page 61

1 meeting with members of State Security Services and the civilian police;

2 is that correct?

3 A. I didn't know that. I assume that's correct, but I didn't have

4 any knowledge of it. It's possible that he had those meetings on the

5 ground, but I didn't know about it.

6 Q. Yes. And you at all times held yourself out as ready and willing

7 and able to help Mr. Dzankovic in any way you could during the course of

8 those two weeks or 12 days; is that correct?

9 A. It was my duty. Yes, I was ready and willing, and ultimately it

10 was my obligation.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes. Your Honours, it might be appropriate to

12 take the break now.

13 Can I indicate I think it highly likely that we'll complete this

14 witness today.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, can you tell me how long do you still need?

16 MR. MORRISSEY: I want to consider that on the break, but I'm --

17 perhaps I have only three documents that I propose to put to him from

18 here, but there are some other questions too. That's the ambit of what I

19 have.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Re.

21 MR. RE: For Your Honours' planning purposes, can I indicate that

22 on present indications I have two questions I wish to ask in

23 re-examination following my learned friend's cross-examination, because,

24 of course, we have to factor that in as well.

25 JUDGE LIU: We'll try our best to finish the testimony of this

Page 62

1 witness today. And during the break, I will get in touch with the

2 registrar to see whether there's any possibility for us to have some extra

3 time this afternoon.

4 Is it agreeable to the parties if we seek some advice in this

5 aspect from the registrar? Which means, do you agree that we sit this

6 afternoon? I know it's a Friday afternoon.

7 Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

8 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, we agree, if needs be.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

10 MR. RE: Of course.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll take a break, and we'll resume at ten

12 minutes past 1.00, I believe.

13 --- Recess taken at 12.42 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 1.11 p.m.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

16 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, this is a matter I would -- just

17 excuse me please, Mr. Eminovic, for one moment.

18 Your Honours, I have an explanation now relating to the

19 differences between those two documents. It just might take a few minutes

20 to explain it. Now, I can deal with it attend or -- in order not to waste

21 the witness's time now, if that's acceptable.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

23 MR. MORRISSEY: It might be best to complete the

24 cross-examination.

25 Yes. Thank you very much.

Page 63

1 Q. Very well, Mr. Eminovic, in the break, the length of time of the

2 questions has shortened.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: So I can now ask the witness please be shown in a

4 paper version -- this is ER -- sorry, Defence 65 ter -- and it would be

5 MFI269.

6 And Your Honours, we'll ensure that this is uploaded

7 appropriately in due course.

8 Sorry, Your Honours, I can just indicate the reason this was in

9 paper is there was a mistake in the scanning. It was meant to be

10 uploaded. It's actually got an ERN number but it hasn't been uploaded

11 because of a scanning glitch.

12 Q. Now, I mentioned earlier on in the cross-examining that you had a

13 number of problems in the 6th Corps quite apart from -- quite apart from

14 what was happening in Grabovica. Does this order relate to some problems

15 occurring in the village of Lisicici - I'm sorry, I really don't know how

16 to pronounce that one - but Lisicici? Were there problems with some

17 specified Arabs in that village to which you responded in this order?

18 A. May I comment on this?

19 Q. Of course. Yes. I'm inviting you.

20 A. This was a group of about 10 foreign nationals. I assume they

21 were Arabs. And this group had 5 or 10 men at the most. They were in the

22 village of Lisicici, which is on the right bank of the lake opposite

23 Celebici. They were causing problems. On several occasions, they had

24 taken a vehicle belonging to the European monitors. I think that they had

25 stolen a vehicle from the European monitors. I'm not sure exactly from

Page 64

1 whom. And this was done pursuant to an order from Commander Delic. The

2 corps command had received an order from Commander Delic that we were to

3 solve this problem with the Arabs stealing vehicles and so on and so forth

4 and --

5 Q. Well --

6 A. -- before this, I went to that village and spoke to the leader of

7 that group. I had an interpreter with me, a man who spoke Arabic quite

8 well and who was a member of the 6th Corps. And I told them they should

9 not cause problems, that they should not hinder anyone, things to that

10 effect. And I told them I would use force if they continued causing

11 problems. And this was an attempt -- after my warning and my order, they

12 restored the vehicle. It was a jeep. I think it was a Mercedes with dark

13 glass windows. I can't say exactly when, but I know that they left area

14 of responsibility of the 6th Corps.

