Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 37992

 1                           Thursday, 9 May 2013

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness takes the stand]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Good morning, everyone.  Before we continue today,

 7     I'd like to deal with two matters.

 8             The Chamber will first deal with the Prosecution motion to

 9     exclude portions of expert reports of Zorica Subotic filed on the

10     25th of April, 2013.  In the motion, the Prosecution requests the

11     redaction of paragraphs 118 to 134 of "The Use of Modified Aircraft Bombs

12     in the Sarajevo Area in 1994-1995," the 65 ter number which is 1D7900,

13     and paragraphs 1 to 18 of the report entitled "The Effects of Mortar

14     Shelling in Sarajevo Area From 1992-1995."  The 65 ter number of which is

15     1D7903.  I will refer to the first report as the modified air-bombs

16     report, and to the second as the shelling report hereinafter.

17             The accused filed his response to the motion on the

18     26th of April, 2013.  The Chamber further notes that it remains seized of

19     the Prosecution's response to disclosure of report of expert Witness

20     Zorica Subotic filed on 21st of September, 2012, in which the Prosecution

21     requests the redaction of paragraphs 86 to 99 of the modified air-bombs

22     report dealing with incident G17 which was removed from the indictment.

23     The accused did not respond to this.  The Chamber will deal with this

24     request together with the motion.

25             Turning to the shelling report, the Chamber notes that

Page 37993

 1     paragraphs 1 to 18 deal with the mortar attack on the 27th of May, 1992,

 2     in Vase Miskina Street, which is outside the scope of scheduled incident

 3     G1 of the third amended indictment.  However, the Chamber recalls that

 4     some evidence has been admitted in relation to this incident and refers,

 5     for instance, to Exhibits P129 and P155 related to the on-site

 6     investigation of this incident.  The Chamber therefore does not find that

 7     the reaction of these paragraphs is warranted.

 8             Turning now to the modified air-bombs report, the Chamber finds

 9     that paragraphs 86 to 99 should be redacted, because they deal

10     exclusively with incident G17 which has been removed from the indictment.

11     The Chamber further finds that paragraphs 118 to 134 of the report should

12     also be redacted because the witness is challenging material and

13     information that is not in evidence.  Moreover, the Chamber also orders

14     that paragraph 167 and 168 be redacted because these contain a summary of

15     evidence admitted in this trial and that such analysis falls outside the

16     scope of expertise of the witness.  The Chamber further notes that in

17     several places throughout the report, it is impractical to exclude

18     certain portions that contain comments on matters outside the expertise

19     of the witness or for which there is no evidentiary basis to assess the

20     analysis made by the witness.  As such, these have been left in, and the

21     Chamber will weigh this evidence accordingly.

22             In conclusion, the Chamber hereby grants the motion in part,

23     grants the request in the Prosecution response, and instructs the accused

24     to make these redactions and upload the redacted version of the modified

25     aircraft bomb report onto e-court before Dr. Subotic starts her

Page 37994

 1     testimony.

 2             For the next matter, could the Chamber move into private session.

 3                           [Private session]

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17                           [Open session]

18             JUDGE KWON:  Unless there are any other matters to raise, then,

19     Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

20                           WITNESS:  STANISLAV GALIC [Resumed]

21                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, about the private

23     session, I have a question if you will allow me.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25   (redacted)


Page 37995

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we could please move into

 6     private session, because my question is in the same context.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 37996











11 Page 37996 redacted. Private session.
















Page 37997

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please continue.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies.  Good

16     morning, Your Excellencies.  Good morning, everyone.

17                           Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:  [Continued]

18        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

19        A.   Mr. President, good morning.

20        Q.   I will try to put simple questions so as to finish as soon as

21     possible.

22             With regard to the document P1294, I would like to ask you this:

23     Is there a difference in the treatment of a document if it's addressed to

24     the command and if it's addressed to the commander personally?  Namely,

25     you were asked how come that you do not remember that document and that

Page 37998

 1     perhaps it never reached your hands?

 2        A.   Mr. President, there is a difference inasmuch as if something is

 3     addressed to the commander, then it is supposed to reach the commander

 4     only if he's present.  If it's assessed that his deputy is there and the

 5     nature of the document is such that it should be considered before my

 6     return, then my deputy can do that, or the person who is standing in for

 7     me.  But in essence, when it's addressed personally to the commander,

 8     then I would receive it personally.  So in this situation, though I don't

 9     have the document before me, I remember what you are asking me about.  I

10     said that the document did not reach me, that I do not remember it

11     reaching me, but how many documents passed across my desk during two

12     years of war, Mr. President, that's it.  I said I don't remember, and it

13     certainly is so.

14        Q.   All right.  Let us not call up the document.  I want to remind

15     everyone that P1294 is addressed to the command.

16             General, you were also asked about the Old Town and the shelling

17     of the Old Town.  Can you tell us whether Mrkovici is in the Old Town.

18     Sedrenik.

19        A.   Sedrenik up there, Mrkovici.  Now, where exactly is the municipal

20     border, I think they may belong to it, but yes, they should be in the

21     Old Town.  I think that that municipality would comprise them.

22        Q.   Did the BH Army have its units, staffs, firing positions, and

23     military infrastructure in the Old Town?

24        A.   Mr. President, I referred to the map that we had in front of us

25     here yesterday.  That's the so-called second map, the coloured one that

Page 37999

 1     we discussed yesterday as well.  It can be seen from it where the forces

 2     were deployed.  According to the maps which were drawn up by the

 3     representatives of the BH Army, one can see that in the Old Town zone

 4     there were some units and institutions, probably other military

 5     facilities as well.

 6        Q.   Thank you.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 1D10503.  Can we please call up

 8     that document in e-court.  This is a document from the Muslim side and

 9     the 1st Corps dated the 11th of March, 1993, and if other participants

10     can keep the English version on their screens, perhaps we could present

11     this to the General.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Can you see it now?  Can you read it?

14        A.   I can see the document in front of me, but I can't read it.  Not

15     yet.  It has to be zoomed in even more.  I'm about to have an eye

16     operation late this year or early next year because I cannot keep

17     adjusting my glasses.  I apologise for not being able to see but there is

18     nothing I can do about, at least not for now.  Thank you.

19        Q.   General, can you please focus on item 4 where detachments,

20     detachments are discussed, Sirokaca, Stari Grad 1, 2 and 5.  And then

21     under item 5 - if we can please scroll down a little bit - under item 5,

22     Stari Grad, the municipal staffs including Stari Grad, among others.

23     Does that correspond with what you knew about the militarisation of the

24     Old Town, or Stari Grad in B/C/S?

25        A.   Well, would I say something slightly different so that everything

Page 38000

 1     would be completely clear.  We couldn't say that all of the Old Town had

 2     been militarised or occupied by troops, but that some units were deployed

 3     there, that is something we could say.  Thank you.

 4        Q.   Thank you.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this document be admitted?

 6             MS. EDGERTON:  I would think that would only be the first page,

 7     because this relates to each corps of the BiH Army.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll admit this page.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3516, Your Honours.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  1D10500, please.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   General, sir, please focus on this document.  It is their

13     document from the municipal defence staff in Stari Grad, dated the

14     5th of August, 1992.  Twelve brigades were established.  That's what it

15     says.  And under B, the Old Town or Stari Grad Brigade.  That's just

16     before your arrival.  When you arrived, was the situation such that

17     Stari Grad, the Old Town, had its own unit?

18        A.   Mr. President, we noted that that was the situation on both sides

19     before my arrival.  The units that were there were mostly Territorial

20     Defence.  It was only later that both the BH Army and the Army of

21     Republika Srpska were established.  So the setting up and the

22     reshuffling, how long did it last, to what extent, who managed to do what

23     in which period, that's separate for each unit and should be discussed

24     separately.  We see here that it's the Stari Grad Brigade.  If they

25     called it so, then I accept that it was so.

Page 38001

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can it be admitted?

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3517, Your Honours.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  1D1925, please.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   I think, General, that you mentioned during the

 7     examination-in-chief that they very often reorganised themselves and

 8     changed the names and titles but that the zones of responsibility mainly

 9     remained the same; right?

10        A.   Well, with small changes we could say that it was so.  There were

11     small changes in view of the name and size of the unit.  Then zones were

12     sometimes shifted a little bit, but mainly they did stay the same.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Now, please focus on these organisational changes.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honour, I'm not saying that the document is

16     not relevant, but Dr. Karadzic has referred to something that the witness

17     said in his examination-in-chief.  Your Honours may find that some --

18     Dr. Karadzic could reformulate to relate this in some regard to the

19     cross-examination.  So it's not an objection to the document per se, but

20     this is redirect, so it should really be something that arises from the

21     cross-examination.  So perhaps Dr. Karadzic could reformulate.

22             JUDGE KWON:  At the time I thought it -- he meant

23     cross-examination, but I'm not sure whether it was not dealt with in

24     cross-examination.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise for the error.  It was

Page 38002

 1     a slip of the tongue.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   During the cross-examination, you were asked about the zones of

 4     responsibility, and inter alia, it was suggested to you that the

 5     Old Town, implying, I guess, only Bascarsija, that there was no reason

 6     whatsoever, that there was no military infrastructure at all.

 7             Can you please look at item C, that the anti --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Well, no, that's not what the General was asked

10     about Bascarsija, but we could continue.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   Perhaps you could look under items C, D, and E, which have to do

15     with the Old Town.  One is Bascarsija, the other is Gazin Han, and the

16     third is Sedrenik.  Were you aware that at the specific sites within the

17     Stara Gradiska municipality some military units were deployed?

18        A.   Well, you see, these were small units.  I could not say

19     specifically that I was aware that a detachment was there, which perhaps

20     comprised 100 men.  I see here that they say that there was some

21     detachment which was called Bascarsija, but whether it was present

22     specifically in Bascarsija, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was

23     there, but as they were a municipal unit, it was certainly in the zone of

24     Bascarsija.

25             You also said under D, yes?

Page 38003

 1        Q.   Yes, D and E.

 2        A.   D and E.  Yes, once again these were anti-sabotage detachments,

 3     small units about which we did not always have sufficient information,

 4     Mr. President, but if we did have anything, it was rather unreliable.

 5     Whether the staff was really located there -- well, here they say that

 6     that's where it was.  I can just say that it's possible.  If that's what

 7     they wrote, then it's more certain than if I asserted that, because I

 8     could assert something or claim something on the basis of intelligence,

 9     reconnaissance, and assessments, and they wrote this on the basis of the

10     actual situation.  And I have to confirm the actual condition and the

11     actual situation, I have to accept it, and as for the fact that I didn't

12     know it, they are not to blame for that.

