1 Thursday, 15 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
6 Yes, Mr. Tieger, today -- I said yesterday that we would hear you
7 first thing today.
8 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. Before I begin with the issue
9 raised by the Chamber at the end of the session yesterday, I might
10 mention the resolution of the scheduling issue which was also on our
11 agenda. This is -- we did discuss the matter with the Defence. This was
12 an impressive example, actually, of both sides doing their utmost to
13 compromise and offering concessions in their previous positions to
14 accommodate the other. In this case, we made the last accommodation and
15 urged them to go through the door first. So we'll be moving forward on
16 the schedule that Mr. Robinson proposed.
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Tieger. The Chamber appreciates the
18 parties' co-operation very much. Thank you.
19 MR. TIEGER: And I mentioned to Mr. Robinson this morning in --
20 also that I would at the same time note another issue that's been on the
21 table which, unfortunately, has not resolved it in the same level of
22 progress and that's the issue of the failure to comply with 65 ter and
23 the absence of adequate factual summaries and/or statements. We took
24 certain steps toward resolving that, but those turned out to be utterly
25 ineffectual, that is, we -- I won't go into the details, but the
1 anticipated first step toward resolving it that the Prosecution expected
2 to receive from the Defence did not turn out to be an effective measure
3 in any way. So that issue is still very much on the table. We are going
4 to address it with greater intensity during the break, if we can, but
5 that may be something we'll be bringing to the attention of the
6 Trial Chamber and I wanted to alert the Trial Chamber to that
8 That said, Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the issue that you
9 asked me to address and that is the time spent by the Prosecution in
10 cross-examination. By way of background, I note that you indicated,
11 among other things, that the Prosecution had used much more time in
12 cross-examination than the Defence used in examination and
13 re-examination, that the evidence presented by these witnesses was
14 limited, with short statements, very few associated exhibits and - as
15 mentioned - often a limited number of issues. I hope I won't spend too
16 much time telling you why the Prosecution is not taking too much time,
17 but given the amount of time available between last night and this
18 morning, this may be a case of it takes more time to prepare a short
19 letter than a longer one, but I'll do my best.
20 I'd like to note preliminarily that there is no gap, no friction,
21 no conflict between the Court's interest in the most efficient possible
22 cross-examinations and therefore the most efficient possible trial and
23 the Prosecution's interest in exactly the same thing. We want to move
24 forward as expeditiously as we can while remaining true to the mandate to
25 maintain a trial that pursues the ascertainment of the truth and the
1 achievement of justice. And we feel that actually given our extensive
2 knowledge of the case, we are in the best possible position to assess the
3 balance between the issues needed to be raised in cross-examination and
4 those extremely significant responsibilities.
5 And as we've progressed, we've attempted to identify areas where
6 such efficiencies can take place. The Court will have noted the
7 recurring themes that seem to arise in statement after statement. We
8 consider that to the extent we have effectively dealt with those with
9 certain witnesses, that to the extent those tend to arise with similarly
10 situated witnesses, we do not need to spend as much time or indeed,
11 perhaps, any time addressing those same issues which have been thrashed
12 out and clarified with previous witnesses.
13 And we also constantly meet to identify basically the state of
14 play with respect to the kinds of issues that are raised by witnesses,
15 all in the interest of making the examinations as short and effective as
16 they can possibly be. And I would emphasize that a great deal of
17 out-of-court time, an enormous amount of out-of-court time goes into just
18 that effort.
19 But I wanted to actually turn to the Court's specific points
20 about the balance between the length of the statements, the amount of
21 time taken in direct examination and re-examination, and the time taken
22 by the Prosecution for cross-examination. And I hope I can shed some
23 light on factors that may not have been immediately apparent.
24 Frankly, it -- while it may be correct that the statements
25 comprise fewer pages than statements, for example, submitted by the
1 Prosecution during the course of its case, it is simply not the case that
2 there is any necessary relationship between the issues -- the
3 significance and number of issues raised and the number of pages that a
4 statement comprises, nor is there any relationship between the number of
5 pages and the difficulty, complexity, or necessary length of a
6 cross-examination, and let me explain.
7 With respect to the format, that is, that there's no necessary
8 relationship between the length of a statement and the number of issues
9 raised or the need for time spent in cross-examination, the reductio
10 ad absurdum of that is frankly something I've mentioned to students, for
11 example, in the course of discussions about this very issue in making
12 that very point, and that's a situation where to make the point you would
13 say: Look, what if somebody comes in and says, I was with the accused
14 the entire length of the war or the entire length of the -- and take a
15 domestic case of the events at issue months and months and years and
16 years, and that person committed no crime. You now have ten seconds to
17 cross-examine. Now, that sounds absurd, but in a sense that's the
18 situation we are facing here. We have commander after commander after
19 commander coming in with sweeping statements about what happened along
20 the lines of: We always complied with IHL, we never fired into the
21 depth, we only received orders to obey international humanitarian law, we
22 never fired at civilians. Now, those issues cover basically the entirety
23 of the Prosecution case and compel cross-examination. So they put
24 virtually everything on the table. The Prosecution has no recourse but
25 to address those things.
1 Now, the paradox is that by doing it in that way, not only do
2 those statements require us to cover a vast array of issues, but they
3 make it more difficult to do so because it's incumbent then upon the
4 Prosecution to identify the underlying factors that allow for a
5 meaningful cross-examination that are not covered in a statement. So
6 it's vastly easier when much of the background work has been done by a
7 detailed statement that lets you know who, what, where, and how so you
8 can really get to the crux of the issue rather than having to reconstruct
9 it during the course of the cross-examination.
10 Just as a -- the same thing is true, for example, of associated
11 exhibits. The number of associated exhibits, whether -- the fact that
12 there are few associated exhibits doesn't necessarily mean there's
13 less -- there's less time needed for cross-examination. It can be just
14 the opposite, and one example that comes to mind is the very first
15 cross-examination. The Court may recall that a large number of
16 additional paragraphs and quite a significant volume, dozens and dozens
17 of additional exhibits were added at the last minute to the statement.
18 Now, that did not expand the estimated time for cross-examination.
19 Indeed, the Prosecution took significantly less time than it had
20 originally estimated, and part of the reason was that those additional
21 exhibits gave us access to information that allowed us to effectively
22 cross-examine the witness directly. So, for example, we were able to
23 expose the mis-characterisation of the Vrbanja bridge incident on the
24 basis of a document that was an associated exhibit that indicated that
25 contemporaneously the witness was aware that what had been said in --
1 what he was now saying in the statement was not true.
2 So that's one example of the seemingly paradoxical relationship
3 between the length of the -- the length of a statement and the length of
4 cross-examination and the fact that it's important to reject the idea
5 that a short statement necessarily means a short cross. It's not the
6 case at all, as I noted.
7 Now, I mentioned earlier the -- what I consider to be the
8 extraordinary efforts behind the scenes that the Prosecution makes to
9 identify relevant documents, relevant issues, that should be brought to
10 the Court's attention to illuminate the issues and simultaneously
11 determine which of the issues raised in the statement need to be raised.
12 And I need to emphasize that this was -- this has not been the case where
13 the Prosecution has simply reflexively marched through the statement,
14 addressing issue after issue raised by the Defence in those statements.
15 I didn't have time to canvass the team generally or cover the
16 cross-examinations in their entirety, but a simple quick review indicated
17 that there were large amounts - many, many paragraphs of many, many
18 statements - that we simply discarded because either the focus was on the
19 general credibility of the witness or because we considered them
20 sufficiently peripheral or marginal that they should not consume the time
21 of the Court. And all of that is reflected in the stats that I've been
22 able to gather about the cross-examinations and the time we've had.
23 So here, for example, I have the statistics for the estimated
24 times for cross-examination and the times that the Prosecution has taken.
25 I think it's a very impressive table. We've come in under, as the Court
1 mentioned a few days ago, asking us to be alert to the fact that we were
2 being more efficient in cross-examination than we had appreciated and to
3 try to make those estimates conform a little more closely to where we
4 ended up, but they're modest -- relatively modest estimates and they are
5 very, very impressive results based on those cross-examinations.
6 I also want to mention, by the way, that there was never an
7 instance where a reduced time for cross-examination, that is, the
8 difference between the estimate and the time we actually took threatened
9 that there would not be a witness here because we were in contact with
10 the Defence and Mr. Robinson throughout. So they were always aware of
11 the most contemporary and most current estimate.
12 A similar statistic, Mr. President, is --
13 JUDGE KWON: Just staying there. What number do you have in --
14 the estimate versus actual time?
15 MR. TIEGER: I don't have that percentage. What I have is -- I
16 was just looking down the individual -- and I can read some of them and
17 the majority come in as -- I mean, I can read them off one at a time,
18 it's a bit anecdotal, but I was highlighting the ones that were -- so I
19 look at the first one, the first estimate was 5.5, it came in at under
20 3 and a half. The second one was 4, it came in at under an hour. The
21 third one was 4.5, it came in under 3 hours, and so on.
22 JUDGE KWON: In total I think the actual time is about
23 57 per cent of your estimate.
24 MR. TIEGER: Okay.
25 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, yes, Mr. Tieger.
1 MR. TIEGER: And really, Mr. President, that is not because we've
2 inflated the estimates. It's because we've been constantly working to
3 identify what really needs to be done and, as you would expect and as I
4 kind of alluded to at the beginning of my discussion, the more you work
5 on something the more you're in a position to make it more efficient and
6 that's what's been happening.
7 A similar example of the efficiency of the Prosecution, I
8 believe, can be found in the percentages of time used by the parties.
9 And what I can tell the Court is that based on our statistics, it appears
10 that the Prosecution is -- that the same percentages of time are being
11 used by the parties as during the Prosecution case. And why is that
12 significant? It's significant because, as you can see, the Defence is
13 using scarcely any time in its tendering of the 92 ter submissions. And
14 that would mean if the Prosecution was maintaining the same level of
15 efficiency in cross-examination, that is, was taking -- consuming the
16 same amount in cross-examination that the Defence had used, that our
17 percentage of time taken in the course of this case would obviously
18 increase; that is, now the Defence takes no time in tendering the
19 statements. Obviously then the time taken for cross-examination would
20 consume a much greater percentage of the overall allotment. But that's
21 not the case. These percentages have remained the same and they've
22 remained the same because the Prosecution has tried just as hard to keep
23 these examinations as efficient as possible.
24 Now, I tried to promise at the beginning that I wouldn't take
25 more time than necessary and perhaps I've overstayed my welcome in that
1 respect, but I want to emphasize two things. And that is that the
2 Prosecution is willing at all times to take on further guidance about
3 where Prosecution -- where examinations can be conducted more efficiently
4 and we will certainly take those suggestions on board. But I think it's
5 important to emphasize that the role of the Prosecution in
6 cross-examination is central to the identification of the evidence
7 necessary for this Trial Chamber to make the significant decisions it has
8 to make. Nothing, in our submission, that the Prosecution has done thus
9 far would suggest or, much less, warrant the imposition of time-limits.
10 We think quite the contrary. And we think to do so would jeopardise
11 potentially our ability to get you the information that you need and
13 Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE KWON: Just one -- with respect to the ratio referred to,
15 to the effect that the ratio during the Defence case so far is similar to
16 that during the Prosecution case, did you not from time to time or
17 oftentimes that the time spent by the Defence was unreasonably too
19 MR. TIEGER: One thing I wanted to -- you know, I noted that one
20 thing in the course of -- in the effort to be as quick as possible, one
21 thing I didn't mention that I wanted to mention earlier and that is I did
22 say that the Prosecution has attempted to be as efficient as possible. I
23 wanted to explicitly mention that among the things the Prosecution has
24 avoided is dealing with topics not raised by the statement, dealing with
25 peripheral topics, trying to address every statement, unnecessary
1 arguments the witness -- and I could go on, basically avoided all those
2 factors that prompted the Prosecution during the course of the -- of its
3 case and during the course of Defence examinations to note that time
4 might not be used as efficiently as possible. And I think for the most
5 part, by the way, we - with the exception of the very beginning of the
6 case when those issues tended to be raised - I think we largely refrained
7 from assessments of how much time should be allotted to the Defence, if
8 any, and how it should be handled directly in favour of simply
9 identifying at any given moment whether a relevant issue was being
10 addressed or whether the accused was needlessly pursuing an issue that
11 was not productive.