15 Q. Yes. Thank you for that explanation. And I just wanted to ask

16 you: I noticed that your order was directed to Nusret Sahic or Sahic, and

17 I wanted to ask you how many of his troops of his company of military

18 police was he planning to use in that particular operation to get -- to

19 get rid of these troublesome visitors.

20 A. I really don't know. I couldn't say. This was an order drawn up

21 as follows: As I said, there was an order from Commander Rasim Delic

22 saying that they were to be deprived of their liberty and that the vehicle

23 was to be returned. As there was no commander there at the time, I did

24 this, and thank God this did not have to be implemented. In the meantime,

25 matters were wound up. They were -- they were completed in a lucky

Page 65

1 manner, a fortunate manner. Otherwise, we would have had to draw up a

2 plan in connection with this order. But this was never done actually.

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. That's my comment to the best of my recollection.

5 Q. Yes. Thank you very much.

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honour, I offer that document for

7 tender.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, what's the relevance of this document or this

9 piece of the evidence.

10 MR. MORRISSEY: It's just --

11 JUDGE LIU: I fail to see that.

12 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, it's just to illustrate the other pressures

13 that were on the service. The Prosecution -- well, I've been counselled

14 against making these comments, so I'll restrict it to this: The

15 Prosecution make an allegation of inactivity, effectively, and I want to

16 establish that the forces that were supposed to -- or that could have been

17 deployed in the theory of the Prosecution had a lot of things that were on

18 their plate, including this particular incident. And that's why we say

19 it's relevant in quite a direct way.

20 JUDGE LIU: Any objections, Mr. Re?

21 MR. RE: No. The Prosecution agrees that it actually supports

22 the Prosecution case because if it shows that the 6th Corps or the

23 military police were able to investigate some matters; our case is why

24 couldn't they investigate the more important ones, such as Grabovica. So

25 we welcome the tender of this document into evidence.

Page 66

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, since there's no objections from the

2 Prosecution, this document is admitted into evidence.

3 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE LIU: With a number pronounced by the ...?

5 THE REGISTRAR: 269.

6 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

7 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, I have another document to show you.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Could the witness please be shown MFI236.

10 Q. This document which is about to be shown to you may be a document

11 of yours, and I'll ask you to -- to confirm whether it is or not when you

12 look at it. It's addressed to Jusuf Jasarevic in person.

13 MR. MORRISSEY: Thank you. Perhaps if the witness could just be

14 shown the final page first.

15 Q. Mr. Eminovic, I'm just show you the final page to see

16 whether -- sorry?

17 MR. MORRISSEY: It's only one page in Bosnian. I apologise.

18 So could the witness just be given the chance to look at the

19 bottom of the page quickly and then also the opportunity to read the --

20 the document.

21 Q. Okay. Now, it may be sometime since you've seen this document,

22 if indeed you've seen it at all in recent times, so feel free to take time

23 and then I'll ask you some questions about it, whether it's your document,

24 and so on.

25 A. I've read it.

Page 67

1 Q. Very well. Okay. Let me just ask you some questions. First of

2 all, is that your -- does it have your signature on it?

3 A. This is not my handwriting.

4 Q. No. Well, I wanted to ask you about this -- this topic. Is

5 there -- is your name there on it? Do you see the name "Nermin Eminovic"?

6 A. Yes. Let me explain what this is about.

7 Q. Of course.

8 A. As you can see, assistant commander for intelligence affairs has

9 been crossed out, and in the heading -- this is actually a report

10 which arrived from the assistant commander for intelligence affairs, which

11 probably reached our assistant chief of staff for intelligence, and he

12 probably copied it and gave it to us in view of the information the

13 document contained.

14 As far as I can see, the handwriting is the handwriting of my

15 then-deputy, and this in fact represents our preparation. We only had one

16 computer, which was encrypted. So he simply put this text -- he scanned

17 it and prepared a report for Mr. Jasarevic. This is an operative report.

18 It's one of those. It had no intention of being the most precise and the

19 best document. It simply contained all possible information that could be

20 gathered.

21 Q. Yes, I understand. You just gave an indication of the assistant

22 commander for intelligence -- oh, sorry. Pardon me. I withdraw that.