13        Q.   General, sir, did you know these units, the 1st Mountain, the

14     2nd Mountain, and the 3rd Mountain Units?  The ones that were attached

15     there.

16        A.   If you will recall, Mr. President, on the first day I listed and

17     enumerated all these units, where they were deployed, what the locations

18     were.  In a word, yes, I did know.  Thank you.

19        Q.   The transcript doesn't reflect whether the -- whether you knew

20     the brigades that these units belonged to.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

22             JUDGE KWON:  We'll mark it for identification.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3518, Your Honours.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have English translation for this,

25     Mr. Karadzic?

Page 38004

 1             THE ACCUSED:  I thought -- I thought so.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  But it's not uploaded into e-court.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now call up 1D1591.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Here we have a report, a regular combat report of your command of

 6     the 12th September of 1993.  In paragraph 2 of item 1, at around

 7     1320 hundred hours, from the area the Old Town, Stari Grad, ten mortar

 8     shells of 120-millimetre calibre were fired.  Is there any reason for us

 9     to doubt this report?

10        A.   Mr. President, this corps command report does not give us any

11     reasons to doubt it.  There were so many developments that there was no

12     reason for them to make up or fabricate any new ones.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have this

14     admitted, please?

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3519, Your Honours.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   General, in order for the parties to be quite clear on this

19     point, when you spoke about that area of Stari Grad that you said had the

20     character of a museum, what is that part of town called?

21        A.   We discussed this issue somewhat with the Prosecutor, and I said

22     that Bascarsija was a symbol of sorts, a symbol of Sarajevo.  It was as

23     such a symbol during the war as well and remains a symbol of Sarajevo to

24     this day.

25        Q.   What were the materials that these buildings were built of if you

Page 38005

 1     recall?

 2        A.   Well, of course, I would go to Bascarsija for a meal of cevapcici

 3     or if I was in passing there.  These were ground floor buildings built in

 4     the old type of the baked clay tiles that were used typically in the

 5     area.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  General, what would a hundred shells fired in a day

 7     do such a structure?

 8        A.   Well, in that area of Bascarsija, if a hundred shells were to be

 9     fired upon it, then it would not stand there at all.  You didn't say what

10     the calibre would be, but let me recall that a 155-millimetre calibre

11     would dig up 50 --

12        Q.   [No interpretation]

13             MS. EDGERTON:  Just before we go on, is there a sentence that's

14     not finished here from the General?  His answer ends with "dig up 50."

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm just wondering 50 what.

17             JUDGE KWON:  What we have in our transcript, Mr. Galic, is:  "...

18     but let me recall that a 155-millimetre calibre would dig up 50," and it

19     stops there.  Could you end the sentence.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  It would be ten cube -- cubic

21     metres.  That's what it would be.  That's what a shell would produce.  It

22     would produce a crater where around 10 cubic metres of earth would have

23     been displaced.  Am I clear now, Mr. President?  Of course, if it were to

24     hit a structure made of stone, then the damage would be different.  It

25     would be of a lesser sort.

Page 38006

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have D3386.  That was

 2     65 ter 24965.  Can we have 1 -- 24965 first.  Perhaps it's not the same.

 3     I probably have a P number now.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Now that we're on this issue, you were asked about this document

 6     and the total number.  Can you tell the Chamber up until what time of day

 7     does this report relate to, and was it the case that there were other

 8     events, incidents happening beyond that time, if you recall?

 9        A.   Mr. President, it does say at the top "until 1400 hours."  There

10     were two cut-off times of days -- of day, and this report related to the

11     period up until 1400 hours.  And then of course we had another report

12     that had to come out before 2000 hours.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 24965.  That's a

14     65 ter number.  I do have a P number, but I can't find it.

15             MS. EDGERTON:  There's no P number.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  Now I remember.  I apologise.

17             This has to do with the compilation of newspapers, but we don't

18     have it admitted, so we don't need it.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   Let me ask you this, General:  When the United Nations reported

21     on the daily casualties, would it include the casualties on the Serb

22     side?  To the best of your knowledge, what did the reports on daily

23     casualties cover?

24        A.   To be honest, I don't know exactly.  However, based on those

25     reports, I could tell that Serbian casualties were not taken into

Page 38007

 1     account.  Only the estimated Muslim casualties were taken into account

 2     based on some confidential or nonconfidential reports, or reliable or

 3     non-reliable reports.  In any case, I don't think that the Serbian

 4     casualties were taken into account, but obviously you can always check

 5     that.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  When it comes to the media reports that were supposed

 7     to alert you to the fact that you were supposed to investigate something,

 8     how accurate were those?

 9        A.   Those media reports were politicised.  That's the word I would

10     use.  People need -- people reported the way they wanted to.  They came

11     up with all sorts of scenarios.  There was a group of journalists in

12     Sarajevo headed by Mrs. Christiane Amanpour who was in charge of

13     compiling those scenarios.  I remember a meeting with her.

14     General Milovanovic was present as well.  We toured Trnovo in order to

15     show them what crimes had been committed there.  The church was destroyed

16     and so on and so forth.  Whatever we told her.  Unfortunately, I did not

17     watch that interview later, but General Milovanovic told me that the

18     whole picture was distorted.  Wherever she was supposed to say yes, she

19     said no.  It doesn't take a lot to distort the meaning.  He then called

20     Ms. Amanpour and drew her attention to that fact.  Her answer was that

21     she had handed over the entire report and that it was not her purview to

22     edit news on CNN.  So much from me about the objectivity of those reports

23     and the rest of the things.  In any case, there is an expression

24     Amanpourisation or Satanisation of the Serbian people.

25        Q.   With that same respect, how accurate were United Nations reports,

Page 38008

 1     the ones that you checked when you received them in the form of protests?

 2     What was the reliability of those reports?

 3        A.   Mr. President, we saw during the examination-in-chief and later

 4     when I was examined by Madam Prosecutor, that their reports were not

 5     based on accurate and precise information, that there were mistakes,

 6     that, as we saw yesterday when we looked at some reports, that there were

 7     some where there were no mistakes, and the answer of my command was, yes,

 8     that is a fact, and we explained the reasons.  There were mistakes.  That

 9     would be my shortest answer.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11        A.   If I may add to that.  They had less information than necessary.

12     They could not get hold of accurate information.  That's why they

13     provided the reports the way they did, and they didn't want to accuse the

14     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  I also told you about what happened in -- at

15     the airport, Cekrcici, Dobrinja, and those major events.  If they had had

16     accurate information, they would not have done things they did.  If

17     [indiscernible] had known what was going on and that 36 tanks had been

18     sent to the zone of brigade and they could have burnt everything, he

19     would have never sent those transporters there without having consulted

20     me and the Main Staff.

21             I have to underline that all of our contacts and all of our

22     obligations towards UNPROFOR and representatives of the United Nations

23     could only be implemented upon the approval of the Main Staff unless

24     there was something urgent going on, and that was ordered in

25     September 1992, although I did not implement that order fully.  I -- I

Page 38009

 1     suffered a little after that.  However, I thought that I had to

 2     co-operate on all issues with representatives of the United Nations.

 3     Whatever they told me, I thought that it would have -- it would be much

 4     more useful than to refuse co-operation.

 5             The answer was a bit lengthy.  I apologise.

 6        Q.   General, sir, on pages 38 through 42, and in the document P6299,

 7     I believe, P6 -- P6 -- P6229, this is a Prosecutor's document, there was

 8     a reference to Papa 5.  P6299.

 9        A.   Mr. President, I remember this very well.  We spoke about Papa 5

10     yesterday and problems related to it.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Maybe we'll call it up

12     later, but now I would like to call up P1431 to remind ourselves of the

13     position of Papa 5.

14             Since we are already here, can we take a brief glance at the

15     place where it says that fire was opened from the eastern boundary of the

16     city, and then we will come back to this document when we -- can we first

17     see the map.  Zoom in, please.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   General, sir, are you familiar with this map?  Can you see the

20     location of Papa 5, somewhere in the direction of Boljakov Potok, across

21     the street from the television building?

22        A.   This is still too small for me.  However, let me try and get my

23     bearings to see where Papas were deployed in accordance with this

24     schematic.

25             JUDGE KWON:  We can zoom in further.  Ms. Edgerton, yes.

Page 38010

 1             MS. EDGERTON:  Exactly what I had taken to my feet to suggest.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Inside Sarajevo.  Inside the circle.

 3             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Scroll up, or even we can zoom in.  Do you see P5,

 5     with a dark triangle?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, Mr. President.  Now

 7     I can see that somewhere in the Boljakov Potok sector, right, Ali Pasa's

 8     bridge, below Dolac.  Yes, I can see where Papa 5 is.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Thank you.  General, sir, can you please tell us what sort of

11     infrastructure and firing position did the BiH Army have in the sector

12     where Papa 5 was?

13        A.   In practical terms that Papa was in the centre down there, and if

14     this is Ali Pasa's bridge and Alipasino Polje was below that, it was all

15     around Boljakov Potok.  I don't know if there was anything special there.

16     There was some command posts there.  It is a large depth.  It is deep

17     into the field.  I don't know what units were there.  I suppose that if

18     this is Alipasino Polje, there could have been some units deployed there,

19     but it is rather deep.  The way it is depicted here I would say that that

20     was rather deep.

21        Q.   Can we move from left to right.  If fire was opened from the

22     eastern parts of the city, was there a Lima observation post there?

23        A.   Lima had 11 observation posts in this part.  Here we can see

24     Lima 7 in the eastern part of the city, in the area of the

25     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  In our area there were Limas and in their area

Page 38011

 1     there were Papas.  They were deployed there and if fire was opened from

 2     there, they would have observed it.  From those 11 observation points

 3     they could have covered a very large area.  Virtually nothing could

 4     happen in the corps.  No artillery fire could be opened without them

 5     observing what was going on.  They could not observe infantry or sniping

 6     fire.  They could to a certain extent but not to a full extent and with a

 7     hundred per cent certainty.  They could observe artillery fire, though.

 8        Q.   In this zone of responsibility where was your corps artillery?  I

 9     suppose it was a corps artillery group; right?