12 So I certainly would -- I'm not going to dispute the fact that we
13 didn't disagree with the Trial Chamber's assessment that the accused's
14 cross-examinations were not as efficient as possible and very, very
15 often - if not almost uniformly - ventured into unnecessary areas in
16 unproductive ways. So I -- you're right, I don't want to compare
17 those -- to make a comparison between our obligations to be as efficient
18 as possible and what the accused did. But I think my point was that
19 given -- given the fact that the Trial Chamber did impose limits and
20 tried to keep it within a reasonable period of time, the fact that we are
21 maintaining the same percentage now is a testimonial to our efforts to
22 keep those cross-examinations as efficient as possible.
23 I'd also mention - I think it needs to be said because I think
24 it's fair - I think the Court was careful at all times, insofar as I
25 recall, to make it clear to the accused that to the extent he can -- he
1 was dealing with issues fairly and efficiently, the Court would not
2 constrain him. And I think the Court emphasized that time and again, and
3 I -- for all the reasons that I've explained, I submit that the
4 Prosecution is dealing with these cross-examinations as efficiently as it
5 possibly can and will continue to do so and refine the efficiency even
7 JUDGE KWON: Do you have any observation, Mr. Robinson?
8 MR. ROBINSON: No. Thank you, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not going to respond to
11 Mr. Tieger. I can only say that based on their difficulties, it would be
12 easier to perceive what difficulties the Defence encounters given their
13 limited resources. I would like to apologise to the Trial Chamber and
14 especially Judge Morrison for interrupting his question the day before
15 yesterday; however, with all due respect for the efforts of the
16 interpreters, neither I nor the witness received that as the
17 interpretation of a question but rather as a statement. Some other
18 interventions of mine arise from that. I'm concerned because of the --
19 because of mistakes in the interpretation. Sometimes even erroneous
20 statements in the Prosecutor's questions which may influence the course
21 of the examination. My interventions during additional questions may be
22 belated when we're talking about misquotations or misinterpretations. I
23 beg your indulgence, please allow me to intervene with corrections in the
24 transcript or corrections when questions contain misquotations.
25 And once again, I would like to apologise to His Excellency
1 Judge Morrison for having interrupted his intervention.
2 JUDGE MORRISON: That's very kind, Dr. Karadzic, but I don't
3 think an apology is actually necessary. I certainly didn't perceive that
4 one was necessary. For myself, if the transcript is not accurate then
5 it -- it assists everybody if there is an intervention to correct it.
6 JUDGE KWON: Can I reiterate here now again that it's imperative
7 on your part to advise the witnesses from the region to speak slow, given
8 that they -- the situation regarding the interpretation.
9 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I'm sorry, if I could make one
10 quick --
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
12 MR. TIEGER: -- sorry, just one quick point about the
13 interpretation and maybe it stands -- it's a bit obvious, but everyone
14 would have to share Judge Morrison's observation. However, one thing we
15 have noted and that occurred yesterday when the interpreter said --
16 following an intervention: Well, that's the same thing. In other words,
17 it's another way of saying the same thing. So there are many ways or
18 there are often situations where there are synonyms that are basically
19 identical. If we're going to have interventions that identify such
20 synonyms because Mr. Karadzic thinks that he would have chosen a
21 different one, that will be rather cumbersome. So I think he's going to
22 need to distinguish between genuine problems and circumstances that don't
23 change the meaning of what was translated in a meaningful way.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you, Mr. Tieger. We'll consider your
3 Shall we bring in the next witness.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, ma'am.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
7 JUDGE KWON: Would you take the solemn declaration.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 WITNESS: ZELJKA MALINOVIC
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Malinovic. If you could take a seat.
13 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
14 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Malinovic.
16 A. Good morning, Mr. President.
17 Q. Please feel relaxed. Things proceed very smoothly here. I have
18 to remind myself of something and I have to tell you that we should make
19 brief pauses between questions and answers for the sake of the
20 interpreters. I would also like to ask you to speak slowly so that
21 everything can be interpreted.
22 A. Very well.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D6233, please.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Did you give the Defence team a statement and is this the
1 statement that you can see before you on the screen?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Does this statement reflect everything that you had
4 to say?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is everything that you stated correctly recorded and were you
7 able to verify it and read through your statement?
8 A. Everything was accurately recorded, I checked that. I read
9 through my statement.
10 Q. Thank you. Did you sign this statement?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Thank you. If I were to put the same questions to you here today
13 viva voce, would your answers be the same in substance?
14 A. Yes, absolutely.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I tender this packet into
17 evidence pursuant to 92 ter, Rule 92 ter? I believe we have
18 five associated documents and this statement.
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, before I hear from the Prosecution,
21 I'm not sure whether those documents are relevant or necessary for the
22 purpose of this case.
23 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Well, they corroborate a
24 portion of her statement, but I'll leave it to you as to whether you
25 think that needs to be corroborated or not. And in the event you do
1 admit them, I would ask that two of them that were not on our 65 ter list
2 be allowed to be added, and that's the first one, 15020 and 15024.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I'm of the view that we can do without
5 We'll admit the statement.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2443, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I will
9 now read out a summary of Mrs. Malinovic's statement in English.
10 [In English] Zeljka Malinovic is a medical technician by
11 profession. She worked at the Novi Grad - Otoka clinic until May the
12 2nd, 1992. The medical staff was ethnically mixed but intra-ethnic
13 relations among the staff had already begun to deteriorate from the
14 autumn 1991.
15 The establishment of the multi-party system in the territory of
16 BH led to the first intra-ethnic disputes in the town of Sarajevo. At
17 their rallies in the town and surrounding area, the Muslims and Croats
18 glorified the struggle for the secessionist forces in Croatia and erected
19 an open front toward the Serbs, who began to feel afraid and anxious
20 about their like and coexistence in the territory in BH. Because of
21 these tensions, barricades sprung up on all major roads in the early
22 spring of 1992. Muslims and Serbs set up the barricades in the areas
23 where they were a majority, while Croats were mostly on the barricades
24 together with the Muslims.
25 At the beginning of March 1992, most barricades on the roads were
1 removed but groups of armed Muslim civilians remained at all important
2 junctions, checking day and night the papers of the civilians passing
3 through their controls. These were members of the Patriotic League and
4 the Green Berets. Once they had established, by looking at the identity
5 cards, that someone was Serb, they would conduct the check in a cynical
6 and humiliating manner. These Muslim paramilitary formations also made
7 lists for parts of the town and the apartment buildings where Serbs lived
8 and searched them under the pretense of looking for radio transmitter
9 sets and weapons. In addition to this, they would also forcibly take
10 into custody and lead away Serbian civilians. Those taken into custody
11 would be held for hours, interrogated, threatened, and maltreated, all
12 this usually conducted in improvised areas such as entrances of buildings
13 and business premises. Her father was detained twice.
14 In mid-April 1992, three members of the Green Berets searched her
15 apartment, conducting themselves in a rough manner and threatening to
16 kill her and her family. Feared for their lives and considered the
17 possibility of fleeing to a Serb majority area until the situation
18 stabilised. Whenever Serbs put complaints to the MUP, police, in
19 Sarajevo about these issues concerning the Muslim paramilitaries, they
20 would be harassed and maltreated even more and often also labelled as
21 sniper shooters, regardless of whether they were males or females. They
22 would be taken to improvised prisons from where they hardly ever
23 returned. This evidences the complicity between the legal forces of the
24 MUP and illegal paramilitary formations.
25 In late April 1992, Slavisa Kravljaca was taken away and tortured
1 by members of the Green Berets by having nails hammered under his
2 fingernails. After that, they took Kravljaca to Zavnobih Square where a
3 crowd of Muslim men and women stoned him.
4 Alongside the medical staff, there would be ten Green Berets
5 members armed with automatic rifles. In the afternoon they would fire in
6 bursts through the clinic's windows in the direction of the Viktor Bubanj
7 barracks where a JNA unit was billeted. They also swore at the Serbs and
8 announced that they would soon raze the Serb settlement of Nedzarici to
9 the ground, and sow wheat where the Serb houses stood. That day she
10 decided she would not go back to work and she and her mother left to
11 Nedzarici. Her father, Uros, and her brother remained in the flat, an
12 area which like the broader Alipasino Polje area was controlled by
13 Juka Prazina, a renowned pre-war criminal whose soldiers were mostly
14 people from criminal circles. Juka Prazina's unit was supported by parts
15 of the so-called Laste Special Unit.
16 Zeljka Malinovic met many exchanged Serb girls and women who had
17 been raped by Muslim forces. They were only exchanged once they had
18 reached their seventh or eighth month of pregnancy and could no longer
19 have an abortion.
20 After the formation of the VRS on the 12th of May, 1992, she
21 joined the army as a volunteer and was assigned to the medical battalion
22 in Nedzarici, where she stayed until 5th of May, 1993. Her unit engaged
23 exclusively in defensive operations aimed to protect all civilians in its
24 rear. They intervened daily taking care of wounded and killed Serbs,
25 more than 350 persons in one year, the majority of which were civilians.
1 Most wounds were to the head and the upper body due to the sniper fire by
2 Muslim soldiers. Others were caused by random actions of the Muslim
3 artillery against Nedzarici.
4 Serbian forces in -- on the Nedzarici front were in an inferior
5 position vis-a-vis Muslim forces, positioned at higher buildings.
6 Nedzarici was completely encircled by Muslim forces. The only road her
7 unit has -- had was the Kasindolska Street, Ilidza, along which it was
8 only possible to move at night due to Muslim fire. Muslim forces also
9 cut off the supply of electricity and water to the part of Nedzarici
10 under Serbian control.
11 Muslim forces fired at her unit's ambulance whenever they had the
12 opportunity, regardless it was marked with the red cross in line with the
13 regulations. In her year of service, out of 11 members of her unit eight
14 were wounded during interventions. UNPROFOR members witnessed some of
15 these incidents and had to intervene at least on one occasion to protect
16 the ambulance. Muslim forces also systematically violated truce
17 agreements, while claiming in the media that violations had been on the
18 Serb side. This usually happened when either international forces or
19 foreign journalists were on the line.
20 Exchanged Serbs from Sarajevo were starved and physically
21 maltreated by members of the Muslim formations. After every attack
22 casualties would also be exchanged. Serbs exchanged the bodies of killed
23 Muslim soldiers while Muslims would return bodies of Serbian civilians.
24 With regard to Zeljka Malinovic's father, Uros Rakanovic, he was
25 arrested on 31st of May, 1992, by the Green Berets, interrogated, and
1 physically maltreated. On 2nd of June, 1992, he was arrested again and
2 beaten up during interrogations, the result of which was both legs and
3 most of his ribs broken. The following day he was taken to the front
4 line to call out to Zeljka Malinovic and her brother to surrender. After
5 this he was taken to the central prison in Sarajevo where he spent
6 24 days until his transfer to Viktor Bubanj prison, where he died on
7 11th of November, 1992. On 28 of September, 2006, on the basis of DNA
8 analysis her father's remains were identified and recovered in the
9 Lav cemetery, lion's cemetery, in Sarajevo. The autopsy established that
10 all his ribs and both legs were broken and the lower jaw was missing.
11 [Interpretation] I don't have any questions for Mrs. Malinovic at
12 this point in time. What I have just read out is the summary. I'm
13 waiting for the interpretation. I do apologise. This was the summary
14 and I would like to tender this statement into evidence. And if the
15 exhibits are of any help to the Chamber, I would like to tender them too.
16 JUDGE KWON: We dealt with it.
17 Any further questions, Mr. Karadzic?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not at this point in time,
19 Your Excellency.
20 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, Ms. Iodice. If -- my apology if my
21 pronunciation is not correct, but I forgot to ask when Mr. Karadzic
22 tendered the 92 ter statement -- but I took it that there was no
24 MS. IODICE: That's correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 Mrs. Malinovic, as you have noted, your evidence in chief was
2 admitted in this case in writing in lieu of your oral testimony. Now you
3 will be further cross-examined by the Prosecution.
4 Yes, Ms. Iodice.
5 MS. IODICE: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Cross-examination by Ms. Iodice:
7 Q. Good morning, Mrs. Malinovic.
8 A. Good morning, good morning.
9 Q. Thank you for meeting with me the day before yesterday. First I
10 would like to ask you about the circumstances of your Defence statement.
11 The day before yesterday you told me that you have been following the
12 trial from the beginning; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that you volunteered to become a witness; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you gave your statement over the phone, more or less,
17 six months ago; correct?