23 You've just indicated that this document probably reached your assistant

24 chief of staff for intelligence, who probably copied it and gave it to you

25 or to us -- "to us," I think was your term. What's the name of that

Page 68

1 person to whom you're referring, the assistant commander for intelligence

2 affairs?

3 A. Excuse me. Excuse me. Just a moment, please. I didn't see this

4 before. It says here in the heading: "Security sector." So this was

5 then sent to me, but it was sent by the intelligence officer. This was

6 unusual at the time. This is an unusual kind of communication.

7 Q. Yes. Could you just -- sorry, now, just -- it's my fault,

8 perhaps because of the way I asked the question, but could you just

9 explain what the -- what has happened with this document, where it appears

10 to have been written and how it appears to come to you. Can you just

11 explain that. I know you already have in some respects, but I was

12 confused by it, ask so I'd just ask if you wouldn't mind taking us through

13 that once more.

14 A. This is a document from the Independent Prozor Battalion.

15 Q. Yes?

16 A. It was sent to the security sector, as it says here. It was

17 signed, it says here, by the assistant commander for intelligence, and an

18 intelligence officer sending such a document to me was an unusual thing to

19 happen. This was not what normally happened. But this probably happened

20 because we asked for as much information as possible about the events in

21 Uzdol. Maybe that's why he sent it.

22 And this probably then went to the security services

23 administration, as it's addressed -- as it's addressed the way it is, I

24 assume that it ended up in the administration, but I cannot assert it.

25 Q. But by the markings on it, that is the appearance it has;

Page 69

1 correct?

2 A. I assume that's the case. This is my language, and I understand

3 this. I also know the methods of work at the time. However, it's

4 possible that the text we see here was somewhat revised when this was

5 sent. Something might have been corrected or added. It might have been

6 amended a little. Maybe it wasn't sent in its entirety, but maybe it was.

7 I really don't know. You would have to see what the final document looked

8 like. I think that most of this text went to this address.

9 Q. Yes, I understand. So in conclusion, this appears to be a draft

10 document to be sent on to someone else at a later stage; is that correct?

11 A. That could probably be the best definition.

12 Q. Yes, I understand.

13 Okay. Well, I have some questions about the -- about the

14 information contained in it, and I'd ask you to exercise your memory the

15 best way you can and see whether you can recall what you knew about some

16 of the -- some of the information contained in it.

17 First of all, was it operative information known to you at the

18 time that "bus driver Slavko Mendes was captured during the Uzdol attack

19 and sent back with a demand for the others to surrender as soon as the

20 driver approached the school and passed on the army's demand. Someone

21 from the school shot at him through a window and killed him and fierce

22 fire was opened."

23 Now, was that operative information that you can now recall?

24 A. My memory doesn't help me much here. This is an operative

25 document. I really don't know -- don't remember. In my testimony

Page 70

1 earlier, I said that considerably -- I gave a much smaller number of

2 participants in the combat than it actually was, just because I really

3 didn't remember.

4 Q. That's okay. All right. I have just want to move on to the

5 next -- the next issue. Was it within your knowledge at the time,

6 according to operative information that existed, that most of the Croatian

7 soldiers were in private homes, "So they opened fire at our men from the

8 houses. The fire was returned as much as possible at that proximity"?

9 Was that operative information known to you at the time; namely, that

10 there was a fierce battle involving shooting at and from private houses in

11 the Uzdol area?

12 A. I don't know if that's stated in the text here or ...

13 Q. Well, it's stated in the text. Perhaps -- in the Bosnian

14 version, it's about 10 lines from the top, near to an underlined section.

15 A. Yes. Yes.

16 Q. Well, does -- do you recall whether that -- I'm sorry, I cut --

17 A. Look, this is one of the reports that I did receive. The real

18 truth is something that only God knows. This was given to me as one of

19 the reports which should have been relevant --

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. -- and so on and so forth. It's very hard to say what the actual

22 truth is.

23 Q. Yes. Now, I understand you had an obligation to pass on

24 operative information, whether it was true or not true; is that correct?