10        A.   It was -- the corps artillery group was in Trpecko [phoen] in the

11     north.  One battalion was around Faletici and in the sector where Papa 7

12     was.  It was deployed as a brigade artillery group.  We had some

13     artillery deployed here, but Lima over here covered that artillery, and

14     the corps artillery was up there in the north in Trpecko.

15        Q.   Thank you.  When I say "Hresa," left to Lima 7, does it mean

16     anything to you?

17        A.   Hresa is where the mixed artillery regiment was.  Some of its

18     troops were deployed there in its sector.

19        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  General, sir, the process that you received

20     from Cutler, was it accompanied by a similar report from Lima 7?  Did

21     they tell you that fire was opened from their zone against the city?

22        A.   I have told you that I don't remember that report of yours, that

23     it was my Chief of Staff who was concerned with that, but I suppose that

24     he did investigate things.  He did not just leave it to chance.  At that

25     time, Colonel Marcetic was the Chief of Staff, if we're talking about

Page 38012

 1     that same time.  He would not take things lightly without examining it

 2     regardless of what Cutler had said.  Their relationship towards us in the

 3     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps was reciprocated.  If they trusted us, we trusted

 4     them.  It was mutual.  In war it's very difficult to trust somebody a

 5     hundred per cent.

 6        Q.   General, sir, did you have enough ammunition and enough reason to

 7     open fire on the mountains surrounding Sarajevo where no enemy troops

 8     were deployed?

 9        A.   In the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps or above the Sarajevo-Romanija

10     Corps there were a lot of scenarios involving all sorts of things.

11     People said that we had ample ammunition, as much as we wanted.  I

12     already said yesterday that when I arrived, when I joined the corps, we

13     did not have a single shell for a multiple-rocket launcher.  We didn't

14     have anything for recoilless guns.  We didn't have anything then or

15     later, throughout my tour of duty, which lasted two years.  We did -- we

16     did not have ammunition.  We did have tools but they were useless.  We

17     had problems with supplying ammunition for artillery weapons.  The corps

18     had a very wide zone of responsibility.  At the beginning a lot of

19     ammunition had been spent.  The other corps also needed ammunition, and

20     supplies were limited.  That's why we often had problems with supply,

21     especially with higher calibre artillery ammunition.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I would like to call up

23     P6299 again.  I'm looking at page 1.

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And when you look at my orders, you

25     will see how many BK I approved.  Not more than zero four five, and it's

Page 38013

 1     very little.  It was very difficult to carry out orders with such a small

 2     quantity.  There -- there was no ammunition.  It was difficult to say I

 3     approved two three BK because I didn't have that much.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Can you explain what BK is?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Speak very slowly, please.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  Thank you,

 8     Mr. President.

 9             I get carried away, and then I start speaking really fast.  I'll

10     repeat everything I need, everything you need me to repeat.

11             I need to explain what BK is.  It's a combat kit consisting of

12     ammunition and everything else that accompanies a certain type of weapon.

13     For example, a BK for an M-48 rifle is ten rounds.  A BK for an automatic

14     rifle is a hundred and fifty rounds.  You see the difference, and both

15     are rifles.  A BK for a tank is anything between 25 to 40 shells, and so

16     on and so forth.  I can't remember what the combat kit was for some type

17     of assets.  This is what BK stands for.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Can you please look at the third paragraph from the bottom and

20     see how Mr. Cutler makes his conclusion about the Serbian side opening

21     fire.  He says the fact that you stopped firing and that I could evacuate

22     my observer is -- a good enough evidence that you had opened fire.

23     "After I evacuated my observers you reopened fire on that position."

24             Why would that position be shelled after they had abandoned that

25     position?  Why would you have shelled a vacant position, especially in

Page 38014

 1     view of the fact that you didn't have enough ammunition?

 2        A.   This conclusion of his is really intriguing.  Thank you very

 3     much, Mr. President, for having pointed it out to me and for having

 4     analysed it in such a great detail.  And you are alerting us to a very

 5     important fact.  Here some small combinations are being devised, but they

 6     are impossible.  If indeed his observation post had indeed been hit or a

 7     shell hit very close to his observation post, perhaps three metres away,

 8     and if he changed position, and the area down there was populated, how

 9     were we in a position to discover that position so quickly.  That would

10     have meant that we had fantastic observation facilities, and we didn't

11     have.  We could not observe such tiny changes so quickly.

12             When he moved his position, he would have had to inform his boss

13     at Papa immediately where he was and then he would in turn inform his

14     main observer for Sarajevo who in turn would inform Indjic, and then

15     Indjic would have to convey that message to us in the command or anybody

16     interested where Papa was so that it could not be hit.  The process was

17     not so simple for us to find out where he was so that we did not open

18     fire on them.  Some things are really strange here, and they tell us that

19     perhaps things should be put in a different perspective in the light of

20     what is written in here, what Cutler wrote in his report.

21             You see on his part and on Razek's [Realtime transcript read in

22     error "Rakic's"] part we are faced with that problem.

23        Q.   Thank you, General, sir.

24             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we just briefly look at P6298.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not finish.  I did not

Page 38015

 1     complete my thought, and it is really very important for me to tell you

 2     this.  Here you can actually have doubts as to who was in a better

 3     position to observe the deployment and movement of -- I apologise.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Your answer about Rakic was not correctly reflected.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About Rakic?

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Razek.  Razek.

 8        A.   I will repeat, Mr. President.  Such events which have to do more

 9     with the problem of relations with and attacks on UNPROFOR forces, there

10     were most reports from Razek and Cutler.  There were other reports, too,

11     but the two of them were, as you can also see, special, to put it that

12     way.  And if you allow me just to finish my thoughts about the remaining

13     part.

14        Q.   Please, General.

15        A.   One can ask this question, this is the other part which I always

16     avoid to shift responsibility to anyone else, but one could ask the

17     question who could observe them from closer than my corps?  The 1st Corps

18     of the BH Army could.  Whether there was any fire, it could have been

19     from the side of the BH Army.  We have seen from our regular reports that

20     there were such situations indeed, and we also had information about

21     various attacks on the UNPROFOR from members of the 1st Corps of the

22     BH Army.  Let me not expand on that, because, Your Honours, you know more

23     about that than me because this trial has been going on for quite a long

24     time now.  With regard to Sarajevo, I said that I know some truths about

25     Sarajevo but all the events, all particular moments, it's certain that

Page 38016

 1     I'm not aware of it all.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  General, can you please have a look at the end of the

 3     second paragraph here where it says, although not absolutely clear, it is

 4     believed that the shelling came from one of the Serb batteries on the

 5     eastern flank of Sarajevo.  So when they sent you something like this

 6     that is not yet absolutely clear and which is based on belief, how would

 7     that fit in your experience with regard to the reliability of their

 8     protests, General?

 9        A.   Regardless of the fact that it's written as it is, many times I

10     or the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps were to rely on their

11     belief that something happened.  If such a report arrived to the command

12     and if we were warned that that was probable, then the question would be,

13     "Why do you send us protests about something that is possible and likely

14     as if we had nothing else to do but read your protests and then act in

15     accordance with them?"

16             When it says the eastern flank, to the east from there, what is

17     the zone?  It's a big zone to the east, the one covered by the

18     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  It's not just up there where the artillery was

19     deployed.  It was a big zone and a huge investigation would need to be

20     conducted by a commission, I don't know, commanders and so on, to

21     investigate whether there were really any fire from there at Papa 5.

22     Even if there was, there was Lima 7 there, too, and they could certainly

23     have confirmed that, but he does not rely on Lima.  And I wonder that

24     Cutler, as a senior observer located on the site of the 1st Corps of the

25     BH Army, is lodging a protest with us.  That was not the norm.

Page 38017

 1        Q.   Thank you.  General, you were asked whether you investigated

 2     unlawful conduct.  Did you issue specific instructions to brigades to

 3     investigate instances of crimes?

 4        A.   I have to make another observation.  In that period, this is a

 5     heavy word, crime, because under Article 147 of the Geneva Convention,

 6     serious violations of the convention are mentioned rather than crimes,

 7     but never mind.  This is how you phrase your question, and I have to

 8     answer you.

 9             We should take into account that in this period a state of war

10     had not been declared.  The state of war was only declared in the last

11     stages of the war.  I asked why we did not declare the state of war

12     because then the conditions of command and control were different.  I

13     asked the president that, and the president personally told me then that

14     we did not wish to declare a state of war because we have to state who we

15     were waging war against.  Was it against the Muslims or the Croats?  We

16     did not wish for that.  We wanted peace.  All right, I accepted that but

17     that had other consequences for the authority with regard to command and

18     control.  And the word "crime," was it investigated, and my final answer

19     to that would be yes, we did.

20        Q.   Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise because this document

22     has not been translated, 1D7332, please.  My Defence obtained it, and I

23     don't even think that the Prosecution has it, but it's a brief document.

24     1D7332, please.

25             As we do not have a translation, can we please zoom in?

Page 38018

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   General, please look at the document.  Never mind the heading.

 3     The 4th of October, 1992, to the command of the Vogosca Brigade.  From

 4     this order to the end, can you please read it out, the two paragraphs.

 5     And please, slowly.

 6        A.   "Order.

 7             "1.  Colonel Vukota Vukovic shall remain in the position of the

 8     command of the Vogosca Brigade until further notice.

 9             "2.  Urgently investigate all instances of crimes which have been

10     committed and also the misconduct of conscripts.  Find the perpetrators

11     and take appropriate measures.  You are obligated to inform the command

12     of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps about this."

13        Q.   Thank you.  General, did you promote this in the media or did it

14     remain strictly confidential?

15        A.   Mr. President, when we write that something is strictly

16     confidential, then it is strictly confidential, but many things did reach

17     the wives and other categories, even the enemy.  It should have been

18     strictly confidential, and it was not publicly broadcasted because this

19     had to do with Colonel Vukotic.  I found him there in Rajlovac.  In my

20     view he was a good colonel and a good officer.  I have a good opinion of

21     him.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can it be MFI'd,

23     please.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  MFI D3520, Your Honours.

Page 38019

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   General, can you tell us, you said something, during

 3     cross-examination, too, what were the aims and intentions of the

 4     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  Could you tell us first briefly what artillery

 5     preparation means and what is artillery fire -- why is it launched?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

 7             MS. EDGERTON:  Before the General answers, I actually wonder if

 8     we could have a citation for this, please, the aims and intentions of the

 9     Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have that order.