18 A. First I gave it in person. That's what I told Mr. Zoran Vlasic.
19 Q. All right. And then you saw it written down for the first time
20 in The Hague and that's when you signed it; right?
21 A. Yes, when I met Mr. President, Mr. Marko gave it to me to sign
22 and he provided me with the statement here in The Hague.
23 Q. And when we met, you made a small correction to your statement.
24 You said there is a mistake in paragraph 10 where it is written that the
25 shooting at the Otoka clinic happened in the afternoon. You corrected
1 that and said it was in the evening; is that right?
2 A. Well, it happened around 1900 hours, to be precise, so it was in
3 the early evening and continued until late at night.
4 Q. Thank you. And this is a single incident that took place on the
5 1st of May, correct, between the night of the 1st of May to the
6 2nd of May?
7 A. Yes, absolutely.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to comment on the
10 interpretation. It says "one," but -- or it was said "one," but the
11 interpretation was "the only." That is what the answer depends on. [In
12 English] "The only," [Interpretation] It was translated as "one" in the
13 Serbian language instead of "the only."
14 JUDGE KWON: I don't see much difference. Let us continue.
15 MS. IODICE: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. So now I would like to discuss the check-point in the searches
17 that you discuss in paragraph 5 of your statement. You mentioned that
18 each ethnicity set up barricades in the part of town where they were the
19 majority. And so when in paragraph 7 you say that the movement of
20 citizens was entirely controlled by the Green Berets and the
21 Patriotic League, you are referring to the parts of town where Muslims
22 were the majority; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, absolutely.
24 Q. Thank you. And when in paragraph 7 you say that the Muslim
25 paramilitary formations made lists of Serb apartments to be searched, I
1 take it that you've never seen these lists; correct?
2 A. No, I haven't seen the lists, but I heard about such things. I
3 was told that they did such things.
4 Q. Thank you. Let's now discuss the torture and stoning of
5 Slavisa Kravljaca in Zavnobih Square. Did you personally know this man?
6 A. No, my brother did.
7 Q. And you say that was a -- he was a civil servant. What exactly
8 did he do? What was his job?
9 A. I don't understand the question.
10 Q. In your statement you said that Slavisa Kravljaca was a civil
11 servant by profession.
12 A. No. Slavisa Kravljaca was a Serb from Nedzarici who went to have
13 a coffee in the cafe that he would go to before the war. I didn't say
14 that he was a statesman.
15 JUDGE KWON: Let's -- let us upload the statement -- I think it
16 is in front of you. Do you have a hard copy with you, Ms. Malinovic?
17 It's --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do. Yes, yes.
19 JUDGE KWON: It's paragraph 9.
20 MS. IODICE:
21 Q. If you look towards the end of paragraph 9, when you say:
22 "In late April 1992 ..."
23 A. Here it is.
24 Slavisa Kravljaca was taken in, he was maltreated, members of the
25 Green Berets, and so on and so forth. So he was a civilian who went to
1 have a coffee in the cafe that he would visit before the war. He was a
2 17-year-old young man.
3 JUDGE KWON: Do you see your statement there, six lines from the
4 bottom in para 9 it says: April 1992, Slavisa Kravljaca, and civil.
5 It's translated "a civil servant." You said he was a civil servant?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A civilian.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
8 MS. IODICE:
9 Q. Thank you for clarifying that. And did you hear about Kravljaca
10 having nails hammered under his fingernails from others or did you see
11 his hands?
12 A. A man who was my neighbour told me about this. He was a medical
13 technician, as I was, because there was a clinic toward -- next to my
14 building and they brought him there. He pulled the nails out of his
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is something that is missing
17 because the witness said this was something she was told by a man who
18 personally took the nails out of his fingers.
19 MS. IODICE:
20 Q. Can you confirm that's what you said?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you personally witness the actual stoning when it took place?
23 A. I saw my neighbours who went there and they called on me to stone
24 him. I remained in the stairwell of my building. When they returned
25 they asked me why hadn't I gone there. One of them boasted about having
1 looked for a large stone to hit him with so that it would hurt him as
2 much as possible. But I didn't go there. I couldn't --
3 Q. So you didn't see it happening?
4 A. -- couldn't watch that. No, I didn't, but I heard the noise. It
5 was near my building. Do you understand me when I say "the
6 noise" - that's the term we use - it means the screaming, the crying out,
7 the noise, these ugly words, the racket.
8 Q. Do you know if he survived?
9 A. Yes. I personally met him in Nedzarici.
10 Q. And did you ever report this event to -- during or after the war,
11 including to the Serb authorities in Bijeljina?
12 A. I don't understand. Which events? Are you referring to
13 Slavisa Kravljaca? I can't answer because I don't understand your
15 Q. Yes. Did you report the stoning of Kravljaca to the Serb
16 authorities at any point?
17 A. Let me tell you this. I had no need to make a statement. On a
18 couple of occasions he appeared on our TV, so he described the event
19 himself. So there was no need for me to go and confirm his statement
20 anywhere else.
21 Q. Do you know the names of the people who took part in it? You
22 said they were your neighbours. Do you remember any names?
23 A. You know what? I remember very few of my neighbours from my
24 building. I'm seeking to forget because of my father. Those were women.
25 Those were primarily women. Women were the main protagonists of that
2 Q. And -- and do you -- the square where the incident took place was
3 the square where you lived; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it was surrounded by high-rise apartment buildings; is that
7 A. The square -- yes, yes. It is indeed surrounded by high-rise
8 apartment buildings.
9 Q. And as you said, it was very noisy so many people would have seen
10 or heard what was happening?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Mrs. Malinovic, we -- so many people took part or, anyway,
13 somehow heard or witnessed this incident, and yet in 20 years we never
14 heard anything about it. We heard of many crimes. We heard of the
15 shooting of the wedding guest in Bascarsija, and do you think that after
16 20 years such an horrific crime of a 17-year-old stoned in a public
17 square would have not come to light at all?
18 A. Well, you know what, it was heard about but on our television, on
19 Serbian television. It was reported. I heard about it on several
20 occasions. I heard Slavisa Kravljaca's statement on our television.
21 What other things were heard, I don't know. I'm telling you the truth
22 and I'm telling you about what I saw. And I know what that woman told
23 me, that neighbour of mine who approached me, and two of my Croatian
24 colleagues were present when that was happening. It was not just me who
25 was there.
1 Q. Thank you. Now I want to move on to the incident that we already
2 discussed during our meeting between the Green Berets at the Otoka clinic
3 and the barracks of the JNA. In paragraph 10 you describe their arrival
4 and the shooting that followed.
5 MS. IODICE: Can I call up 65 ter 24162.
6 Q. Mrs. Malinovic, the day before yesterday I showed you this map
7 and you marked on it the location of the Otoka clinic where you worked
8 with a circle and a C next to it, and then the bigger circle, the
9 barracks, with a B next to it. Do you recognise it -- do you recognise
10 the map?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you also put an arrow at the location from which the
13 Green Berets were shooting, and that's the arrow that we see on the map;
14 is that right?
15 A. Yes. We can see it, not very clearly, though, but yes, we can.
16 Q. And that's roughly -- and they were shooting roughly from the
17 centre of the clinic, is that right? That's what, more or less, we see
19 A. Approximately there. Not from the very centre of the clinic but
21 Q. And when we talked the other day, you also told me that while the
22 shooting was ongoing, you and your colleagues were hiding out of fear; is
23 that right?
24 A. Yes, absolutely.
25 Q. So is it fair to say that you could hear the shooting but you
1 couldn't really see exactly what was happening?
2 A. You know what? We were on the same floor from which fire was
3 opened. Only a corridor separated us and some of them opened fire from
4 there. We did hide among the archives, among the shelves with the
5 patients' files, all of the patients' files. That's where we hid. A
6 Muslim doctor reacted and asked them to stop firing because our lives
7 were threatened. I apologise.
8 Q. And going back to the map, do you agree with me that the barracks
9 are on a hill on the south bank of the river?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the clinic is on the north side of the river and at the same
12 level as the river?
13 A. Let me put it this way, the Viktor Bubanj was not on a hilltop.
14 It was an elevation, a sloping terrain. And our clinic was across the
15 road from the Viktor Bubanj barracks, right across the road from there.
16 And the distance was not that great because we could see everything with
17 our naked eye from a window of the building.
18 Q. Okay. Let's have a look now at 65 ter 24101, which is the same
19 photo that I already showed you. Do you see the barracks here?
20 A. Could you please perhaps -- aha, now I can see that, yes. It was
21 a bit small and kind of far away, but now I have spotted it. It's in the
22 corner. Now I can see it.
23 Q. And maybe with the assistance of the usher could you mark the
25 A. I believe that this is it. It's a bit blurred, but yes, I'm sure
1 it is that. Yes.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MS. IODICE:
4 Q. If you could please mark it again because I think something went
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you. We can see it now. And you also see the high-rise
8 buildings between the barracks and the other bank of the river where the
9 clinic is; right? And you're nodding. I take that's a "yes"? Thank
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So if you could please put the date on the photo and your name.
13 Today's the 15th of November.
14 A. [Marks]
15 MS. IODICE: Could we have that admitted into evidence,
16 Your Honours?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5993, Your Honours.
19 MS. IODICE: Thank you.
20 Q. Let's now look at the barracks from a different angle.
21 MS. IODICE: Could we have 65 ter 24100.
22 Q. Do you see the barracks here?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Do you see the clinic here behind the buildings?
25 A. It was 20 years ago. I can't really recognise it, but I think
1 that it is in the left-hand side corner perhaps.
2 Q. Yes. And --
3 A. I apologise, may I add something to what I've already said? I
4 believe that half the barracks is missing. This is not the entire
5 barracks. Before the war, the barracks was a much bigger building. And
6 there was a military prison there as well.
7 Q. That is, in fact, the same shape that we saw on the map; correct?
8 A. Yes, I suppose so. But -- but, we can see the clinic and we can
9 see how they could have opened fire on the Viktor Bubanj barracks, but
10 what I see in the map, there is a parking-lot because as you see things
11 now, they could not have opened fire on the Viktor Bubanj barracks
12 because of the buildings. But I know I passed by the Viktor Bubanj
13 barracks a hundred times and this is just one part of it. And believe me
14 when I say that the rest is now a grassy patch. There's no barracks
15 there, just grass.
16 MS. IODICE: Could I have this photo admitted into evidence,
17 Your Honours.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5994, Your Honours.
20 MS. IODICE: Thank you.
21 Q. I want to move on now to your -- to your conclusion at the end of
22 paragraph 10 where you talk about this incident. And you say:
23 "This is one example of how the members of the Patriotic League
24 and Green Berets used the medical facilities and the buildings in
25 Sarajevo as their firing positions."
1 You only witnessed this one incident at the Otoka clinic;
3 A. Yes, yes. But I heard on their radio about the Lake Kosevo
4 hospital. They talked about several occasions when JNA soldiers opened
5 fire on medical institutions. When I returned in the morning -- I don't
6 know if I'm speaking too fast. When I returned from my duty service the
7 following morning, I switched on Sarajevo TV and I heard on the news that
8 the JNA launched an attack on my clinic from the Viktor Bubanj barracks.
9 Q. Thank you. I want to move on now to your experience in
10 Nedzarici. In your statement - and I'm referring to paragraphs 19 and
11 26 - you discuss various issues and say that the Muslim side always
12 provoked the Serb side and your unit was only engaged in defence combat.
13 Now, Nedzarici was quite small; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You must have seen that Serbs had heavy weapons in Nedzarici;
17 A. I'm a paramedic. I didn't know anything about the military. The
18 only thing I know is that they brought wounded and dead people to my
19 clinic. And that's all I know. I know nothing else.
20 Q. That's right. You weren't involved in fighting. You weren't
21 involved in the military. You weren't involved in any combat action;
22 correct? Thank you.
23 A. No, I wasn't. I worked in the clinic. I'm a paramedic.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Malinovic, do you have a statement with you?
25 Could you take a look at para 19.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE KWON: Could you read out the first sentence aloud.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I claim systematically that all
4 truces were systematically violated by the Muslim side."