25 A. Not whether it was true or not. If I knew -- I mean, it was my

Page 71

1 obligation to send on information that was as true or as correct as

2 possible. The intelligence service and us were expected to have the most

3 precise and the most reliable information at our disposal. This is the

4 precision and reliability to the extent it was possible to have at that

5 time. It's not just my job to pass the information on. I also need to

6 check whether it is correct or not. At that moment, I didn't have the

7 means to check this information, because it was coming from a certain

8 source and it wasn't possible to check it for veracity.

9 Q. And you were not able to go to the village of Uzdol or the

10 hamlets within Uzdol because they were back under HVO control; is that

11 correct?

12 A. Yes, that is correct. It was under the control to have HVO all

13 the time. At the time, we called it "temporarily captured territory."

14 Q. Okay. Thank you. One other matter I just wanted to raise:

15 Probably about maybe four or so lines from the bottom, there's a reference

16 to -- and I'll just read you a sentence: "In -- in such a lightning

17 action, there was no time for either looting or mutilation, as the

18 Croatian media are trying to portray it." And then there's a reference

19 to: "There is an example where our soldier hid women and children in a

20 basement in order to protect them from the shells. This was also

21 confirmed on Radio Rama in an interview with one of the women, except that

22 it was added in a commentary that he had done it for money. Even the

23 exact name of the soldier was mentioned."

24 Now, I just wanted to ask you about that. Having seen that --

25 that paragraph, can you now remember anything about HVO media reports,

Page 72

1 Radio Rama, for example, or other such outlets? I mean, I appreciate it's

2 11 years ago, but I just ask you to extend your memory as much as you can

3 and see whether you can recall anything about the coverage of these events

4 by the Croatian media.

5 A. To tell the truth, I didn't have the possibility to communicate,

6 to find out what was going on or being reported in the media at the time.

7 It was the task of the intelligence service. It was their duty to monitor

8 and to gather information from the other side. Let's put it that way. So

9 this -- in view of the fact that this was sent by an intelligence person,

10 then that's probably it.

11 Q. Yes. I understand. Just in thinking back, do you recall the

12 story independently of a soldier from the -- from the Bosnian army side

13 sheltering any civilians in a basement? Do you remember that or -- that

14 story or not?

15 A. I really don't know.

16 Q. That's okay.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, I offer -- I'm sorry, it's -- I

18 don't offer it. It's admitted already. Thank you.

19 Very well. Just excuse me. All right. Well, I'm now into the

20 last -- the last questions. And they're going to be very short now.

21 Q. First of all, do you recall that an operation called Operation

22 Trebevic III took place in your area, in the Konjic area?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I don't need to know the exact dates, but I take it that took

25 place after Operation Trebevic took place in Sarajevo on the 26th of

Page 73

1 October, 1993. Is that correct?

2 A. The plan for the action was drafted sometime in November. It was

3 sent to the military security administration. I think this was at the end

4 of November. And then it was sent to the administration for verification.

5 And I think that's when it happened.

6 To be honest, I think that some actions had already started which

7 could have been implemented before the actual plan itself. I don't

8 remember exactly when the plan was signed, but the implementation, I

9 think, was in January. I can be wrong, I think, but ...

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

11 MR. MORRISSEY:

12 Q. Very well. Well, now, I'm not asking you for a full summary of

13 the -- of the actions in Trebevic III, but I just wanted to ask you one

14 question about it, that is: Did the Trebevic III operation that occurred

15 in the Konjic area have any relation to the crimes committed at Grabovica

16 or at Uzdol, to your recollection?

17 A. As far as I can remember - I can be wrong here, but - when we're

18 talking about Grabovica, the charges were drafted against unidentified

19 persons. But really I can't be certain.

20 As far as Uzdol is concerned, if I remember correctly there was

21 no work done on that.

22 Q. Mr. Eminovic, thank you for your patience in answering the

23 questions.

24 MR. MORRISSEY: That is the cross-examination.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much.

Page 74

1 It seems to me that we could finish the testimony of this witness

2 in the morning sitting.

3 Yes, any redirect examination, Mr. Re?

4 MR. RE: There is.

5 Can Your Honour just excuse me for one moment. I'm just looking

6 for a transcript reference in relation to the last answer.

7 Thank you.

8 Re-examined by Mr. Re:

9 Q. Mr. Eminovic, my learned colleague Mr. Morrissey questioned you

10 about an order on, I think it was the 14th of September, 1993 involving an

11 investigation into activities by "Arabs," foreign nationals, you described

12 them as. Do you know where they were from?