11             JUDGE KWON:  No.  Ms. Edgerton is asking Mr. Karadzic from what

12     part of her cross-examination was that dealt with or arising.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will find it now.

14     It's page 100, where a document was shown which says the last use of

15     Sarajevo, that's academician Maksimovic about the heightening of

16     tensions.  And my question to the General was:  In whose interest was it

17     to heighten the tension throughout Sarajevo?  In other words, what were

18     the objectives of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?  I'm referring to

19     yesterday's transcript, page 100.

20             JUDGE KWON:  So, now, Ms. Edgerton, are you satisfied with this

21     clarification?

22             MS. EDGERTON:  I think it's in reference to P6300 discussed on

23     the 7th, so thank you.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   General, sir, can you answer the question?  Was it in the

Page 38020

 1     interest of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to maintain tensions around

 2     Sarajevo?  Was it the case that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps manipulated

 3     the flow of supplies with a view to maintaining these tensions?  Who did

 4     academician Maksimovic have in mind?

 5        A.   To tell you the truth, the observation by academician Maksimovic

 6     was not understood by me in that way, but if you say that this is the

 7     case, then I will believe you.  I do know of a different, quite specific

 8     situation that I can tell you to answer the question.  The issue of how

 9     Sarajevo came to be the way it was, that is to say, the front in

10     Sarajevo.  There was quite a bit of discussion about it.  In whose

11     interest was this sort of front?  Was it the result of natural

12     developments or also the result of somebody's will?  Could the BH Army

13     really link up with Pazaric, or was it in their interest to remain in

14     this area and manipulate the situation so that they could say that they

15     are having a hard time, that they were drawn into this battle, et cetera?

16     It was the interest of the policy of Alija and the military and civilian

17     Muslim leadership to keep the tensions as high as possible, to show the

18     casualties and suffering as far as possible in the area of Sarajevo that

19     was under the BH.  We, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the Army of Republika

20     Srpska, the Supreme Command and our Presidency, we would have been

21     happy to see these tensions ease on a daily basis, to see them disappear

22     altogether.  We would have been happy not to have seen war in the area at

23     all, because there was a lot happening, though I wasn't there, that was

24     promising that there would not be a war, from Cutileiro's plan,

25     agreements, et cetera.  We wanted the situation resolved as soon as

Page 38021

 1     possible.

 2             Mr. President, I don't know if I'm right, if my recollection is

 3     correct, but I believe that in 1992, a resolution, a convention, was

 4     adopted by the National Assembly of Republika Srpska.  This was at the

 5     beginning of the war, you know this, and we did not want the war.  It was

 6     a declaration about the end of war.  We did not want to see tensions,

 7     especially not in Sarajevo where all the world mass media were focused,

 8     all the attention was focused on Sarajevo, and it was –- so it was the

 9     Muslims and some others in the world who needed it.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we look at P6300

11     for a moment.  This was mentioned a moment ago.

12             In lines 3 and 4, the General said it was necessary for the

13     Muslims to have these tensions, these Muslims and some other.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Do you confirm that, Mr. Galic?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do confirm, Mr. President.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  It's a matter of transcript.  Thank you.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President didn't say it all.  I

18     said that it was the Muslims who needed it and some others as well.

19     That's what I said.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have the next page.  Page 3,

22     please.  It appears that it's on page 3.  Page 4, item 9.  In English it

23     begins at the bottom of the page, and for the Serbian version I need the

24     next page.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38022

 1        Q.   General, sir, please read item 9 to yourself and tell us:  Was it

 2     that the academician Maksimovic was implying that it was -- that we were

 3     using Sarajevo and manipulating about the electricity and water supply?

 4        A.   Mr. President, can we have this read out?  I can't read it in the

 5     Serbian version.

 6        Q.   Did your corps manipulate and deliberately raise tensions?

 7        A.   Mr. President, in my testimony, I repeatedly said and confirmed

 8     that the corps under my command, to the extent that I was aware, never

 9     manipulated electricity, water, gas supplies.  There was this commission,

10     Krajisnik-Muratovic, that was operating, and there was the PTT, and there

11     were these four important elements.  Let me call them the cornerstones of

12     civilian life.  We never manipulated them, not the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,

13     the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  That would be my answer,

14     Mr. President.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Can you tell us in the briefest of terms on what

16     basis did you send reports to the Main Staff?  On the basis of what

17     information and sources?

18             JUDGE KWON:  Before you move on.

19             Mr. Galic, this letter does not indicate that SRK or its command

20     manipulated the supply of water or electricity.  Would it have been

21     possible that other authorities in the Republika Srpska manipulated water

22     supply or et cetera?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am not familiar

24     with that issue, and my answer could be nothing else but manipulation and

25     guesswork.  I have no information that would enable me to confirm -- when

Page 38023

 1     Mr. Krajisnik came down there and was telling me about the orders and

 2     when we were finishing his work related to the commission, where the

 3     water supply system was supposed to be repaired, he was so earnest in

 4     what he was saying that I could not possibly believe that there was

 5     anyone manipulating it.  That would be my answer.

 6             Was there manipulation on one or the other side and to what

 7     extent and who could be behind these manipulations?  We could leave that

 8     to assessments.  I was telling you over the course of these days that all

 9     these important sources of electricity, water, and gas would pass from

10     the BH Army control into the control of the VRS and alternate in this

11     way.  Now, along these routes of supply of these energy sources, if I can

12     call them like this, if there was any manipulation along the way, well,

13     if we recall Murat from Visegrad, et cetera, there was all sorts of

14     things happening.  I don't want to expand on this and go into too much

15     detail.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

17             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I'm

18     not sure at all that General Galic said, page 30, line 9, and I quote, I

19     can't see it on the screen anywhere, "That could have been omission on my

20     part."  Page 30, line 9.  I'm reading the transcript, and I'm not sure at

21     all that General Galic said this.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE KWON:  So it was at the end of your answer to

23     Mr. Karadzic's question whether your corps manipulated and deliberately

24     raised tensions.  So your answer reads like this:

25             "We never manipulated them, especially not the Sarajevo-Romanija

Page 38024

 1     Corps, the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  That would have been

 2     an omission on my part."

 3             What did you actually say as regards the last sentence?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't -- that's all correct,

 5     apart from the omission.  No, that bit I don't recall saying.  It should

 6     be deleted.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  That could be checked during the review

 8     process today.

 9             Yes, please continue.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have a look at

11     D2561 for a moment.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   General, sir, what was the general instruction from the

14     Presidency and the Main Staff in relation to your units with regard to

15     supplies and humanitarian issues?

16             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Thank you.  Only to say that supplies and

18     humanitarian issues were not raised during the cross-examination.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Karadzic.  I think Ms. Edgerton is correct.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But the various facilities, the

21     water, electricity, gas, they were raised, and as -- and this was covered

22     by the general instructions.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  And perhaps then Dr. Karadzic can rephrase his

24     question.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'll do my best.

Page 38025

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   In view of the fact that it was suggested to you, General, in

 3     relation to the earlier documents, that you deliberately raised tensions,

 4     my question is:  What sort of instructions did you receive and forward to

 5     your units in relation to the water supply system, electricity, and the

 6     provision of these supplies to Sarajevo?

 7        A.   Well, these instructions and orders, Mr. President, that I

 8     received and that I passed on as orders to subordinate commands were in

 9     keeping with the position that water, electricity, gas, dams, et cetera,

10     should not be abused.

11             On the issue of humanitarian convoys and the passage of

12     humanitarian aid, the position was that the passage of humanitarian aid

13     had to be ensured in keeping with the procedure that was already well

14     known and that was ordered in respect of every convoy.  We knew the route

15     that the convoy would take, who would control it.  The specific times

16     were provided even of its expected arrival in a certain location.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Please have a look at this document and tell us how

18     does it fit with your knowledge and your actions.  And in line 3 the

19     General didn't say "damages."  He said "dams."

20        A.   Yes, I meant the hydroelectric plant and the connected dams.

21     Water accumulations, to be more precise, because we had the hydroelectric

22     plant which had a dam, and it could be misused because had the sluice

23     been lifted, an area of Sarajevo could have been flooded.

24        Q.   Please have a look at the document and tell us if you recall.

25        A.   Well, I did cast a glance, but I really can't make it out.  The

Page 38026

 1     print is too small.  Can it be enlarged, please.

 2        Q.   In the preamble, can you read this?  Pursuant to the directive of

 3     the Presidency, et cetera.  Do you recall the directive?

 4        A.   Well, I do recall the directive, and I did invoke that directive,

 5     and you see here that I am invoking your directive and the order from the

 6     Main Staff, and I did explain why I proceeded this way.  It was an

 7     important argument for me to invoke these authorities, and I needed to

 8     make sure that my subordinate officers and troops would understand and

 9     take my order seriously.

10             This is indeed what I was talking about.  Under item 3 it reads:

11     Adhere to Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and

12     additional protocols, et cetera, protocols 1 and 2, as well as the

13     Hague Convention about the laws or customs of war of 1907.  And of course

14     those who would be reading this, if they don't know what I'm saying, they

15     would have to go through these various international norms that needed to

16     be complied with in respect of what had been ordered therein.

17        Q.   General, did we sign this in relation to a conference?  And since

18     it's strictly confidential, did it have a purpose other than what is

19     listed in that document?

20        A.   Mr. President, I --

21             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  That's a leading question, with respect,

23     Your Honours.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Let's simplify the question.  General, is this -- is this a

Page 38027

 1     sincere explicit order?

 2        A.   Mr. President, on the basis of the questions so far and my

 3     evidence, your question could not be but suggestive, because practically

 4     we have already given an answer to it.  I can only confirm things for the

 5     second time and which is that this was not -- it did not have a specific

 6     purpose.  It wasn't for popularity's sake or anything like that.  This

 7     was an order that strictly had to be adhered to.  It didn't have a hidden

 8     agenda.  There were few such orders.  Whenever public figures were

 9     coming - for instance, Rose organised a football match with the 1st Corps

10     of the BH Army - I had to issue an order to make sure that nobody

11     would -- and of course, in that case, you had to engage double the normal

12     amount of personnel that you would use.  It's very hard to maintain that.

13             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic --

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   [No interpretation]

16             JUDGE KWON:  What did you say, Mr. Karadzic?

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to call up yet

18     another document before the break?