5 JUDGE KWON: What do you mean, "all truces were systematically
6 violated by the Muslim side," what do you know about that or what did you
7 mean by that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I meant was that while I was
9 affiliated with the medical service, if I may be allowed to speak that
10 way, those of us who were on duty on that day, we would have preferred
11 not to have a truce because the biggest number of wounded and dead was
12 during a truce, irrespective of the weather conditions. Come hell or
13 high water, rain or shine, the biggest number of casualties were in
14 truces. They opened fire from Dobrinja Pet, from Vojnicko [phoen] Polje,
15 Mojmilo, from behind Alipasino Polje, from the Oslobodjenje building,
16 from the student residential buildings. There is also a feature called
17 Stupsko Brdo which we referred to as Betonara. In other words, we were
18 surrounded by snipers. Even that passage towards Ilidza was under
19 constant sniper fire from Butmir and that was just that one passage that
20 we had in the direction of Ilidza.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Ms. Malinovic.
22 Ms. Iodice, I take it you have more questions for the witness?
23 MS. IODICE: Just one follow-up question and then one last
25 Q. I just want to follow-up on what Judge Kwon asked you and you
1 said you didn't see any heavy weapons. Mile Sladoje, who was the SRK
2 commander of the Nedzarici barracks, gave a statement to the Defence -
3 and that was 1D5647 and I'm referring to paragraphs 5 and 6 - and he
4 stated that there were mortars and a tank in Nedzarici, but you didn't
5 see those; right?
6 A. I don't know that man at all. I really don't know who you're
7 talking about. I didn't even know what the names of the wounded were,
8 let alone the fighters, the combatants.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. IODICE: And for the last question I would like to move very
11 quickly to private session.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
16 MS. IODICE: No further questions, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE KWON: Well, we passed the time to take a break, but,
18 Mr. Karadzic, if you have any re-examination.
19 THE ACCUSED: Only one, Excellency, only one.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up P993 --
22 P5993. It is a photo that has already been admitted into evidence.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Malinovic, please, can you mark the clinic
25 in this photo? Are there any new things here that didn't exist at the
2 A. Could this photo be zoomed in a little? Can the photo please be
3 zoomed in a little?
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the central part be zoomed in.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can the photo please be zoomed in.
6 JUDGE KWON: Is this sufficient? Just wait till assisted --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is all right now.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Was that photo taken at the time or is this a photo of a new
11 date, and how do you conclude that?
12 A. This is a photo of a new date. This was not taken before the
13 war, before the breakout of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is the
14 current appearance of the Viktor Bubanj barracks and the court in
15 Sarajevo. This is how things are at the moment. The Viktor Bubanj
16 barracks was a military prison and it wasn't like this. The facade is
17 different. This is now a photo depicting the court in Sarajevo. I
18 really don't know what court that is. I know it's a court.
19 Q. How do you know the photo is of a newer date?
20 A. The facade is new. I saw it in Sarajevo.
21 Q. Thank you. And what about this mosque, is it an old mosque or a
22 mosque that was built recently?
23 A. This is a very new mosque. It didn't -- did not exist before.
24 Q. Thank you. And the map that you were shown, you don't know what
25 that map depicts, what times?
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Malinovic, for having come to testify here. I
3 have no further questions.
4 A. Thank you, Mr. President.
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that concludes your evidence, Mrs. Malinovic.
7 On behalf of the Chamber, I also would like to thank you for your coming
8 to The Hague to give it. Now you are free to go.
9 We'll rise all together. We'll have a break for 20 minutes and
10 resume at ten to 11.00.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 [The witness withdrew]
13 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.
15 JUDGE KWON: Although the blinds are drawn at the moment, we are
16 in open session. Before we bring in the next witness I was about to
17 raise this issue. Yes, I will do that. Although we admitted the
18 previous witness's statement and let the evidence go, speaking for
19 myself, I was struggling to understand the relevance of her testimony
20 overall, whether it was not tu quoque at all.
21 So do you have any observation, Mr. Robinson?
22 THE ACCUSED: I would like to -- I would like to respond,
23 Your Excellency.
24 [Interpretation] We were accused -- I and my army were accused
25 for the fighting around and in Sarajevo. In the indictment Sarajevo has
1 been described in one way, from one perspective, and I believe that it is
2 essential to demonstrate what the situation was like on the other side of
3 the confrontation line, what forced us, normal people, to defend our
4 settlements for four years. It's not to justify this, but to show the
5 reason for which we fought for four years. And also the issue is who was
6 attacking. Light could be shed on this only by calling people who
7 suffered those attacks and who responded to those attacks out of
9 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, I will make it very simple. I'd like
10 to reiterate two points. First, it is you, not the Serbian army or Serb
11 people or anybody else, that was indicted in this case. So what matters
12 is individual responsibility on your part. Second, who started the
13 attack is not relevant for the purpose of this case at all. So I was
14 concerned very much about delving into whether the nature of certain
15 combat activities was defensive or offensive. It's all related
16 jus ad bellum as I indicated yesterday.
17 In the future, the Chamber will keep a closer look as to the
18 relevance of the Defence witnesses' evidence and, if necessary, it may
19 consider not allowing the evidence at all. But keep that in mind in the
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I just add something to my
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As I understand the indictment, I
25 haven't been accused for individual acts, but because of the joint
1 criminal enterprise, participation or creation of that enterprise, that
2 includes the conduct of my army in relation to Sarajevo. So it is
3 essential to see what was happening on the other side, not in order to
4 justify anything but, quite simply, because it's not a matter of
5 individual responsibility. It is a matter of objective responsibility.
6 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is not arguing with you. Just bear in
7 mind what I said to you.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: If the curtains are drawn we don't need to go to
10 closed -- yes?
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, the next witness has protective measures of
13 image distortion. In order to bring him in, we need to go to closed
14 session very briefly.
15 [Closed session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, lift the blinds, please.
1 Good morning, sir. If you could take the solemn declaration,
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I stand up? I solemnly
4 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
6 WITNESS: MILADIN TRIFUNOVIC
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please make yourself comfortable.
9 Mr. Trifunovic, as you may be aware by now that the Chamber has
10 granted the protective measures of image distortion for you, which means
11 that while this trial is broadcast outside, the people outside the
12 courtroom cannot see your face. You'll be viewed like this.
13 Can you show him the image of his face which has been distorted.
14 Do you understand that, sir?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
16 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
17 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
18 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Trifunovic.
20 A. Good day.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we please see 1D6250.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. While waiting for that to come up, Mr. Trifunovic, did you give
24 the Defence team a statement?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm waiting for the interpretation. I'd like to ask
2 you to wait for the interpretation too and we should speak slowly so that
3 the interpreters can interpret what we are saying accurately.
4 Is that the statement that you can see before you on the screen
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. Thank you. Have you read through the statement and can you
8 confirm that it accurately reflects what you said?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you sign this statement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. If I were to put the same questions to you today
13 viva voce in the courtroom, would the substance of your answers be the
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellencies, I would like to
18 tender this package pursuant to Rule 92 ter.
19 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Ms. Sutherland?
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit the statement as well as two
22 associated exhibits.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, as Exhibit D2444 through D2446.
24 Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I will now read out a
1 summary of Mr. Trifunovic's statement in English.
2 [In English] Miladin Trifunovic is a professional driver by
3 occupation. During the war he held the rank of captain.
4 After the multi-party elections, the situation in all parts of BH
5 started changing and becoming more difficult. Joint ethnic guards were
6 formed on the Serb initiative before the war in Vogosca to guard housing
7 and other facilities. This lasted until groups of the Muslims and Croats
8 started appearing in the streets carrying linked flags. To protect
9 themselves Serbs also started closing ranks, especially since it was
10 common knowledge that the Muslims were arming themselves on a massive
11 scale and forming paramilitary units. The Patriotic League was formed in
12 Vogosca in mid-June 1991. In April 1992, after the war had already
13 begun, the Serbian municipality was formed in Vogosca.
14 From March 1992 onwards, with more intensity than ever before,
15 they could hear bursts of small arms fire coming from the Muslim-majority
16 settlements. In his statement, Miladin Trifunovic recalls a series of
17 incidents where several civilians were tortured, burnt, killed, and
18 beheaded. On 17th through 18th April 1992, following several previous
19 attempts, Muslim forces raided the Pretis factory, although Serbs managed
20 to regain control over the area.
21 Groups of armed citizens were formed as part of the Vogosca
22 Territorial Defence. On April 18th, 1992, after Muslim paramilitary
23 units had carried out several armed operations, the Territorial Defence
24 was mobilised and the Vogosca Light Infantry Territorial Brigade was
25 formed. He was appointed commander since no professional personnel could
1 be found. The main road linking Vogosca and other Serbian municipalities
2 passed through the Pretis factory. Throughout the entire war, over 1 and
3 a half kilometres of the road were under permanent sniper fire and many
4 pedestrians, civilians and passengers in motor vehicles were killed on
5 these stretches.
6 On June 8, 1992, Muslim forces mounted a ferocious attack from
7 the direction of Sarajevo, pushing back Serb forces from Zuc, after which
8 the zone of responsibility did not change until the end of the war. As a
9 result, at this segment of their defence, the balance of power favoured
10 the Muslims many times over. It should be stressed that Zuc was a
11 dominant point on his unit's entire defence line on that axis.
12 The brigade was manned exclusively by local population. They had
13 enormous problems with logistics support and difficulties in the
14 supply -- supplied of fuel, artillery rounds, and medical materials. For
15 food and washing the soldiers relied on their own households, for which
16 the defence had been organised in the first place.
17 The opposing forces were those of the 1st Corps of BH army.
18 Neither his brigade of any of the -- or any of the neighbouring ones were
19 ever carried any offensive activities. He was never aware of the idea
20 that Sarajevo or parts of Sarajevo not populated by predominantly -- by
21 Serbs should be taken. Their goal was to defend their villages, houses,
22 properties, and the population that lived there. The supreme commander's
23 order of June 1992 stated that all-out defence should be launched from
24 the existing surrounding defence lines. His unit took his -- this order
25 seriously since they were aware of the fact that should their defence
1 lines be penetrated anywhere in the area surrounding Sarajevo, large
2 forces would be released from the city and this advantage would seal the
3 fate of the war. Thus, the forces of the 1st Corps of BH army
4 desperately tried to break out of the city. They launched offensives in
5 1992, March 1993, and ones that hit Miladin Trifunovic's unit harder,
6 April and June 1995.
7 Serb military and civilian authorities surrendered the Sarajevo
8 airport so that humanitarian aid could be provided through it. UNPROFOR
9 convoys frequently passed through his zone of defence transporting
10 humanitarian aid for the population in Sarajevo. They did not disrupt
11 these convoys in their mission, although it became obvious later on that
12 military equipment for the needs of the BH army had been brought to
13 Sarajevo under the guise of humanitarian aid.
14 Every soldier and officer in his unit was informed of the orders
15 issued by the superior military and civilian authorities, commanding
16 strict adherence to the provisions of the international law of war
17 prohibiting the opening of fire against civilians and civilian
18 facilities. In any case, in the area facing his unit's line of defence
19 there were no civilian targets that could have been affected. His unit
20 never launched such bombs, at least while he was its commander.
21 Regarding incident G-17 [sic] when a bomb landed in
22 Dositejeva Street 4a on 16th of June, 1995, Miladin Trifunovic states
23 with full responsibility such bombs were never launched either from the
24 Pretis factory or from any other locations within the brigade's zone of
1 G-14, maybe I was -- pronounced G-17. G-14 incident.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. There are a few brief questions that I would like to put to you,
4 Mr. Trifunovic. Were you ever arrested by the VRS, the Army of
5 Republika Srpska?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Could you tell the Chamber when this took place and for what
9 A. On the 15th of December, 1992, because strong Green Beret forces
10 attacked Zuc, and at that point in time, we were not able to drive them
11 back and they drove us back to the hill 830, which was the extreme limit
12 after which they could have entered the inhabited part of Vogosca. The
13 fighting continued from the 5th of December up until the time I went to
14 prison, and after that too. Fortunately, we managed to hold them there
15 and they didn't pass through that last hill where we were struggling all
16 the time. That would be it.
17 Q. Thank you. Where were you placed in detention?
18 A. I spent three days in Ilijas and three days and three nights in
19 the so-called Planja Kuca prison in Semizovac.
20 Q. Thank you. Were only Serbs detained in that house or were there
21 any detainees from other ethnic groups?
22 A. No. There were members of other ethnic groups in that house and
23 we were there too, me and my four assistants and all the leadership of
24 the Rajlovac Brigade.
25 Q. Thank you. How many Serbs were there and how many other people
1 were there and from which ethnic groups, roughly speaking?