13 A. No. To be clear here, in my conversation with them I, around the

14 time when this order was written - I think before or after; don't hold me

15 to it, I really don't know - I tried to get in touch with them. I had a

16 person who spoke Arabic perfectly, like I said. To the question where

17 they were from, they would say, "From Islamija." Islamija doesn't exist

18 as a state. And then I would ask them, "Why are you doing this?" And

19 then they would say, "Well, there, we just want to be doing this. You

20 don't want to fight," and so on and so forth. So then I asked

21 them, "Would you be able to do this in your country without being

22 punished," and then one of them said, "No." But name, last names --

23 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Thank you. I was only asking you whether you knew where they

Page 75

1 were from.

2 Now, my next question to that is: Were they -- do you know

3 whether they could be classified as "Mujahedin"?

4 A. They were armed. All right. Let's say that it was a group --

5 well, very roughly, but "Mujahid" in the Islamic interpretation is a broad

6 term, and it's more or less "a fighter on God's path." They were armed

7 Arabs who were staying in this territory, so that would be it.

8 Q. Okay. Thank you.

9 A. As I said, the names, last names, we didn't know. I also know

10 that they themselves did not have their passports on them. They kept them

11 in places that were -- possibly they had several passports.

12 MR. RE: That was, for the record, Exhibit D269.

13 Q. Secondly, in cross-examination Mr. Morrissey asked you about the

14 feasibility of interviewing those who may have been perpetrators at

15 Grabovica, and your answer was: "There was no possibility of interviewing

16 the soldiers who were involved in the crime."

17 When you answered that question from Mr. Morrissey in the

18 indirect phrase of "there was no possibility of interviewing them," were

19 you referring to yourself specifically or to other people, such as

20 Mr. Dzankovic, the military police, or -- or anyone else?

21 A. I wasn't thinking of myself. I was thinking of the service of

22 the 6th Corps. And I also was thinking of the military police. This is

23 what was being talked about. Nothing else.

24 And concerning Mr. Dzankovic, I assume that he also was not able

25 to have these interviews. It's my assumption. I'm going to be sincere

Page 76

1 now and say that at that time each one of us who would try to approach

2 those people by force would -- would get a bullet, roughly speaking. I

3 mean, I don't know, but they would have problems. They would have

4 problems. Maybe I am speaking roughly, but don't hold me to it.

5 Q. All right. And was that last answer you gave about getting a

6 bullet, was that based upon an assumption or personal knowledge?

7 A. I am talking about assumptions, not any knowledge. Perhaps I was

8 a little bit hasty earlier using the vocabulary from before. But there,

9 in any case, let me correct myself. I wouldn't be able to get a

10 statement. Ultimately, I would be chased off. You couldn't really do

11 this very easily at that time. I am speaking this as an assessment based

12 on general information, nothing precise.

13 Q. And finally - thank you, Mr. Eminovic - my learned colleague

14 Mr. Morrissey asked you about the Uzdol -- what he called "the Uzdol

15 investigation." His question was: So far as the Uzdol investigation was

16 concerned, all the information was that no crimes had been committed but

17 that civilians had been killed in the course of fighting," to which you

18 responded: "My information was that the crime could not be proved."

19 In relation to that proposition he put to you and your question,

20 my clarification -- my question of clarification is: What was your

21 professional view as to whether a -- I withdraw that.

22 You gave some evidence yesterday about investigations into other

23 possible crimes, and you specifically mentioned "smuggling and contact

24 with the enemy and the investigations your -- the military police carried

25 out."

Page 77

1 In relation to the investigation that Mr. Morrissey suggested may

2 have been carried out in relation to Uzdol, what was your professional

3 view as to whether a proper investigation had actually been carried out

4 into the Uzdol crimes?

5 MR. MORRISSEY: Sorry, I've got an objection about that. It

6 needs to be specified whether he's asking -- whether my learned friend is

7 asking whether now he thinks a professional investigation was carry out,

8 with the benefit of everything in hindsight, or whether at the time --

9 whether the question relates to the time. Because at the time the

10 witness hasn't agreed that crimes -- that he thought that crimes had been

11 committed. He's given evidence so far, and frankly my question was about

12 the information that he had. So that's the -- my friend has to clarify

13 what he's -- what opinion he's asking for here before that question can be

14 permitted.