19             JUDGE KWON:  I take it that you are not concluding your

20     re-examination in this session.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Excellencies.  Well, I did not

22     start at 9.00, because we had already used up some of the time on other

23     matters; right?

24             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Please continue.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And now I would like to call up

Page 38028

 1     1D5337.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   General, sir, there was a meeting on the 27th of September, 1994.

 4     Mr. Maksimovic described it.  Could you please look at my letter to

 5     General Milovanovic dated 22nd, i.e., five days prior to that other

 6     document.

 7        A.   Mr. President -- I apologise.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  Again, Your Honour, the document may be relevant,

10     but I think that Dr. Karadzic would be well advised to ask some further

11     foundational questions for a new document or a new topic before showing

12     the document to the General.  Otherwise, we sort of have a misleading

13     record as to how the evidence is elicited.

14             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we collapse the document and take a break now?

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a short answer.  I believe

16     that when I asked the General what kind of instructions he received that

17     I laid enough foundation.

18             JUDGE KWON:  We'll do so after the break.  But before we take a

19     break, there's one matter I'd like to deal with in private session.

20     Shall we go to private session briefly.

21                           [Private session]

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 38029

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14                           [Open session]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll have a break for half an hour and resume

16     at five past 11.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

20             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.  I

21     think I might be leaving the courtroom a while ago [as interpreted].  I'd

22     like to thank the Bench.  I would like to use the excerpts of the French

23     transcript for a future publication.  I would like to say that on

24     page 28, line 15, in French I did not hear the fact that it was also the

25     command of the Republika Srpska that wished to alleviate these tensions

Page 38030

 1     and not only the RSK.  On page 29, line 13, in the French transcript, we

 2     found other players, whereas General Galic said other factors as well --

 3     no, he meant other people as well.  Thank you very much.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  That will be checked.

 5             Yes, please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   [No interpretation]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, could you repeat?  We haven't been

 9     receiving the interpretation.  Could you repeat.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will do.

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   I was talking to General Galic, and I said, General, sir, I'll

13     try to be as efficient as possible in order to wrap this up as quickly as

14     possible, and I'm not talking only about the speed of speech but also

15     about focusing on the topic.

16             My question is this:  Did you receive my directives and

17     instructions directly or through the Main Staff?

18        A.   Mr. President, we received some directly, but most of them

19     arrived through the Main Staff.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  We saw a document by

21     academician Maksimovic, P6300, dated 27 September 1994, and now I would

22     like to look at 1D5337.  I would like to call it up in e-court.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   General, sir, let's not read the entire thing but just

25     paragraph 3, in the middle, where it says:  Namely, Muslims are happy

Page 38031

 1     whenever we make a mistake in accordance with international humanitarian

 2     law.

 3             And now can we go to the following, page, please.

 4        A.   Apologise.  I only have the first page.  At what page were you

 5     reading from?

 6        Q.   That was on page 1 in the middle of the third paragraph.  We'll

 7     go back to that.

 8        A.   Thank you.

 9        Q.   But please pay attention to the paragraph -- very well, now.

10     Third paragraph now, please.

11             Do you see the fourth line where it says:

12             "Namely Muslims are happy whenever we make a mistake in respect

13     of the international humanitarian law.  Perhaps sometimes it is in our

14     interest for the Muslim delegation to go to a certain place."

15             How does this tally with your information about our interest in

16     raising tensions or inspiring peace in Sarajevo?

17             JUDGE KWON:  Before you answer.

18             Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  I'm sorry, Your Honour.  I recognise that the line

20     is difficult to draw when we're talking about foundation, especially

21     foundation when we're talking about a document that is outside the

22     General's time period, but with respect, I don't think that

23     Dr. Karadzic's mere reference to another document by title or exhibit

24     number is sufficient foundation in this circumstance.  So it's not --

25     it's not a technical objection to the document or perhaps the potential

Page 38032

 1     relevance of the document, Your Honour.  I'm not even necessarily saying

 2     it is outside of the scope of the cross-examination.  It's about the

 3     manner in which Dr. Karadzic is going about eliciting the evidence.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  At the moment it's difficult for the Chamber to find

 5     in terms of substantive -- its substance, how it arose from the line of

 6     cross-examination.  I tend to agree, speaking for myself, with

 7     Ms. Edgerton.

 8             Mr. Karadzic, or Mr. Robinson, if you could.

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  During the cross-examination

10     yesterday, Ms. Edgerton called into question the nature of the

11     instructions that General Galic was getting from Dr. Karadzic and their

12     conversations with respect to shelling and the conditions in Sarajevo,

13     and so it seems to me that this is responsive to that point that was

14     raised yesterday.

15             JUDGE KWON:  But Mr. Karadzic only referred to Maksimovic's

16     document, P6300, and whether he received the directive directly from the

17     president or through Main Staff.  I don't think that's a sufficient

18     basis, foundation to put this document to the witness.  Personally, I

19     have difficulty locating the passage Mr. Karadzic read out, but -- yes,

20     Mr. Robinson.

21             MR. ROBINSON:  It seems to me that the document itself is quite

22     responsive to the issue raised by Ms. Edgerton, and maybe Dr. Karadzic

23     can rephrase the introduction to the document so that it becomes more

24     clear.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  I think that's what Ms. Edgerton suggested.

Page 38033

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, I'll do that.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   General, sir, the Prosecutor yesterday showed you a document

 4     which originated from academician Maksimovic.  He drafted it only five

 5     days prior to my instruction, and this was to suggest that we were

 6     interested in raising and maintaining tensions in the city of Sarajevo.

 7     I'm asking you this.  You've already answered that we were not interested

 8     in that.  And let me ask you this:  With this respect, what kind of

 9     information did you receive from me, and did you receive it directly or

10     through the Main Staff?

11        A.   Mr. President, I've already answered that, but I will repeat.

12     Some of the information and some of the directives reached us directly

13     from the Supreme Command and you as the president.  However, most of the

14     information and orders and directives went through the Main Staff and

15     that was your -- that was my answer to your question.  I'm sure you

16     remember that.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies.  I am

18     emphasising the fact that five days before Maksimovic's report, I issued

19     an instruction as to how I was supposed to behave.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Galic, is this letter an instruction to the VRS

21     in general?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will tell you -- I

23     will share with you another confusing detail.  I can answer, but on that

24     date I was not in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  I had already left on the

25     10th of September, 1994.  I was pensioned off.  But I can comment.  I can

Page 38034

 1     answer your question, because that was not the first directive, i.e., the

 2     first instruction we received from the Main Staff of the Army of

 3     Republika Srpska.  As far as I can see, that's who the instruction was

 4     from.

 5             Mr. President, am I right in thinking that?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  No, I'm asking you.  This is just a personal letter,

 7     a letter personally addressed to General Milovanovic, wasn't it?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  That's correct.

 9             JUDGE KWON:  Can you call this an instruction to the VRS, or

10     directive?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sure that VRS received things

12     from the Main Staff.  Something would follow that.  I don't know what the

13     Main Staff did, whether they did this or that.  It was not within my

14     purview.  However, customarily following such instructions, the

15     Main Staff would refer to such instructions, sometimes not, and would

16     convey its own instructions to the corps commands and other subordinated

17     commands.  That was the principle.  I suppose that the same principle was

18     applied to this instruction as well.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

20             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   General, sir, was this document strictly confidential?  Was it

22     filed under a number?  Was this, according to you, an official document?

23        A.   This document had a high degree of confidentiality.  The next

24     degree of confidentiality is state secret.  So the only higher degree

25     could be a state secret.

Page 38035

 1        Q.   Thank you.  Can we please see the next page.  If you can please

 2     focus on paragraph 6 where it says to that effect:

 3             "I order not to make any incidents because our relations with

 4     England and France are improving."

 5             THE INTERPRETER:  Can Mr. Karadzic please repeat his question?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Karadzic, the interpreters were not able to hear

 7     your question in full.  Could you repeat your question.

 8             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I'm asking the General if this, considering orders, is perhaps

11     something more than just an instruction.

12        A.   Judging by its elements and the importance of the issues which

13     are discussed here and the information which is provided, this could also

14     be categorised as a directive by the superior command, and you did call

15     it instructions.  You can call it that, too, because instructions are

16     also something that is obligatory for the subordinates.

17        Q.   Just one more question with regard to this document.  How does

18     this fit with your knowledge of my position with regard to such issues?

19     You said that this was not the first time, but can you explain how this

20     fits in?

21        A.   Well, on one occasion I said, and I should say during my

22     testimony it seemed to me always that you trusted the United States too

23     much and that you relied on that bloc, the USA and Great Britain, and so

24     on.  I can see that in this document too.  So it is all in accordance

25     with your orientation and belief, what you trusted most at the time, and

Page 38036

 1     you referred to that here in the same way.  Whether that confirms what

 2     I'm saying, well, I think it could be said so.  So this does not change

 3     anything with regard to my knowledge of your position to certain issues.

 4             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be admitted?

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 6             THE REGISTRAR:  Exhibit D3521, Your Honours.

 7             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 8        Q.   General, during the cross-examination it was read to you that

 9     Witness Nikola Mijatovic said for Alipasino Polje that it was a civilian

10     settlement, and now if we could just briefly look at D2497, please, to

11     see what he really said about Alipasino Polje.

12        A.   Mr. President, my answer is there as well, a part of it, so

13     perhaps that could be taken into account as well.

14        Q.   All right.  Thank you, but I will just discuss what the

15     Prosecution presented.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a statement which has been

17     admitted, and I would ask for the second page in both languages to be

18     shown on the screen.

19             Military targets in Sarajevo.  Item 9 on map, it says:  I have

20     drawn military targets in Alipasino Polje and marked them by numbers,

21     number 1, police; number 2, Jusuf Dzonlic barracks; the storage of the

22     Feroelektro company; and then the TAM car parts storage.  In this

23     location are the 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars.  And then

24     under 4, in the sector of the International Friendship Square, close to

25     the PTT engineering building where the UNPROFOR members were stationed,

Page 38037

 1     during most of the war, including the year 1995, comprised underground

 2     shelters in which the Muslim forces had stationed artillery and

 3     105-millimetre guns from where they fired at Serbian Ilidza.

 4             Can we please see the next page too?

 5             MS. EDGERTON:  I wonder, actually, if we have a question, because

 6     I think that this is, with respect, becoming leading again.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  When you referred to Mijatovic's statement, did you

 8     refer to his statement or his testimony?