2 A. I really don't know what the number is. I know that there were
3 four of us. There was 17 Serbs from Rajlovac, that makes 21; as for the
4 number of Muslim detainees, I don't know what that number is, nor do I
5 know the number of Croat detainees. All I know is they were in the room
6 adjacent to the one that we were in.
7 Q. Thank you. These Muslims and Croats, were they prisoners of war
8 or were they civilians?
9 A. As far as I know, they were all prisoners of war.
10 Q. Thank you. Were there any Muslim and Croat women and children in
11 that detention centre?
12 A. No.
13 Q. How many floors did that house have?
14 A. Three floors and there was the ground floor.
15 Q. Thank you. As for the rooms in which you were detained, you and
16 the other detainees, were they aired? Did you have enough air?
17 A. Yes, the rooms were large ones. They had large windows. There
18 was a lot of light. There was everything that a house needs or that such
19 rooms need.
20 Q. Thank you. Given that it was in December, did you have any
22 A. Yes, we did.
23 Q. Did you have toilets?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did you have showers? Were you able to wash yourselves?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you and the other detainees -- well, was -- were any
3 differences made, any distinctions made, between you and the other
5 A. No.
6 Q. Thank you. What sort of food did you have? Did you have a
7 kitchen that you could use and how did you prepare food?
8 A. We prepared food in the Pretis factory canteen for the entire
9 army, and that food would be distributed to the positions and the food
10 would be brought in certain containers and distributed to the soldiers
11 and me as a detainee at the time. It would also be distributed to the
12 other prisoners who were there.
13 Q. I wanted to ask you this: Was there a kitchen in that house?
14 Was that a residential house? What kind of a house was that? What kind
15 of a building?
16 A. It was a newly built residential house. There was a room
17 where -- for a kitchen and there was a dining room or a sitting room, if
18 you will.
19 Q. Did you -- did the detainees suffer physical ill treatment in
20 Planjina Kula while you were there?
21 A. I did not observe any such thing while I was there.
22 Q. And a few questions about something that you mentioned. You said
23 that the Serbian municipality of Vogosca had been set up. Did you
24 control the entire municipality of Vogosca or actually did the Muslim
25 municipality of Vogosca exist?
1 A. No, we did not control the entire municipality of Vogosca. At
2 the very beginning, the political leaderships of both the Serbian people
3 and the Muslim people had agreed and created two Muslims effectively.
4 The Muslim side was on one side and we were on the other side, obviously.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you didn't ask the witness why he was
6 arrested, did you?
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did. Because they lost Zuc, they
8 could not maintain the control of Zuc on the 15th of December. I asked
9 him and that's what he told me.
10 JUDGE KWON: Was that --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- because the Green Berets had
12 mounted an attack on Zuc and they lost it.
13 JUDGE KWON: So was that the reason for your detention,
14 Mr. Trifunovic?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what was mentioned in
16 my indictment. That's one of the counts in the indictment.
17 JUDGE KWON: Are you saying that you were indicted?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I was detained because I had
19 lost a part of the terrain on Zuc. As the most responsible person in the
20 brigade, I was responsible for that as well. That's what I was told.
21 JUDGE KWON: My question is whether you were indicted? Did you
22 have a trial?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE KWON: And you were in detention for six days; that's it?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not on trial. There was no
1 indictment. I just heard the explanation as to why I had been detained.
2 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. As the Serbian territorial guard, later on the Serbian army, did
6 you control a predominantly Muslim settlement with a predominantly Muslim
8 A. By and large, no. The lines were established very early on. As
9 soon as guards were mounted, the lines were also established to indicate
10 what sector belonged to what people, and that's how things persisted
11 until the very end.
12 Q. Thank you. You also mentioned in your statement that convoys
13 passed through. From which direction did they arrive before -- from
14 before they reached your area of responsibility and what was your
15 attitude towards them? I don't mean you personally but of our army?
16 A. The convoys passed from Sarajevo towards Zenica and the other way
17 around. I don't know of any incidents. They were never stopped or
18 ill-treated. Their passage was always unobstructed.
19 Q. What were the orders and instructions from the superior commands
20 and the civilian authorities with regard to those convoys?
21 A. Every order that we received in that respect was putting a strict
22 ban on ill-treating Red Cross convoy staff or stopping them.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies. At
24 this point in time I have no further questions for this witness.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
1 Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Mr. Registrar [sic], may I have 65 ter 1D12001 on the screen,
5 Cross-examination by Ms. Sutherland:
6 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, as this map comes up on the screen you will see
7 that it was the map that -- which has a red line on it showing the
8 Vogosca Brigade's line of defence. That was apparently marked by you.
9 Do you recognise that map?
10 A. Can this be zoomed in a little? Can this be made more visible?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we zoom in to where the red line is, please,
12 in the middle of the map.
13 Q. Now, is that the map that -- where you drew the red line on?
14 A. Please bear with me.
15 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, do you recall marking a map with a red line of
16 your line of defence when you spoke with the Defence when you provided
17 your statement? Is that the --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- map --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Thank you. With the usher's help, can you please draw on this
22 map your zone of responsibility.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can bring the map down so that the red
24 line is towards the bottom of the map.
25 Q. Mark it with the marker pen.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we zoom in, please, bring the map down and
2 zoom in on the red line. You need to go out a little bit.
3 JUDGE KWON: Do we need to zoom out --
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: We need to zoom out again.
5 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated]
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: The resolution of this map is very poor.
7 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, we may come back to that. Can you please
8 describe what your zone of responsibility was. What was the depth of
9 your responsibility?
10 A. My zone of responsibility, the zone of responsibility of my
11 brigade, was on Zuc hill. The Gola Brdo elevation across the trigger
12 point 830, across one part of Ugljesici, it passed through -- or across
13 the Vogosca-Sarajevo road. Partly it went along the Pretis perimeter,
14 along the upper Hotonj towards Poljine, where it linked up with the
15 Kosevo Brigade. When it comes to that line of responsibility in the
16 direction of Sarajevo, that is, when it comes to the line of defence in
17 depth of our territory behind our lines which faced Breza, it extended
18 from Donja Vogosca. It went across Ravno Navosce and descended to the
19 Sarajevo-Semizovac-Olovo road. And it went all the way to Gora and it
20 inter -- crossed the river where it came down to Motka, the Ubare
21 settlement which is up there. That was the depth of my territory, i.e.,
22 the depth of my zone of responsibility.
23 Q. You said that you had support forces. What were your support
25 A. My support forces consisted of artillery weapons.
1 Q. First of all, we'll deal with the infantry. You had five
2 battalions, the Semizovac Battalion, Blagovac, Hotonj, Vogosca, and
3 Krivoglavci; is that right?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. So what was the number of infantrymen?
6 A. Well, the number varied from 1500 to 1800 and that would be a
7 total comprising the logistics support and everything that we had.
8 Q. Was the military post number for your brigade VP7003?
9 A. Yes, it was.
10 Q. You mentioned artillery. What artillery did the brigade have?
11 In your statement you say -- you mention 88-millimetre [sic] and
12 120-millimetre mortars.
13 A. Yes, 80- and 120-millimetre mortars.
14 Q. How many 88-millimetre -- 82-millimetre [sic] mortars did you
16 A. Every battalion had approximately two such weapons, ten all
18 Q. How many 120-millimetre mortars?
19 A. While I was a member of the command, four in all.
20 Q. Where were these artillery positioned?
21 A. On Blagovac hill and in Krivoglavci. I'm talking about
22 120-millimetre heavy mortars, whereas the smaller-calibre mortars were
23 deployed in the sectors of their respective battalions.
24 Q. What were the targets if we are talking generally and I want to
25 know about Sarajevo in particular. So, first of all, in relation to the
1 88-millimetre -- 82-millimetre mortars, what were their targets?
2 A. We were far from Sarajevo. We did not target Sarajevo from our
3 82-millimetre mortars. There were no targets for us there.
4 Q. What were the targets of the 82-millimetre mortars?
5 A. Exclusively military targets which appeared on the Muslim side.
6 Q. Whereabouts?
7 A. Most of them appeared on Zuc hill, and the rest depended on where
8 the incoming fire came from.
9 Q. What about 120-millimetre targets -- mortars, where were their
11 A. Ninety per cent were aimed towards Zuc hill.
12 Q. And where were the other 10 per cent aimed?
13 A. A mortar is a mobile weapon. It does not stay put and aims at
14 just one target. 120-millimetre mortars were aimed towards Zuc and we
15 often opened -- we were all -- very often targeted but by their artillery
16 below Hum hill and when that happened we defended ourselves.
17 Q. So if I understand you well, you said that 90 per cent were aimed
18 towards Zuc hill and 10 per cent perhaps towards Hum, but then you also
19 said that they were --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- mobile. So where did you -- where were they located when they
22 were mobile? Where did you take them?
23 A. As I've already told you, a mortar is not mobile. Its direction,
24 the direction of its target, can be changed. It can aim for Zuc hill
25 from the same place; it doesn't have to be moved. Just the barrel is
1 moved. New elements are calculated, and when that happens, the mortar
2 may be aimed at Hum hill, for example.
3 Q. I understand. Besides the 82-millimetre and 122-millimetre
4 mortars, what other artillery did you have available?
5 A. We had a 105-millimetre howitzer and a 122-millimetre howitzer.
6 Q. I'm sorry, I just need to go back to the military post number. I
7 think I said VP 7003. I meant to say -- and you agreed with me, I think.
8 Isn't it VP 7033?
9 JUDGE KWON: Could you repeat your number, Ms. Sutherland.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes.
11 Q. Earlier, a few minutes ago I said that the military post number
12 for your brigade was VP 7003 and you agreed with me, but it's, in fact,
13 VP 7033, is it not?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. I'd now like to look at a few documents.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have 65 ter number 01224A on the
17 screen, please. If we could go to page 8 in e-court.
18 JUDGE KWON: Has it been released, Ms. Sutherland?
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: I will just check, Your Honour.
20 It's been done now.
21 JUDGE KWON: 1224A?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 JUDGE KWON: All it says is it equals to D1202 -- we'll see.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: I really am struggling with numbers this
1 morning. It's 12204. My apologies. If we can go to page 8. I'm sorry,
2 in mine it's page 8 -- but if we can go to -- it's a very short document,
3 it's only four pages. If we can flip through to the one dated the
4 23rd of September, please. If we can go back a previous page. And
5 again. To the 23rd of September. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, you see there that there is a request for pieces
7 of -- 20 pieces of 120-millimetre LTF mortar shells and 30 pieces of
8 105-millimetre howitzer shells. And you mentioned a moment ago the
9 105-millimetres. Whereabouts were they positioned and what were their
11 A. This is not a request issued by my brigade. This is a request by
12 the Igman Brigade.
13 Q. Actually it's the Hadzici Brigade. I'm looking for the Vogosca
15 JUDGE KWON: Hadzici Battalion.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Is this 12204A?
17 Q. In any event, Mr. Trifunovic, can you tell me where your
18 105-millimetre howitzer shells were positioned and what their targets
20 A. Both 105- and 120-millimetre howitzers were on a hilltop above
21 Blagovac and their targets were the same as our mortar targets. Very
22 often we did not have enough shells either for the mortars or for the
23 howitzers and that's why we overcame that difficulty. We had to defend
24 ourselves and when we did that we used either or.
25 Q. What about --
1 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, let's be clear with the document.
2 The document we saw earlier on was a -- on page 6 of 65 ter 12204 and
3 what we see now is 12204A.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour --
5 JUDGE KWON: But dated --
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- 23rd of September. When I called up the
7 number originally I said the wrong exhibit number and I said it with an
8 A, but when it was called up again the exhibit without the A came up so
9 the big document, in fact, came up.
10 JUDGE KWON: But the number with A shows the date of 21st --
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: This --
12 JUDGE KWON: -- does it not?
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: There's eight pages in the range. The page I
14 wanted was on page 7 of the English and page 7 of the B/C/S.
15 JUDGE KWON: Very well. We have it now, yes.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, we can see there the document in front of us is
18 the 23rd of September where you have requested to be provided with
19 32 pieces of 122-millimetre TFG SP shell. Is that a self-propelled
21 A. I don't understand what kind of weapon you're talking about.
22 Q. You see here the first one, 122-millimetre TFG SP shell. Does
23 the "SP" stand for self-propelled?