15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

16 MR. RE:

17 Q. My question is -- and I apologise if it's not as precise as it

18 could be -- is directed to at the time.

19 MR. MORRISSEY: Well, Your Honours, if that's the case, then my

20 question upon which my friend is re-examining was a question about what

21 was his information. That's not an invitation to have an opinion. So --

22 but frankly, in order to assist matters, I won't object to the -- the

23 simple question being asked: What was his opinion at the time? Whether

24 he knew the offences had been committed or not.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Let's go along this way.

Page 78

1 MR. RE: I will. But the question -- I read the question out

2 completely, which was: So far as the Uzdol investigation was

3 concerned ...

4 Q. Now, Mr. Eminovic, do you understand what I'm saying to you or do

5 you need it clarified after that exchange?

6 A. Please clarify it, because you have been communicating a lot now,

7 so I don't know what the question is any more.

8 Q. Mr. Morrissey proposed or suggested to you - I'll read the

9 question to you again so you know exactly what my question is - he said to

10 you: "So far as the Uzdol investigation was concerned, all the

11 information was that no crime had been committed but that civilians had

12 been killed in the course of fighting." Your answer was: "My information

13 was that the crime could not be proved."

14 Yesterday you gave some evidence about investigations carried out

15 by the 6th Corps into criminal activities such as smuggling and contact

16 communication with the enemy. My question --

17 MR. MORRISSEY: I'm sorry to intervene again, but a simple

18 question should be asked here. It's re-examination. It's not

19 cross-examination.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

21 MR. RE: Your Honour, can I please explain. I've -- I probably

22 could have got through this much more quickly by now. He gave evidence

23 yesterday of investigations, which he said were carried out at his behest.

24 Mr. Morrissey asked him about an --

25 JUDGE LIU: So --

Page 79

1 MR. RE: -- also put words into his mouth about an Uzdol

2 investigation. I'm asking him to compare to two as to whether the Uzdol

3 one was a proper one in terms of the investigations he'd seen carried out

4 so far.

5 JUDGE LIU: Maybe you could just put a very plain question to

6 this witness.

7 MR. RE:

8 Q. In the context of investigations that you had seen carried out

9 before, such as those you described yesterday - smuggling, contact with

10 the enemy - and in the context of the question, Mr. Morrissey asked you

11 about the Uzdol investigation. At the time, what is your view as to

12 whether there had been a proper investigation into the alleged crimes at

13 Uzdol?

14 MR. MORRISSEY: I object again. Now the question is: What is

15 your view?

16 MR. RE: What was your view - I'm sorry - at the time. If

17 there's any dispute as to whether it was now or then, I'm only referring

18 to then.

19 And I do apologise because I have to lead it back to the question

20 he was actually asked.

21 A. Investigations are being talked about here and information. An

22 investigation is based on information. I cannot start an investigation

23 without information. So the information I receive for each investigation

24 is something that I receive from the service or from the police, and then

25 based on this information, which we had at our disposal at the time, you

Page 80

1 could not have evidence that a criminal act had been committed. It was a

2 question whether it had happened at all.

3 If I understand what was being discussed here and try to -- I can

4 try to answer in this particular way. Or you could ask me -- maybe --

5 maybe it's a question of language also.

6 Q. Well, what I'm asking you is -- is just this: You said yesterday

7 that there -- you had had some investigations into activities -- criminal

8 activities by the 6th Corps. Today Mr. Morrissey asked you about the

9 Uzdol investigation.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The question is: What was your view as to whether a proper

12 investigation had been carried out in relation to the Uzdol crimes,

13 compared to the investigations you had seen carried out in relation to

14 other crimes.

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we're talking about Uzdol, an

17 adequate investigation - perhaps this is what I think now - could have

18 been carried out had certain information been available which was not

19 available at the time. I say "perhaps." From this point in time I

20 believe that. But as far as other investigations are concerned, which you

21 mentioned, they were in the terrain which we had control over, in the

22 physical sense, and it was possible to carry them out at the time. I

23 mentioned smuggling. But what we're talking actually is -- what we're

24 talking about actually is the following: A kilogramme of tobacco, it was

25 known that the price for that was 400 bullets. That was the price. For

Page 81

1 one lamb, you could get 10 shells. So these were the prices that were

2 current at that time.