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  His testimony.

10             JUDGE KWON:  And witness gave his answer in response to your

11     question.

12             MS. EDGERTON:  Correct.

13             JUDGE KWON:  And putting further information contained in his

14     statement does not seem to me to be leading.

15                           [Trial Chamber confers]

16             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   If you can just focus on item 5 next to the geodetic institute in

20     the garages of grass there were 82-millimetre and 122 millimetre mortars.

21        A.   Can we please zoom in because I cannot follow.

22        Q.   Under item 6, wire factory and armature factory.  In these

23     facilities there was war production where the Muslims made rifle

24     grenades, shells, MRUDs, and antipersonnel mines.  And then under 7 and

25     under 8, we can see that there were units and sniper nests in the student

Page 38038

 1     residence halls and the pensioner's home.

 2             How does this description of Alipasino Polje fit with your

 3     knowledge and was that really a civilian zone only?

 4        A.   Well, Mr. President, this was more than I knew at the time.

 5     Because, after all, they were there, they waged war in that area and it's

 6     normal that they would be acquainted with all the details more than

 7     myself.  I was only a corps commander who could not be acquainted with

 8     all these details.  And even if I look at this now and even if I knew

 9     something, I may have forgotten.  I did ask Madam Prosecutor, and I was

10     warned then, with regard to the Kulin Ban Unit in Alipasino Polje, when

11     it was asserted that that was a civilian zone, but I did not mention that

12     that unit in -- was in Alipasino Polje.

13             But if we consider the incident which occurred in Alipasino

14     Polje, from my trial we will see that this Kulin Ban Unit is indeed

15     mentioned and that it was somewhere far away, around 220 or 250 [as

16     interpreted] metres away from the place where the shells fell in the same

17     area.  That was why I asked the Prosecutor yesterday whether she

18     remembered where the Kulin Ban Unit was stationed, precisely because of

19     this in Alipasino Polje.

20             I wasn't aware of all this information, to tell you the truth,

21     even though they may have been presented to me.  To me, as the corps

22     commander, not all these individual aims that were there were so

23     important.  That is why I should know more now, and that fits in with my

24     knowledge that that was not just civilian area but that there were some

25     military targets there as well.  And I used that argument to contradict

Page 38039

 1     Madam Prosecutor yesterday.  That was my answer and this is just a

 2     supplement to my answer with some details that I was not aware of.  So to

 3     that extent, I may confirm that this is correct.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

 5             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [No interpretation]

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Mr. Piletta-Zanin, could you kindly

 7     repeat.

 8             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm sorry.  The

 9     transcript does not reflect on page 19 -- line 19, page 45, what the

10     General said.  I believe he said that the distance was between a hundred

11     and a hundred and fifty metres and not between 200 and 250 metres.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Do you confirm having said so, General Galic?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question had to do with what I

14     remember about all these events, and I said that information about this

15     was relative.  110 to 150 metres.  There is one specific information

16     there saying that it was 120 metres but I did not want to rely on that.

17             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Thank you.  I would like to draw everyone's attention to

20     page 30728 of the transcript and 729, some extracts that I will read now

21     so that we can see what Miso Mijatovic -- or, rather, Nikola Mijatovic

22     said in his testimony, responding to the Prosecution question with regard

23     to this zone.  I shall read that slowly in English --

24             JUDGE KWON:  Do you have the date, Mr. Karadzic?

25             MS. EDGERTON:  30 November 2012.

Page 38040

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Microphone, please.

 2             MS. EDGERTON:  30 November 2012.

 3             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 4        Q.   I will read questions and Mr. Mijatovic's answers in English and

 5     this will be interpreted correctly to you.

 6             [In English] "Q.  My question was related to the military targets

 7     you listed in paragraph 9, and my question was you fired at these objects

 8     which you had just agreed were in a residential area; correct?

 9             "A.  We only engaged combat targets.  We never engaged apartment

10     buildings or areas where there were civilians.  That is out of the

11     question.  So my answer was very clear.  We only engaged targets from

12     where fire was opened against us.  So we engaged targets that targeted

13     us, that killed us.  Only those targets on the other side, fire targets,

14     combat targets from which fire was opened at us.

15             "Q.  So --

16             "A.   And those are legitimate targets, you have to admit.

17             "Q.   Well, let's talk about this a little bit more.  These

18     targets were in areas where civilians lived.  So it's reasonable to

19     expect civilians to be in the immediate area of these targets; correct?

20             "A.  It is even more reasonable to expect a warring party, in

21     other words, the enemy side, not to open fire from civilian areas,

22     because that other side, the opposing side, will open fire on our targets

23     and then they expect that we will return fire."

24             [Interpretation] What can you tell us about the position of your

25     subordinate who expressed this opinion in his answers?

Page 38041

 1        A.   Well, Mr. President, there's nothing wrong here.  This is all in

 2     accordance with the Geneva Conventions and also the annexes,

 3     Annex number 1, Article 51.  It is all in accordance with that.  Of

 4     course, it should be emphasised once again that we avoided firing on

 5     areas where the civilians were in the vicinity up until the stage wherein

 6     we had the ultimate need to do so.  If the civilians were anywhere near,

 7     we wanted to spare them.  There are documents in which we said and drew

 8     the UNPROFOR's attention to order that these civilians or troops be moved

 9     somewhere.  So maybe he had that in mind, too, when he was answering, but

10     I don't see from what you said today that he said that specifically.

11     Maybe he should have added that as well.  But he said in one sentence

12     that they shouldn't have fired from positions that were close to where

13     civilians lived, so it's in the same context, and it can be interpreted

14     in such a way.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Whose responsibility was it, then, if there was fire,

16     outgoing fire, from civilian zones?

17        A.   Well, if there is firing, I told Madam Prosecutor that it's

18     targeting or firing the army rather than just shooting.  If someone is

19     firing from a civilian zone, then he is to blame, for sure, but it does

20     not absolve the one who returns fire from any guilt.  It's not that you

21     can indiscriminately fire at civilians.  You have to target the specific

22     military target and see what the collateral civilian damage would be in

23     such a case.  So that would be the reference to a proportion when

24     returning fire.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Now we should briefly go through this question of

Page 38042

 1     returning fire.  I asked you how accurate were the reports of the

 2     observers, and now I would like us to see 65 ter 23902.

 3             General, in document D3452, that is your report dated the

 4     6th of January, 1994, we can read that in the Ilidza area more than

 5     120 shells of various calibres fell and so on and so forth.  And now let

 6     us look at what the UNPROFOR reports about the 6th of January.  So please

 7     look at page 1 where it says that the Bosnian side fired 20 and received

 8     815, and the Serbian side fired 502 and incoming 7.

 9             Can you tell us, how does this figure of 502 which we fired can

10     fit with the 815 incoming in the Bosnian territory?  How does that tally?

11        A.   Well, it's a question of proportionality.  As far as I have

12     understood your question.  Now, in -- to what extent the proportionality

13     was marked on either side.  But if I return a little bit to the first

14     report of my command and there we'll see that on the 6th of January, if

15     I'm right, that means Christmas Eve because the 7th of January is the

16     Orthodox Christmas, they wished us a Merry Christmas in that way too.  We

17     can assess for ourselves whether, as I said, that was adequate or not.

18     That was a term that we used.

19             Now, this is a matter of assessment, where the shells fell, what

20     were the targets, were so many shells needed.  What was the military goal

21     of such a use of artillery on both sides, and what were the decisions

22     taken by the commanders?  Did they decide just to neutralise a target or

23     did they make the decision to destroy the targets?  I said here that

24     there is a distinction between the decisions and that that changes the

25     number of shells that may be too great.

Page 38043

 1        Q.   General, thank you.  I wanted to ask you this about accuracy:

 2     You reported that 120 shells landed on Ilidza only, whereas they reported

 3     that only 7 landed in the Serb territory.  Can you tell us now, on the

 4     basis of the maths deduced from these two lines, can one draw a

 5     conclusion on the proportionality and adequacy of return fire?  300, 500,

 6     600 shells.  Can they say that the return fire from the Serb side was

 7     inadequate or inappropriate?

 8        A.   I didn't have this report from the United Nations or UNPROFOR at

 9     the time to be able to gauge this.  Now that I have this report before

10     me, I had the report that was produced by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,

11     and the differences are enormous, and I can't tell you what the source of

12     this difference was, but the differences are so obvious that they don't

13     call for a comment at all.

14             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be admitted?

15             JUDGE KWON:  Ms. Edgerton, do you not challenge that the SRK

16     report mentioned 120 shells landed -- landing on Ilidza only?

17             MS. EDGERTON:  Do I challenge the accuracy of the figures in the

18     SRK report?

19             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  In a certain way I do.

21             JUDGE KWON:  So shall we see the report?

22             MS. EDGERTON:  And --

23             JUDGE KWON:  But I have no difficulty admitting this document.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  No.  And just to clarify my position, the -- the

25     map that the General discussed in his evidence in chief of the UNMO

Page 38044

 1     deployment and that we came back to did not show any UNMOs deployed in

 2     Ilidza.  But --

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll admit this one.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3522, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Could you upload the SRK report that referred to

 6     120 shells landing in Ilidza.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's D3452.  Both reports were sent

 8     out at 6.00 p.m., both the UNPROFOR report and the SRK report.  They

 9     describe the situation as at 1800 hours.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   General, sir, somewhere in line 12 it says that over 120 shells

12     landed in Ilidza of varied calibre, predominantly 82.  Were you allowed

13     to, and did you send strictly confidential and false reports to the

14     Main Staff?

15        A.   Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank the Prosecutor

16     for saying that they didn't have military observers over there and were

17     not able to count how many shells landed in Ilidza.  Thank you for that.

18             Now, as for the second part of my answer to you, Mr. President,

19     certainly we sent our reports on the basis of the reports that we

20     received from subordinate commands and on the basis of reconnaissance,

21     monitoring and all other intelligence and security measures which

22     describe what the situation was like.  The reports which speak

23     specifically about the activities of the various forces and the various

24     figures are accurate, and there should be no mistakes there.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  If this pleases the

Page 38045

 1     Chamber, we may call a different document.

 2             Perhaps we could ask the Trial Chamber to ask the Prosecution

 3     whether they still maintain that inaccurate reports were sent.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.  Please move on.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we now look at

 6     1D1639, a day earlier.  Let's see what the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps had to

 7     report on to the Main Staff.  I hope that all the participants will

 8     receive a translation.  Can this be enlarged?