24 A. This is a round. No, a howitzer is located in one position. It
25 cannot be self-propelled and it's not easily movable, it's not easily
1 mobile, and its rounds were manufactured by the Pretis factory. It is
2 fired in a regular fashion. It is certainly not self-propelled. It
3 cannot be self-propelled. This "SP" stands for the markings of the
4 factory. I'm not an artillery guy. I don't know much about this, but I
5 know that this cannot be self-propelled. I know that the rounds were
6 produced by the Pretis factory and I really don't know what else to tell
8 Q. Can you tell me where -- you said that they were quite -- they're
9 not easily movable. Where were these -- first of all, how many of these
10 mortars did your brigade have, 122-millimetres howitzers?
11 A. At the beginning I said that we had one howitzer while I was
12 commander. It was a 120-millimetre howitzer and we had a 105-millimetre
13 howitzer as well.
14 Q. Right. But we can see here that you've just ordered 32 shells
15 for 122-millimetre howitzer. So your brigade must have had at least one.
16 So my question is: How many did your brigade have?
17 A. I believe that I was clear. In 1992 there was just one howitzer
18 of that calibre and another one, one 105-millimetre howitzer. That's
19 what my brigade had.
20 Q. So why in your statement did you say that you only had -- your
21 brigade only had 82-millimetre and 105 -- 120-millimetre mortars, when we
22 can see here that - and you've just said - that you had 122-millimetre
23 howitzer and 105-millimetre howitzer?
24 A. Well, that's what I said that we had.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could go to page 1 of this document -- oh,
1 sorry, not page 1, page 5.
2 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, we see here the very next -- or two days later,
3 three days later, you're requesting another 80 pieces of 105-millimetre
4 TGF shell, 80 pieces of 120-millimetres, and 21 pieces of
5 122-millimetres. And if we can go to page 6, it shows that you got
6 exactly what you asked for. And it was received by Aleksa Jokic, is that
7 right, at the Blagojevic [sic] Brigade -- it states "brigade," but in
8 fact Blagojevic was a battalion, wasn't it?
9 A. The Blagojevic Battalion, yes. But as I said, the artillery was
10 located in the area of responsibility of the Blagojevic Battalion on the
11 hill, and that is why it was delivered to them, up there.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if we can just quickly go to page 8 of this
13 document - I meant to do it a moment ago -- page 9, I'm sorry -- oh, 8.
14 Q. Yes, that shows -- that's going back to -- the document we just
15 looked at on the 23rd of September, and that shows that again you got
16 exactly what you asked for on the 23rd of September, doesn't it?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to page 3 in e-court, and this is
19 just another request on the 24th of September for a hundred pieces of
20 122-millimetre mortars. And if we go to the next page, page 4, it shows
21 that that was dispatched on that date.
22 Q. Is that right?
23 A. Well, probably.
24 Q. And if we go to page 1, and this is dated the 21st of September,
25 from the 3rd Hotonj Battalion, and that's within the Vogosca Brigade, is
1 it not, requesting a hundred pieces of 122-millimetre [sic] mortar shells
2 because they've reached a critical minimum "because we have participated
3 in operations to mop-up Zuc."
4 You agreed with me earlier that Hotonj Battalion was in the
5 Vogosca Brigade?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But if you'd mopped up Zuc on the 21st of September, which this
8 document says, what was the need in the four-day period between the
9 23rd and the 26th of September for requesting 513 pieces of howitzer
10 shells and mortar shells for two battalions?
11 A. Well, I don't know what you mean, "mopped-up Zuc." We didn't
12 mop-up Zuc throughout the war time-period. Zuc is a plateau. It's a
13 very wide area and there was fighting there all the time throughout the
14 war. And from Sarajevo there were forceful forces from the Muslim army
15 coming in our direction; they were stronger than our forces. All we had
16 was the protection that these sort of artillery pieces provided us with.
17 They drove us back to trig point 830 in spite of that, as I said at the
19 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, they're not my words, they're your battalion's
20 words, "mopping-up." But again, you still haven't answered the question.
21 Where were your 122-millimetre howitzers positioned?
22 A. Well, do we understand each other or not? I said that we had in
23 1992, while I was the brigade commander, one 120-millimetre howitzer on a
24 hill, on Blagovac, and we used that howitzer from that position.
25 Q. I'm sorry, you haven't told me what the targets were for that
2 A. I'll repeat what I said. The exclusive targets were the Zuc
3 plateau; that was the exclusive target. I said that a while ago and I'll
4 repeat that. The Vogosca Brigade focused on the Zuc plateau practically
5 throughout the war-time period.
6 Q. Okay. You're saying that you don't have any targets in Sarajevo
7 proper; correct?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You agree that 122-millimetre howitzer is a large, sophisticated,
10 expensive weapon; yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And it has a maximum range of up to 15 kilometres, doesn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It's quite good for blowing up buildings, isn't it?
15 A. No. This artillery piece can be used to attack trenches,
16 fortified bunkers, and so on and so forth. It can't destroy a building.
17 Perhaps it can fire on a building, but as for blowing it up, that's out
18 of the question.
19 Q. How far is Vogosca from the city?
20 A. About 15 kilometres. It depends where you measure the distance
21 from, from which part of the city.
22 Q. To the centre.
23 A. Perhaps up to 20 kilometres.
24 Q. Twenty kilometres from Vogosca to the centre of Sarajevo? Isn't
25 it more 5 to 7?
1 A. No. No.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could we have Exhibit P00836 on the screen,
4 JUDGE KWON: If it is okay, shall we take a break now?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, Your Honour, if I can just deal --
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- with this document and then we can take the
9 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, you see here this is an order from
10 Dragomir Milosevic dated the 15th of July, 1993, and it's sent to all
11 units in brigade regiments and specifically makes mention of the
12 Vogosca Tactical Group. And it says:
13 "All units are forbidden to fire on Sarajevo proper, unless
14 defending VRS positions."
15 So my question is: Why would there be a need to send this order
16 to the Vogosca Brigade if it wasn't either firing on Sarajevo proper or
17 if it didn't have the capacity to do so?
18 A. Well, first of all, this order is from 1993. I wasn't a
19 commander at the time. But a larger army formation such as a corps, when
20 it sends an order, if it's of a general nature, it sends that order to
21 all the units within its corps. This only concerns prohibition on using
22 artillery ammunition to fire on the town. It includes those who can act
23 in such a way and those who can't. So these things are sent out to
25 Q. You mentioned the date was in 1993, when you were -- when you
1 weren't the commander of the Vogosca Brigade. But you were still within
2 the Vogosca Brigade because you were commander of the Blagojevic
3 Battalion, were you not?
4 A. Yes, I was the commander of the Blagovac Battalion, but when I
5 take a different, lower position, I don't receive such orders from the
6 corps, I receive them from the brigade commander, and this was probably
7 sent to them.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, that would be a good time for a
10 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at
12 --- Recess taken at 12.03 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
14 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, Ms. Sutherland.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 May I ask for Exhibit -- 65 ter 12204A to be admitted, please.
17 That was the list of four pages within the exhibit.
18 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, we would have no objection to
19 those pages which were used during the examination being admitted.
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes, but I was wondering whether we saw only
21 four pages?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I went to the first exhibit number that I called
23 out and then I realised that it wasn't the correct exhibit and we went to
24 the correct exhibit. So that's the document that I seek to tender. But
25 I will be going back to that other bigger document shortly.
1 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
2 Yes, we'll admit those pages we've dealt with.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5995, Your Honours.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND:
5 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, you said in your statement that neither your
6 brigade, i.e., the Vogosca Brigade, nor any of the neighbouring ones ever
7 carried out any offensive operations. We'll leave aside your
8 neighbouring brigades, but that's not true, is it?
9 A. What do you mean?
10 Q. Okay.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Let's have a look at 65 ter number 24072.
12 Q. I mean that you actually ordered and carried out offensive
13 activities; do you agree? Mr. Trifunovic, can you just answer the
14 question that I put to you before you look at that document.
15 A. Could you repeat the question.
16 Q. It's right, isn't it, that you ordered and carried out offensive
17 activities, contrary to what you state in your statement?
18 A. I can't answer the question before reading this to see what it's
19 about. We were engaged in offensive --
20 Q. Sorry --
21 A. -- action on the hill of Zuc exclusively.
22 Q. -- I'll interrupt you there, Mr. Trifunovic.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: If the Registrar can take the document off the
25 Q. It's a simple question. Do you agree that you participated in
1 and, in fact, ordered offensive operations, yes or no?
2 A. Partially, yes, but it depends on the area concerned. If we're
3 talking about the area of Zuc, then yes. In certain situations it was
4 necessary to improve the position. If we came under sniper fire, so then
5 yes. But as for attacking the depth of Sarajevo and so on and so forth,
6 in that case my answer is no.
7 Q. But -- so why did you put in your statement that neither you or
8 the other neighbouring brigades ever carried out any offensive
9 activities, when you've just said that you did?
10 A. Offensive operations on the plateau of Zuc. This isn't
11 considered as offensive action because the Zuc plateau was inhabited
12 exclusively by Serbs, and all the combatants up there, most of them,
13 wanted to go to their homes to approach their graves. That's the
14 problem. So I don't consider that to be offensive action. This is no
15 more than a matter of taking back territory that we lost.
16 Q. Well, that's your -- one interpretation, Mr. Trifunovic.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can have the document back on the screen,
18 65 ter 24072.
19 Q. This is dated the 6th of October, 1992, and it's an order for
20 attack which is actually signed on your behalf as commander of the
21 Vogosca Brigade.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to page 2 and page 3 in the
23 B/C/S -- and page 3 in the English, sorry.
24 Q. Who signed this order on your behalf? Is this Mr. Kenic your
25 deputy of the -- who was deputy of the Vogosca Light Infantry Brigade?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And if we go back to page 1, this is about an attack on Orlic, is
3 it not? And the attack is scheduled for the 7th of October. Isn't this
4 an order for an attack, an offensive action?
5 A. The hill of Orlic, trig point 877, is in the wider area of the
6 Zuc plateau. It dominates all the other trig points that we have already
7 mentioned in the area of Zuc. The Orlic hill and below consisted of
8 Serbian territory. Up until the 8th of June, 1992, that territory was
9 under the control of the VRS, the Army of Republika Srpska. But on the
10 8th of June, when the Muslim forces launched an attack, they drove us
11 back from trig point 877 as far as trig point 850. So as I have said,
12 this is no more than a matter of taking back territory that we had
13 previously lost.
14 Q. Yes, but it's an offensive action, is it not?
15 A. No, it's not an offensive operation. If you try to return your
16 territory, to get back to your homes, this is what people strove for.
17 The houses of all these people were in the vicinity of trig point 877,
18 near the Orlic hill and below. And the wider area of that plateau isn't
19 densely inhabited.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, may this document be admitted,
22 MR. ROBINSON: No objection, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE KWON: But I have to express concern about this debate or
24 issue of whether certain operation was of defensive nature or offensive
25 nature. It leads us nowhere. Bear that in mind -- both parties should
1 bear that in mind.
2 We'll admit this.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5996, Your Honours.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 24166 on the
5 screen, please.
6 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, we can see here this is a report dated the
7 13th of October, 1992. It's from the Vogosca Brigade command, which is
8 you, to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps OG 1, and you're reporting on the
9 conditions and combat operations in the zone of responsibility for the
10 brigade. It says here:
11 "In the following period we are planning the take-over of the Zuc
12 line ..." and mentions the trig points and cleansing of the villages
13 Ugorsko, Menjak and Barica. Who lived in those villages, Ugorsko,
14 Menjak, and Barica?
15 A. Ugorsko, Menjak, and Barica were inhabited by Muslims.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can this document be admitted?
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P5997, Your Honours.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we just quickly go back to exhibit --
20 65 ter number 12204.
21 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, this is quite a number of documents, individual
22 documents, requests from and dispatches to battalions within the
23 Vogosca Operative Group, that is, Vogosca, Rajlovac, Ilijas, and there's
24 also dispatches from Hadzici, Ilidza, Lukavac, Blazuj, and Nedzarici.
25 I'm interested in taking you to one in relation to your brigade and
1 that's on page 7 -- page 3. It's for the 17th of October, 1992.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: And can we have the same page in English,
4 Q. We see here this is a huge variety -- in fact, ten different
5 types of weapons and almost 2.000 artillery weapons dispatched to
6 Aco Jokic from your brigade. And it includes 155-millimetre guns M1
7 howitzer, 105-millimetre howitzer M56, 76-millimetre mountain gun B1,
8 76-millimetre gun ZiS, and 122-millimetre howitzer Gvozdika.