3 MR. RE:

4 Q. Okay. Thanks. Finally, at page 58 of today's transcript,

5 Mr. Morrissey, my learned colleague, was questioning you about the report

6 of Enver Buza, and you said -- the question was: "In addition to that,

7 you had positive assertions from the battalion commander that in fact no

8 crime had been committed; is that correct?"

9 Your answer was: "When the battalion commander was in

10 question" -- I think in question -- "this report was not a very serious

11 one" -- was in -- "some of the statements he made -- well, I wouldn't like

12 to comment on them. It's best -- may be best to ask him."

13 My question is: What did you mean by saying "this report was not

14 a very serious one"?

15 A. For the simple reason that the person who writes "30 armed

16 civilians" must define such a term. That's the lack of seriousness in

17 that report, not the mention the numbers that are referred to there. They

18 are very, very - how shall I put it? - imprecise, given off the top of

19 one's head. These -- this is -- these are my thoughts about that, and so

20 on.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Eminovic.

22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

23 At this stage, are there still any documents from the parties to

24 tender?

25 MR. RE: None from the Prosecution. They are all tendered, I'm

Page 82

1 informed.

2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

3 Mr. Morrissey.

4 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honour, MFI268, we seek to tender.

5 [Defence counsel confer]

6 MR. MORRISSEY: That's the document that was distributed in paper

7 copy.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Any objections?

9 MR. RE: This was the one Mr. Morrissey was going to provide the

10 Trial Chamber with an explanation about.

11 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes.

12 JUDGE LIU: Is that the one? No, I don't think it's that one. I

13 think that one is about the Arabs.

14 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours, that was the -- I think -- I think

15 the -- the guests -- the Arab people was 269, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

17 MR. MORRISSEY: And this one is 268, and the comparison between

18 MFI225 and 268 is the matter that -- that the Prosecution raised. And

19 having the documents in front of me now, I can see what the issue is.

20 165 appears to be the original, and then what may have

21 happened -- and it may be that I can lead this evidence -- if the witness

22 listens to the explanation, then if there's any difficulty, we can ask him

23 about it.

24 What appears is that 165 is a document stamped and signed by

25 Jusuf Jasarevic, and that appears to have arrived at the 6th Corps. It

Page 83

1 looks as if it's then been re-typed and it's in a different typing format,

2 as the Prosecutor correctly identified. It's then written that it's

3 Nacelnik Jusuf Jasarevic at the bottom, but there's no signature apparent,

4 so it looks as if it's been re-typed.

5 Thereafter, you get the note that this witness indicated he'd

6 appended to it, and it would appear that that's the copy that was sent on

7 to -- I'm sorry, I don't have the English version in front of me now, but

8 that would appear to be the -- the copy that was sent on to Dzankovic and

9 which indicates to Namik, "Please use Zajko to assist." That's the way

10 we -- that's what we think is the -- that's what we think the -- the

11 explanation is.

12 I'm happy -- well, I can ask the witness about it. If the

13 Prosecution wants me to pursue it further with the witness, I can. It

14 might take some time, but it can be done, so I can provide -- I've got

15 hard copies. I can pass my copies over to the Prosecutor so they can

16 inspect it -- oh, they've got it already.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Re, do you have any comments on that,

18 since this document has already been admitted into the evidence?

19 MR. RE: No, I don't. One has been admitted. The other one,

20 they were seeking to admit into evidence, the second one.

21 The witness has provided an explanation. That's --

22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Thank you very much. It's admitted into

23 the evidence.

24 Well, witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to

25 give your evidence. We managed to finish your testimony today, and

Page 84

1 Madam Usher will show you out of the room and we wish you a pleasant

2 journey back home.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 JUDGE LIU: Is there anything else the parties would like to

5 raise?

6 MR. MORRISSEY: Your Honours --

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

8 MR. MORRISSEY: -- could we just place on record appreciation for

9 the court interpreter service in assisting us to finish this witness in

10 the way that has been.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much indeed. I believe you have taken

12 the words from my mouth.

13 MR. RE: The Prosecution also likewise expresses its

14 appreciation.

15 [The witness withdrew]

16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So we'll resume next Tuesday.

17 The hearing is adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.03 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of

20 March, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.

21

22

23

24

25