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   General, this is a day earlier, on the 5th of January, your

11     deputy, Milosevic, states that the enemy was active in Grbavica,

12     Dobrinja, Lukavica.  A shell landed on the barracks even between the

13     cafeteria and the kitchen.  At 2030, a strong infantry attack from

14     artillery mortars 82 and 122 millimetres.  The attack was respelled

15     without any consequences.

16             General, sir, the previous report of the UN applied to the

17     5th and 6th of January until 1800 hours.  Can you tell us if your deputy

18     accurately reported and if the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps mounted attacks on

19     the town or, in fact, defended itself?

20        A.   On the basis of this information in this period, the first half

21     of January, that is, we can see that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps was

22     engaged in defensive action at the time.  There was not even what you

23     call active defence.  The manoeuvre of forces can be, of course,

24     demonstrated through forces and fire, and there may have been fire in

25     this sense even.

Page 38046

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be MFI'd,

 2     admitted and MFI'd?

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  We'll mark it for identification.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  As MFI D3523, Your Honours.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we now look at

 6     65 ter 23905.  This is probably an UNMO daily sitrep for Sector Sarajevo

 7     for the 4th and 5th of January, 1995.  Since it's in English, I'll

 8     introduce it to you.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Can you tell us when a thousand shells, say, is set to have

11     landed on Sarajevo?  Where would these shells normally land?

12        A.   The thousand shells, if they landed on Sarajevo, in that case

13     Sarajevo would have looked differently at the time and still today, had

14     this been the case.  If there was fire and if there was an exchange of

15     fire or return fire, counter fire as the artillery-speak would have it,

16     it would have been fired at the enemy positions in the various areas

17     according to the disposition, the layout that we are already aware of

18     because we had them on the map.  And if they opened fire, they would open

19     fire from those same sectors, and the return fire would be targeting

20     these sectors.  Not the zones themselves because zones are wider, but to

21     be more precise, it would be the enemy position.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we see item 2.  Can

23     we scroll down a bit.

24             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Under item 2 it is stated that -- that there was outgoing

Page 38047

 1     56 rounds on the Bosnian side and the Serbs sustained 30 hits.  We don't

 2     know where those 26 shells fired by the Muslims landed, but it says here:

 3     "Approximately 80 per cent [In English] of incoming fire on both sides

 4     was on the confrontation line, 20 per cent in residential area."

 5             [Interpretation] Is this what you said a moment ago, that fire

 6     was opened not at neighbourhoods but that the fire was intended for the

 7     separation lines?

 8        A.   Mr. President, we always say "separation lines," but of course

 9     fire can target the depth of the territory depending on where fire was

10     opened from.  We have to say that fire was targeting enemy targets on

11     both sides, but of course, at least 20 per cent, according to what

12     UNPROFOR says, went on civilian areas.  Can this be tolerated or not?  I

13     don't know, but it has to probably fall into that portion of -- of

14     proportionality.

15        Q.   These -- the 20 per cent that did not hit the targets, was it the

16     civilian population that was being targeted in that percentage or was

17     there in the midst of it all something that could constitute a legitimate

18     military target?

19        A.   When we look at the defence system of a brigade, we were able to

20     see that on one of the maps, that area of the brigade would be some

21     6 kilometres and also in depth, and there it would have its battalions

22     deployed that would cover 3 kilometres in depth, length, et cetera.  So

23     that would be the area where the forces are deployed and all these combat

24     activities would be in the area of these brigades, and we could see how

25     many command posts there were at all different levels.  We said that

Page 38048

 1     there were 14 brigades in that relevant period which means that there

 2     would only have been -- there would only -- only the brigades themselves

 3     would have 14 command posts and they would not be on the forward line.

 4     They would be in the depth.  You would have, of course, communication

 5     centres, then you would have support units deployed, the police deployed,

 6     the Supreme Command of the BH Army.  The Presidency became the

 7     Supreme Command later.  They would also constitute a legitimate target.

 8     So of course, there would be in these areas a lot of targets, military

 9     targets as well.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now scroll down the page

11     completely?

12             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.

13             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

14        Q.   You mentioned the movement of troops a moment ago --

15             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Although it is not your document,

16     paragraph numbered as 2 refers to outgoing mixed rounds or incoming mixed

17     impacts.  What does this mixed round or mixed impact mean, if you could

18     tell us?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This sort expression is not used,

20     mixed projectiles.  It's not a military term, Your Honour, so it's very

21     difficult for me to tell you what this implies, mixed impacts.  Perhaps

22     what they mean is the calibre that were different.  It could be from

23     120 millimetres up to 155 millimetres.  That would be the howitzer,

24     et cetera.  So perhaps that's what is meant by mixed impacts.  I am not

25     aware of any other terms that could have the similar meaning.  And if I

Page 38049

 1     place myself in his shoes, in his mind, I don't see how else I could

 2     interpret the meaning of it because he is referring to artillery.

 3             It is possible that you have contact fuse shells.  It's possible

 4     they would be used for targets that would be live personnel, or piercing

 5     shells, but it's not very probable that he was referring to those.  He

 6     probably meant the different calibre.

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

 8             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes.  At the end of his

 9     answer, General Galic, page 55, lines 1 and 3, clearly repeated the

10     existence of civilian targets in the depth as well, and this precise type

11     of information in the depth is not in the transcript.  Thank you.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree.

13             JUDGE KWON:  I don't follow.  Civilian targets in the depth?

14             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Well, there is definitely a

15     translation issue.  General Galic simply said at the very end of his last

16     answer the following thing:  There were military targets and not civilian

17     targets, military targets, but he said that these targets were in the

18     depth, and this part, "in the depth," is not mentioned in his answer.

19     Thank you.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we show item 3 a bit further

22     down.  This is fine.  Item 3, which reads, and I'll read it out in

23     English to have better interpretation:

24             "[In English] Papa 5 OP (Zuc area) and Papa 1 headquarter

25     received impacts within 100 millimetre today.  Shrapnel hit Papa 5."

Page 38050

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Is there an indication here that the Serbs opened fire here, and

 3     is this different from what you were sent, where you were being told that

 4     the Serbs were firing?

 5        A.   Well, this isn't something that we can draw a conclusion.  We

 6     concluded with the Prosecutor yesterday that we could not establish what

 7     the direction from which the shells was fired was and therefore we can't

 8     say who is responsible.  So we can't tell who fired these shells but it's

 9     from the sector of Zuc where Papa 5 was located for a period of time.  It

10     was located next to cannons themselves up at Zuc, the Muslim cannons.  So

11     they opened fire from these recoilless guns or what else they had up

12     there.  They were even assets of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps that were

13     captured when Zuc fell.  So I recall the assets used very well, and it

14     was from there that they targeted our forces.  I do remember clearly that

15     we alerted the observation post to that, and we asked them to relocate

16     their position, to settle further away from these various cannons so that

17     they would not be at risk.  So I remember this clearly.  But one cannot

18     say who fired at them.  Somebody seems to have been persecuting Papa

19     because they didn't want them to be there, apparently.

20        Q.   [No interpretation]

21        A.   That's what I meant.  Mr. President, yes, I did mean Papa 5.

22        Q.   Can we just look at the warring party movement here.  You

23     mentioned:

24             "[In English] A large number of BH troops were observed moving

25     towards Zuc area, possible rotation."

Page 38051

 1             [Interpretation] This movement or this manoeuvre, was that a

 2     legitimate target?  We're talking about a rotating column, a column in

 3     midst of a manoeuvre.  Would that be a legitimate target?

 4        A.   Mr. President, yesterday when I spoke to Madam Prosecutor about

 5     plans and other things relating to artillery, one of the elements that

 6     was assessed was possible movements of troops and their arrival.  So this

 7     would be a legitimate military target, like many others.  At that

 8     particular moment, the moving column was a legitimate military target.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we go to the

10     following page to look at another paragraph.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Shall we leave it.  At the top of

12     the page it reads:  "Papa 5 observation post and others received impact

13     within 100 metres today," and you answered to the question from

14     Mr. Karadzic that the origin of this fire cannot be concluded with

15     certainty from where it came from.  Do you remember having answered so?

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm sure I said

17     that.  I said many other things, but I wouldn't go into those details at

18     this point in time.

19             JUDGE KWON:  But at the same time you also stated that this

20     Papa 5 was located just next to the ABiH cannons.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's also true.

22             JUDGE KWON:  Then do you think it was possible that -- for the

23     units which was located just next to the Papa 5 shell that Papa 5

24     observation post?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably towards not those units

Page 38052

 1     but some other units that wanted to provoke our activity and to create

 2     such conditions which would be conducive to a conclusion that the

 3     facilities of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps were being targeted.  It would

 4     not be the first time that something like that happened.  I'm sure that

 5     you've had testimonies to that effect here before.

 6             JUDGE KWON:  But this document does not say Papa 5 was hit.  It

 7     hit 100 -- a location which was 100 metre away from Papa 5.  Is it

 8     possible, in your opinion, that Bosnian troops shelled their own troops?

 9     Do you have that kind of experience?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have all sorts of

11     experiences from the war in Sarajevo, and I have such experiences as

12     well.  I understand your question.  I put the same question myself,

13     because that was very close to the deployment of their troops and the

14     distance of 100 metres where those shells fell.  I don't know who

15     measured the distance, but it's neither here nor there.  If we say that

16     the shells and -- for them the security zone has to be at least 200

17     metres, this means that they were outside of that security zone, that

18     they were within the danger zone in practical terms.  That would be one

19     part of my answer.

20             Secondly, when you have such cases and where nobody actually

21     establishes where the fire came from, then you don't have enough

22     information to establish who was it who opened fire.  We can only follow

23     a logic that one would soon be able to conclude that it was the forces of

24     the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps that opened fire on that area, but we can't

25     be a hundred per cent sure of that.  And as soon as you're not certain,

Page 38053

 1     it's very difficult to take any measures.

 2             That would be my answer, and I don't know whether I have managed

 3     to answer your question.  I did try, though.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   Next page.  Bullet point 3 is very similar.  It says 150 metres

 7     away Papa 5 was hit within the 150 metres.