9 What did you need, on the 17th of October, almost 2.000 artillery
10 weapons for? Is this in relation to the planned take-over of the Zuc
11 line that we saw back in Exhibit P5997?
12 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, we are talking of shells, not the
13 weapons themselves; correct?
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, artillery weapons.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was the question?
16 MS. SUTHERLAND:
17 Q. What was the need for almost 2.000 artillery weapons [sic] on the
18 17th of October?
19 And I said was this in relation to the planning that we saw in
20 Exhibit P5997 a moment ago in relation to the planning of the take-over
21 of Zuc.
22 A. The ammunition that we needed -- in the territory of Vogosca
23 there was the Vogosca Tactical Group which was composed of three
24 brigades: The Kosevo Brigade, the Vogosca Brigade, and the Rajlovac
25 Brigade. What was issued was issued through the Vogosca Brigade in order
1 to be distributed among all the other brigades. The tactical brigade
2 Vogosca had been established and deployed.
3 Q. And if we can quickly go to page 2, it shows on the
4 22nd of October again five different types of weapons and over a hundred
5 pieces dispatched to the Vogosca Brigade. And if we go to page 1 --
6 sorry, that was on the 22nd of October. And if we go to page 1 deals
7 with the 23rd of October, 1992, six different types of weapons and
8 450 pieces dispatched. Do you see that there, sir?
9 A. Yes, I do. But I have told you that Vogosca was the centre from
10 which things were distributed amongst the other brigades, the
11 Kosevo Brigade and the Rajlovac Brigade which were issued with weapons,
12 equipment, ammunition, from the depot. And that quantity was issued for
13 all the three brigades, i.e., for the entire tactical group.
14 Q. You mentioned in your statement, and this is -- you note that the
15 Muslims had many more soldiers than the Serbs. But it's a fact, isn't
16 it, that the VRS - and in this case the SRK - had superior weaponry to
17 the opposing forces?
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I must assist with the
19 interpretation. Madam Sutherland used the word "soldiers" which was
20 interpreted as "troops" -- or rather, Madam Sutherland said "weapons" and
21 it was interpreted as "troops." The transcript reads well and it is a
22 good reflection of what Madam Sutherland said, but the Serbian
23 interpretation was wrong.
24 JUDGE KWON: Did you understand the question, Mr. Trifunovic?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question but I'm
1 waiting to see what's next. When it comes to the manpower and the
2 numerical strength, i.e., armed and equipped soldiers, their strength was
3 three or four times superior to ours. There is a report from a brigade
4 commander who was on the opposition side.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND:
6 Q. My question was -- I noted that you said that there were -- that
7 the Muslims had more soldiers than the Serbs, but it's a fact, isn't it,
8 that the VRS had the superior weaponry?
9 A. That's correct. I don't know what they had. I know what we had.
10 I really can't say what they had. I wasn't there. Luckily enough, I
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, if I may just go back to -- you
13 asked me a question a moment ago: "Ms. Sutherland, are we talking of
14 shells not the weapons themselves; correct?" And I said: "Yes,
15 artillery weapons." In fact I misspoke and I did mean shells. You were
17 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. I'm a bit confused. You said what
18 Ms. Sutherland stated was correct. What did you mean? You agree that
19 Serbs had superior weaponry?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if they had superior
21 weaponry. It's just my estimate. They may have had superior weaponry.
22 I don't know. I don't know what they had. I only know what we had.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND:
24 Q. Well, you know what they had in relation -- I'll move on.
25 I want to move on to another topic now. You completed officers
1 school in 1976, didn't you, and you were discharged with the rank of
3 A. I completed the officers school in Bileca and I obtained the rank
4 of second lieutenant. As a member of the reserve that existed in the
5 former Yugoslavia, I was promoted all the way to the rank of a captain.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And, Your Honour, before I forget, may I tender
7 the pages of exhibit 12204 into evidence.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We dealt with two pages or three pages?
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: Three.
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, as an officer, a captain, and a commanding
14 officer at the brigade level you're familiar with the regulations
15 relating to the use of detained persons, either civilians or prisoners of
16 war in relation to work, aren't you?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, exhibit number shall be
18 Exhibit P5998. Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND:
21 Q. I want to show you a series of documents now.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have 65 ter number 24081 on the
23 screen, please.
24 Q. This is an order dated the 18th of October, 1992, signed by you,
25 for 30 detainees to be used on Zuc on the 19th of October for
1 construction work. And there's a reference in the predicate paragraph to
2 item 10 of the Instruction on the Treatment of Prisoners. That's number
3 21-26/92 of the 13th of June, 1992. I also see that you copied the
4 prison warden and the War Commission. What type of construction work did
5 the detainees perform when they were taken to Zuc?
6 A. They mostly fortified the lines, things like that, nothing
8 Q. What do you mean by "fortifying the lines"? Can you just explain
9 that in layman terms.
10 A. So far I've stated that there was ongoing combat on Zuc hill.
11 Throughout the war there was always combat going on. We moved the line
12 to and fro all the time. We did not have the time to fortify our lines.
13 That's why we used our own forces and additional forces in order to
14 fortify those lines because we did not have either the time or the
15 opportunity to do that properly, given the activities and the incoming
16 fire from Sarajevo.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can that document be admitted, please.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P5999, Your Honours.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can we have Exhibit P02385.
21 Q. This is a document dated the 17th of September, 1992, number 11
22 of 84 [sic] and it's signed by you as commander of the Vogosca command.
23 And you request 50 prisoners for work in the field on the 18th of
24 September, 1992. What type of work did detainees usually perform in the
1 A. This is again on Zuc hill.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I just have a moment, Your Honour?
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MS. SUTHERLAND:
5 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, the Court has heard evidence before it from
6 Witness Eset Muracevic in relation to this particular request that 50 men
7 were taken from Planjo's house and used as human shields to move the
8 front line and that some were killed and a number wounded, and that the
9 wounded told the other detainees when they returned that they were used
10 as human shields.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: I refer the Trial Chamber and the accused to
12 Exhibit P02361, page 26, item number 34 and paragraphs 69 to 83.
13 JUDGE KWON: Which was admitted pursuant to 92 bis?
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: 92 ter, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE KWON: Could you spell the witness name again.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: M-u-r-a-c-e-v-i-c.
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Eset Muracevic.
18 Yes, please continue.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: May that document be admitted?
20 JUDGE KWON: I said Eset, instead of Esad.
21 Yes, this will be -- that's already in evidence, isn't it?
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Yes. Can I have
23 Exhibit P01144, please.
24 MR. ROBINSON: Excuse me, Mr. President, I don't think the
25 witness was given the benefit to answer any question concerning this
1 document. Can we hear from the witness --
2 JUDGE KWON: That's correct --
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: He did. I asked him -- I said what type of work
4 did detainees usually perform in the field and he said this was at Zuc.
5 JUDGE BAIRD: Was that the last question, Ms. Sutherland, you
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. He said: "This is again on Zuc hill." So
8 I was taking that he was meaning fortified positions. But we can ask the
9 witness to confirm that the work on Zuc was again as he had previously
10 said, fortifying the positions and moving the front line.
11 Q. Is that right?
12 A. I said fortifying the positions and accessing the positions.
13 Fortifying the accesses to those positions which led to Zuc hill where we
14 were chased away to a different trig point. We did not have enough
15 trenches or at least -- or rather, we did not have any trenches at all
16 through which we could access the hill.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have Exhibit P01144, please.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And, Your Excellencies, what about
19 the comment proffered about Muracevic? No questions were asked. The
20 witness didn't say anything about people being taken away as human
21 shields. It appeared to be nothing less than testimony on behalf of the
23 JUDGE KWON: Fair enough.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour --
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes, you can put that to the witness.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: The witness -- the witness said that they were
2 taken to Zuc, that they were used for fortifying and moving the front
3 line. I was simply --
4 JUDGE KWON: No, you reminded of some content of
5 Witness Muracevic and you didn't put that to the witness. I think it's
6 fair to put it to the witness.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND:
8 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, would you like to comment on Mr. Muracevic's
9 evidence that I just summarised for you in relation to that request for
10 50 men?
11 A. I don't know what Mr. Muracevic said, but I claim with full
12 responsibility that they were never used for that purpose, the purpose
13 that he mentioned. Both we and ourselves [as interpreted] were used for
14 one and only purpose and that was improving access trenches to the line,
15 fortifying --
16 THE ACCUSED: "Both we and ourselves." Both them and ourselves.
17 [No interpretation].
18 JUDGE KWON: You are overlapping again.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Both them and ourselves were used
20 and they were never used without us and they were only used for improving
21 accesses to the lines and for fortifying the lines.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND:
23 Q. Yes, and that's exactly what you said on page 68 when I said:
24 "What do you mean by fortifying the lines? Can you explain it in layman
25 terms?" You said: "We moved the line to and fro all the time. We did
1 not have the time to fortify our lines. That's why we used our own
2 forces and additional forces ..." - and by "additional forces," do you
3 mean the detainees from Planjo's house? - "in order to fortify the lines
4 because we did not have either the time nor the opportunity to do that
5 properly, given the activities and incoming fire from Sarajevo."
6 So, first of all, when you said back on page 68 "additional
7 forces," you were referring to the document we had just been discussing,
8 the detainees from Planjo's, were you not?
9 A. I said that we together with them, we took them with us. And let
10 me explain, on that day, the 17th or the 18th, I was wounded before that
11 even started. So we could not use them as the living shields because on
12 that day we had 11 casualties among our soldiers, 11 dead. As soon as we
13 started fortifying the line, the Muslim forces must have noticed us --
14 Q. If I could stop you there. If I could stop you there, we'll get
15 to when you were injured in a little while, Mr. Trifunovic.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think that that satisfies --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we can move on. Thank you.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Now if we can look at P01144. This is on the
19 screen now. It's dated the 19th of September, 1992. It's a bulletin for
20 the 18th of September, 1992, for reporting on the deaths and wounding of
21 detainees who were taken to Zuc hill. The report makes a specific
22 reference to your request 11/84. And this report, is it signed by
23 Branko Vlaco's deputy, Nebojsa Spiric.
24 A. Probably.
25 Q. So in relation to work performed in the field, this
1 Trial Chamber's also heard evidence before it in relation to Witness
2 Bego Selimovic, whose relative is listed in P01144, who was used as a
3 human shield on the 18th of September, when he died. And on the 19th or
4 the 20th of September, 1992, the witness was selected to go to Zuc to
5 look for his body. And when he was there, he had to carry with another
6 detainee the body of a dead man up to the command while being beaten with
7 a piece of wood. And he was later then made to carry ammunition and
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I refer the Trial Chamber and the accused to
10 Exhibit P0046, paragraph numbers 28 and 29, but also generally through
11 paragraphs 26 to 38, and also Exhibit P00045.
12 Q. Do you have any comment to make in relation to that summary of
13 evidence, Mr. Trifunovic?
14 JUDGE KWON: Can we deal with one by one. Can you confirm with
15 this document first and then go on with your next question.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND:
17 Q. This document is a bulletin, is it not, setting out who were
18 killed and who were wounded the day that they were taken to Zuc pursuant
19 to your request; is that right?
20 A. I repeat, on that day, on the 18th of September, as soon as we --
21 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, I'll stop --
22 A. -- arrived on Zuc --
23 Q. -- you there. My question was simply: Can you confirm what this
24 document is about, as I just put to you, that it's a document, a
25 bulletin, by the -- signed on behalf of the warden of the prison setting
1 out who was killed and who was wounded in relation to a request by you to
2 take them to Zuc for work in the field?
3 A. You do not allow me to express myself. As soon as we got on Zuc
4 on the 18th of September, I was wounded and taken away --
5 Q. Stop you there --
6 A. -- to the hospital and --
7 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, I will stop you there. My question was simply:
8 Do you agree that that's what the document says? You've already said the
9 circumstances about your wounding; I'm not interested in that for the
10 moment. Is what I put to you what the document states?
11 JUDGE KWON: No, we can read what is there.
12 But, Mr. Trifunovic, irrespective of how many Serb soldiers were
13 wounded or killed, do you confirm that four prisoners were killed and
14 seven prisoners were wounded due to the field work in Zuc? Do you agree
15 with that or not?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that people did get killed,
17 but I don't know how many, before -- because I had been taken to
18 hospital. So I wouldn't know how many died, how many were killed.
19 JUDGE KWON: Now you see this report. You would not question the
20 veracity of this document, would you?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether it is true or
22 not. I wasn't there. I can't tell you. I don't know.
23 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
24 Yes, please continue, Ms. Sutherland.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Well, I would seek to have the document
1 admitted, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE KWON: I think it's already in evidence.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, it is.
4 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, the Trial Chamber has also heard evidence before
5 it in relation -- has evidence before it in relation to Witness
6 Mustafa Fazlic who was -- describes being used as a human shield on the
7 17th or the 18th of September when 50 detainees were taken to Zuc. He
8 describes being made to walk with 20 of the men in a long line in front
9 of the soldiers at the time they started shelling the position they were
10 about to attack. That is, the Serbs. They had to look for mines in
11 front of them while the soldiers were shooting from behind the detainees'
12 backs. His brother, who was next to him, was shot. He was also made to
13 go and get ammunition. And he mentions the names of two of the persons
14 who are listed in the bulletin we just saw, P01144.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I refer the Trial Chamber and the accused to
16 P00042, pages 4 to 6.
17 Again, do you have any comment to make on the summary I just
18 read? Is this the type of work that you were having the detainees do on
20 A. No. I can claim with full responsibility that no one used them
21 for such purposes, but only in order to fortify the lines.
22 Q. You said a moment ago, back on, I think, page 68, that you used
23 them to move the lines. I will move on.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I have exhibit --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no. We didn't. That's
1 not what was said. What was said is that we were continually moving the
2 line back. The Muslim forces were driving us back and, as a result, we
3 had to withdraw. We weren't moving the line forward. There's a
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have Exhibit P2387, please.
6 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, this is dated the 22nd of September, 1992. It's
7 a bulletin for the 21st of September, 1992, from prison warden
8 Brano Vlaco -- Branko Vlaco reporting on there being eight detainees
9 wounded and two detainees killed at Zuc, making specific reference to
10 your request dated 11/74 of the 17th of September, 1992. And again it's
11 signed by his deputy, Nebojsa Spiric.
12 The Trial Chamber has heard evidence that detainees that were
13 taken out were forced to carry out various jobs mainly on the front
14 lines, including the digging of trenches, communication trenches, and
15 other fortification features as well as carrying of ammunition and heavy
16 weaponry. And that such jobs carried out on the front lines actually
17 took part along the lines of separation between the Serbian army and the
18 Bosnian army where the majority of detainees were exposed to fire from
19 both sides. And this is Mr. Muracevic's testimony at transcript pages
20 12653 to 12654.
21 Do you have any comment to make on the summary of evidence that
22 I've just read?
23 A. Well, yes. There was no need for them to dig in front of our
24 front line. They were never alone without us nor did they ever go in
25 front of us in order to dig. Why? We weren't defending there, so we
1 were all there together, we were working, the VRS was with them, the Army
2 of Republika Srpska. So there was never a need to use them for such
4 Q. So when the Bosnian Serb army were walking along, where were the
6 A. What do you mean? When they were walking along? Where? That is
7 a plateau, a hill. You can't walk around. You have to stay underground.
8 You can't just walk around.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 24082 on the
10 screen, please.
11 Q. This is an order dated the 22nd of September, 1992, from you to
12 the prison to provide 30 prisoners for, again, construction work at the
13 Zuc location. And again you reference Article 10 of the Instruction on
14 the Treatment of Prisoners. And you've copied it to the War Commission.
15 And this order states that it comes into effect on the 26th of September,
16 1992, and remains in effect for as long as necessary.
17 So, again, you agree that this is an order for more construction
18 work for an indefinite period, yes?
19 A. No, not for an indefinite period. This was according to the
20 needs because action was daily. So the issue on that day was whether we
21 would lose or not, whether the Muslims would enter Vogosca or not. So we
22 asked everyone who could, even women, to go up there to fortify the lines
23 and to prevent the Muslims from penetrating the lines.
24 Q. Which women are you talking about? Where from?
25 A. Women of Serbian ethnicity who were among the ranks of the
1 troops, who were working in the canteens, who were from logistics sector
2 and so on and so forth.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, can this document be admitted,
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
6 Is it Exhibit 6000? Yes. Exhibit P6000.
7 Have we seen that document referred to in this document, i.e.,
8 Instruction on the Treatment of Prisoners --
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: I will --
10 JUDGE KWON: -- issued by the --
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- be showing you in just one moment,
12 Your Honour.
13 JUDGE KWON: Oh, yes. Thank you.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's --
15 JUDGE KWON: Please continue, yes.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's an exhibit.
17 Okay if we can quickly look at P2338 [sic]. This is dated the
18 24th of -- 2388. It's a document dated the 24th of September.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But --
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: It says here that --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- at the time I wasn't there. I
22 was wounded.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND:
24 Q. It's just concerning the killing of two detainees because they
25 were hit by fire while carrying out works at the Zuc hill. And you've
1 actually made your comment about that document now. But are you aware
2 that detainees were hit by fire when they were taken for work on Zuc?
3 A. On the 24th -- no, I don't believe I was aware of that. I was in
4 the hospital from the 18th. I wasn't there during those days.
5 Q. Generally are you aware that detainees were hit by fire while
6 carrying out works at Zuc?
7 A. Well, no. I'm now telling you that I wasn't aware of the fact
8 because I wasn't there.
9 Q. Okay, Mr. Trifunovic, I was going to deal with it a little later
10 but I'll deal with it now. You said you were injured on the
11 18th of September, 1992. In fact, apart --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- from the fact that it says in the English translation of your
14 statement that it's the 18th of December, we'll leave that aside because
15 it's a translation. But in another document, a statement that you gave
16 to the Serbian authorities when you were arrested at the end of December,
17 you said that you were arrested on the 18th of October, 1992. So which
18 is it? Is it September or is it October? Would you like to see that
19 statement, the other statement?
20 A. I was placed in detention on the 15th of December.
21 Q. No, I'm not concerned about when you were placed in detention.
22 I'm -- oh, sorry, I misspoke. When you were wounded, not when you were
23 arrested. I'm sorry. Is it September or October?
24 A. It was on the 18th of September.
25 Q. So why would you tell the Serbian authorities in a statement that
1 you gave in December when you were arrested that you were wounded on the
2 18th of October?
3 A. Perhaps it was a typing error, but this is certainly referred to
4 in the documents.
5 Q. Okay. We'll get back to where we were.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have the last two documents in this
7 series and that's P02383.
8 JUDGE KWON: I'd like to remind you, both parties, that we need
9 to rise 1.45 sharp, considering the next hearing.
10 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, I won't be completed by 1.45,
11 but I understood that that's when we were finishing for today.
12 JUDGE KWON: Does it mean that this witness should be brought
13 back --
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour --
15 JUDGE KWON: -- in two weeks' time --
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: I had estimated two and a half hours for
17 cross-examination and I didn't start my cross-examination until around
18 11.30 today. So I still have roughly 45 minutes left by the end of -- at
19 the end of today.
20 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND:
22 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, we can see here this is dated the
23 12th of September, 1992. It's a Semizovac Battalion request number 24 of
24 92, signed by Lieutenant Zoran Torbica for Commander Colakovic, for
25 prisoners to work on the front lines and they're needed for 11 days from
1 the 13th to the 24th of September, 1992, because they want the men to dig
2 trenches on the front line of the 3rd Company Ravno.
3 I will show you the next document and then I will ask you a
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could have Exhibit P02392, please.
6 Q. And this is dated the 25th of November, 1992, again Semizovac
7 Battalion, request number 104/92 for prisoners to work on the front lines
8 "... in order to move the front line. We need the prisoners on the
9 26th of November ..."
10 So they're just stating it right up front that they want to use
11 the prisoners in order to move the front line. The Semizovac barracks
12 was a battalion under your command, wasn't it?
13 A. That was in the area of responsibility of our brigade.
14 Q. And the document says they're in order to move the front line and
15 your position on that's not changing, I take it?
16 A. Well, moving the front line -- well, it concerned fortification,
17 improving positions at the front line. How were they to move the front
18 line? With what? We would be improving the positions and fortifying the
19 positions at that front line.
20 Q. Mr. Trifunovic, you -- the use of detainees to carry out work
21 such as digging trenches, fortifying, carrying ammunition and material
22 and being used to move the front line, not only did it violate basic
23 provisions of the Geneva Conventions requiring the humane treatment of
24 prisoners of war and civilians, it also violates the prohibition in the
25 conventions of using either prisoners of war or civilians in work that is
1 directly related to military activities, doesn't it?
2 A. We have an order from the Ministry of Defence at the time
3 according to which it is possible to make use of them provided they are
4 not exposed to danger. And in our opinion, they were never exposed to
5 danger since we were all there together. In such case, we were all in
6 the same position.
7 Q. You were never exposed to danger, then how were people killed and
9 A. I'm saying that they weren't there alone. We were there
10 together, so we were all exposed. They were there when that work was
11 being carried out, they were there together with our troops.
12 Q. So that's all right, then. If they're there with your troops,
13 then that's okay, to take detainees to work in combat areas; is that what
14 you're saying?
15 A. No. I'm only referring to the ministerial order that was
16 compiled by the minister of defence.
17 Q. Okay. Let's have a look at it.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Can I have Exhibit P01134, please.
19 Q. Is this the Instruction on the Treatment of Prisoners that you
20 were talking about?
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to page 2 in the English and the
23 Q. Is that what you were talking about by the minister of defence,
24 Mr. Subotic, issuing these instructions on the treatment of prisoners?
25 Mr. Trifunovic, is that what you were talking about, this document?
1 A. I can't see this very well, but this is probably the document.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go back to page 1 of the English
4 and B/C/S --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second, just a second.
6 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We could show the Serbian version,
8 1D298, it's more legible. The English one can remain. 1D298 could
9 perhaps be shown, as it is more legible.
10 JUDGE KWON: Do you mind, Ms. Sutherland?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Not at all. Now if we can zoom in on
12 paragraph 10. Unfortunately, in the B/C/S, paragraph 10 goes over
13 two pages, but so -- if we just rid of the English for the moment so that
14 we can let the witness read the entirety of paragraph 10.
15 Q. And let me know when you've read that provision.
16 A. Paragraph 10, is it?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. I've read it.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can reduce the B/C/S and bring the English
21 back, please.
22 Q. So we can see, Mr. Trifunovic, that Article 10, the one that
23 you've been quoting in your documents when you request prisoners from
24 Planjo's is:
25 "Besides work connected with the cleaning and maintenance of the
1 camp, captured persons may be put to work in agriculture, industry,
2 mining, handicrafts, traffic, trade, and other areas which are not
3 directly related to war operations."
4 So how do you reconcile taking someone to a combat zone with this
5 order with these instructions? Would you like me to repeat the question?
6 A. Go ahead then, repeat it.
7 Q. So I read Article 10. Would you like me to read the contents of
8 Article 10 again? I don't think I need to do that. My question was
9 after I read the article: How do you reconcile taking someone to a
10 combat zone with this -- with these instructions?
11 A. Well, it says they can't be used for fortifying camps. These
12 aren't camps. These are lines, trenches for defence.
13 Q. No. The article says:
14 "... which are not directly related to war operations."
15 A. Well, I believe that they are not directly related to war
16 operations if we are working together at fortifying the positions.
17 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, shall we stop here and discuss how
18 to proceed from herein terms of scheduling.
19 Mr. Trifunovic, we'll have to adjourn very soon for today and we
20 are going to have a long break after this and resume only on -- in the
21 week after, i.e., Tuesday, 27th of November. So I apologise for your
22 inconvenience, but I have to ask whether there would be no problem on
23 your part to return to The Hague to complete your evidence,
24 Mr. Trifunovic.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll return.
1 JUDGE KWON: I appreciate your kind understanding.
2 Two or three minutes. Is there any matter to raise?
3 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
4 JUDGE KWON: Do you have further questions?
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, if you have --
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated] -- can the witness be
8 instructed not to discuss his evidence with anyone, including the
10 JUDGE KWON: You don't have any further question for today?
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour, that's correct.
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Trifunovic, we'll adjourn now, but I'd like to
13 advise you about the rule and practice at the Tribunal which is that the
14 witness is not supposed to discuss about his testimony with anybody else
15 while or until he completes his evidence. Do you understand that, sir?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: Then the hearing is adjourned.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
21 November, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.