 8             Let's assume that it was the units of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps

 9     that did that.  What was their target?  Was it UNPROFOR or those cannons,

10     because we saw in the other document that Cutler says, "Even when we

11     moved away, fire continued being opened on that place."

12             What would have been the target of your units if we assume that

13     it was them that opened fire?

14        A.   Starting from all of my orders, instructions, as well as the

15     orders of my commanders and subordinates, it's logical to conclude, as

16     I've already said to the Presiding Judge, that we have enough elements

17     that it was the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps units that opened fire at that

18     area.  I can't refute that as I sit here after such a long time.

19     However, if it had been the forces of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, you

20     still have to take into account the cannons that were deployed very close

21     to Papa.  And I remember that it was said that Papa 5 had to be moved.  I

22     don't know whether we're talking about same situation or whether we're

23     talking about another situation.  I don't know.  In any case, I know that

24     there were problems with that Papa 5.  I stated that yesterday as well.

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be admitted?

Page 38054

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I'm looking at the format of the document.  Does it

 2     consist of two separate documents?

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Excellencies, this is just one

 4     document, but we're talking about several different paragraphs.

 5             "[In English] Once again, Papa 5 received ..."

 6             JUDGE KWON:  I'm not sure the number is -- numbering is

 7     contiguous.

 8             Ms. Edgerton?

 9             MS. EDGERTON:  I don't know, but I can certainly look into it.  I

10     think it's explained in the statement of a witness who's previously

11     testified.

12             JUDGE KWON:  No objection to the admission.

13             MS. EDGERTON:  No.

14             JUDGE KWON:  We'll receive it.

15             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3524, Your Honours.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  The ERN numbers are 31

17     and 32, two consecutive numbers.

18             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Galic, you were asked on cross-examination how and when you

20     responded.  You mentioned that there were mobile mortars as well.  Let's

21     look at a Muslim document, 1D21035.

22             MS. EDGERTON:  Could I have a citation for that, please.

23             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not able to give you the exact

24     page and line.  The fact is, however, that there were many questions

25     about responding with fire, and it was implied that fire was opened on

Page 38055

 1     the city and not on military targets and firing positions.  We all

 2     remember that the General finally protested and stated that they didn't

 3     open fire on the city but on the targets from which fire had been opened

 4     at them.

 5             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 6        Q.   General, sir, this is a document issued by the 7th Mountain

 7     Brigade.  In yesterday's transcript, you will find it on pages 11 and 12.

 8             General, sir, let us see how this military security service

 9     reports about fire being opened from a mobile mortar, and --

10             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

11             MS. EDGERTON:  If I may, I -- I'm -- I have a concern with

12     respect to the lack of foundation to put a document from the opposing

13     factions to the General.  I don't think Dr. Karadzic has asked enough

14     foundational questions.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Did you follow, Mr. Karadzic?

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   General, sir, you were asked and it was suggested to you that you

19     opened fire on parts of the city under Muslim control.  You said that you

20     didn't open fire on the city but on legitimate targets.  Did you have

21     information to the effect that there were also mobile mortars that

22     provoked you to open fire, and when they were moved, it looked like you

23     had opened fire on the city?

24        A.   Mr. President, yesterday I discussed the situation in Dobrinja

25     with the Prosecutor and I did mention those mobile mortars.  Therefore, I

Page 38056

 1     said it then and it is now confirmed that they did have mobile mortars,

 2     and I said even before that that we had problems surrounding the

 3     Kosevo Hospital.  And you can see it in their report that mobile mortars

 4     fired from positions around Kosevo Hospital and Breka settlement.  This

 5     is just another confirmation that they did have such assets, that they

 6     abused hospitals and other such facilities which should have been

 7     protected.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  And can we now look at the third paragraph where it

 9     says that after --

10             JUDGE KWON:  But before doing so, could the General tell us what

11     this document is about first?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is about the activity

13     of mortars belonging to the 1st Corps of the BiH Army, i.e., Muslim

14     forces.  They send a report to the command of the 1st Corps to the

15     assistant commander for security, i.e., the security organ in a

16     Mountain Brigade who describes the activity of their mortars.  He says

17     when they opened fire, on what day, and at what time, and from what

18     areas.  That is why I provided a little bit more explanation about the

19     areas from which those mortars opened fire, and I said that they were on

20     vehicles.  Those were mobile mortars, and we can see here that they

21     opened fire from the hospital, Kosevo, and from Breka settlement.  They

22     could open fire from any other area.  They could move rapidly after

23     having opened fire.  That would be that.  That's why when we speak about

24     protected facilities, I always ask myself how it is protected, to what

25     extent, and this is what the document is about.

Page 38057

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now see the bottom of the

 2     page and it will become clearer what the General is talking about.  Very

 3     well.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Do you see, General, sir, that after a few minutes, three to four

 6     shells were fired in response by the aggressor and those shells landed in

 7     Kosevo?  And in the following passage it says:  Firing shells from a

 8     motor vehicle is not a rarity 15 days ago in Hane Osman [phoen] Street at

 9     Kosevo Brdo, 97 to 99 in the evening hours there was --

10             JUDGE KWON:  It's unbearable for the interpreters.  Read, please,

11     slowly.

12             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreter and

13     to the others as well.

14             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

15        Q.   Here it says here that this was not a rarity, and in the last

16     paragraph it says:

17             "I suggest that wide operative measures be taken in order to

18     explain situations when shells were fired from unknown weapons by an

19     unknown perpetrator, i.e., organiser."

20             General, sir, is it also the command of the 7th Mountain Brigade

21     that demands that a stop be put to that because such fire was always

22     returned?

23        A.   Mr. President, this is a very clever report, a very intelligent

24     report, and whoever drafted it was very fair because those security

25     organs had to be original, and here we see that that was indeed the case.

Page 38058

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a translation.  The

 2     participants can see it, and this has been zoomed in for the benefit of

 3     the General, whose eyesight is not so good.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So this warning only confirms that

 5     those were illegitimate activities because they were bothered by them as

 6     well.  So when fire was returned, they themselves also spotted a problem,

 7     because they opened fire from a civilian zone or a civilian area, from a

 8     civilian facility, and then they moved on.  And they even say that they

 9     didn't know who had sent them and that was the biggest danger.  During

10     the war that's the worst situation.  When somebody arrived in your zone

11     of responsibility and opened fire and you didn't know who they were.

12     Those people had to be arrested rather than supported in their

13     activities.  And whoever drafted this, and that was the assistant

14     commander for security, Tomislav Juric, really drafted this report very

15     well, a very intelligent person, I must say.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted?

17             JUDGE KWON:  Could you tell us who Tomislav Juric was?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see it in the lower

19     right-hand side.  It says:  The assistant commander for security

20     Tomislav Juric.  Judging by the name, he was probably Croat, but he could

21     have also been a Serb.  Tomislav could be a Serbian or a Croatian name.

22     Well, he was a Croat, in my view, a member of the BiH Army.  On their

23     strength in the corps, they had approximately a thousand Serbs and about

24     2.000 to 2.300 Croats, and about 2.000 women.

25             JUDGE KWON:  And Brdo brigade was part of the 1st Corps of the

Page 38059

 1     ABiH.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that was the

 3     7th Mountain Brigade, the brigade that held Grdonj in the north.  It was

 4     a Mountain Brigade belonging to the 1st Corps of the BiH Army.  You will

 5     remember when I explained the positions of those brigades.  That was one

 6     of the last mountain brigades.  There was the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd, the

 7     4th, and the 7th brigade.  Its name was changed -- or, rather, it was

 8     moved from that position and was replaced by the 15th Brigade, and so on

 9     and so forth.  I apologise.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We'll receive it.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3525, Your Honours.

12             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Thank you.  General, on page 12 of yesterday's transcript, during

14     the cross-examination you were asked about snipers and protests.  What

15     was the goal of your snipers?  What were the targets on the other side?

16     What were the targets and why did your snipers exist in the first place?

17        A.   Mr. President, I --

18             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

19             MS. EDGERTON:  The question was whether the General's evidence

20     was that his sniping activities by his snipers was exclusively military

21     on military.

22             JUDGE KWON:  You're not objecting to the questions themselves.

23             MS. EDGERTON:  No.  No.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  Let's continue.

25             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

Page 38060

 1        Q.   Just briefly, why are there snipers, and what are they supposed

 2     to achieve on the other side?

 3        A.   I explained what we imply under snipers and what a sniper is.

 4     Other explanations that its any infantry weapon is something I do not

 5     accept.

 6             The task of the snipers is primarily to return enemy sniper fire,

 7     firstly.  Secondly, to target some prominent personalities.  If it's an

 8     officer, then the sniper's task is to neutralise or liquidate this

 9     person.

10             Thirdly, neutralise bunkers, the openings on bunkers, where you

11     can see a machine-gun, but you cannot approach it and it's difficult to

12     hit it.  The sniper notices that and then tries to neutralise the gunner

13     of a tank or whoever it is.  Then it can be also used for other important

14     task.

15             So that would be the briefest explanation of where it is used.

16     We focally used it in our zone because we didn't have many snipers, and I

17     said previously that they are used in pairs, and we have seen that the

18     brigade commander had gathered ten snipers and then he issued them

19     separate orders.  So the unit had not yet been formed, but the tasks were

20     issued, and the snipers had the task to fire mainly and mostly against

21     the snipers of the 1st Corps of the BH Army and all other snipers who

22     were on the right bank of the Miljacka River.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Just answer with yes or no.  Does that mean that the

24     1st Corps of the BH Army had snipers who opened fire on our side of

25     Sarajevo?

Page 38061

 1        A.   I said early on, in the beginning, that according to our

 2     information, there were around 500 snipers in the composition of the

 3     1st Corps of the BH Army.  I'm not sure whether the number was constant

 4     or not.  They had some units which, according to our information, were

 5     controlled at the brigade level and they also had special units, such as

 6     the Seve or the Larks, who fired on our sides and their sides, and so on,

 7     in Sarajevo.  This is all something that the Chamber is aware of.  It's

 8     nothing new.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please have a look at

10     1D5566, please.

11             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.

13             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, to be very

14     clear and with regard to what Mr. Galic said, if I remember well, he said

15     earlier on that this was not a unit, actually, but it was a group.  I'm

16     mentioning this because in his former statements he said that there were

17     no units as such, and here he clearly said that these were no units but

18     groups.  Thank you.

19             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

20        Q.   General, is a platoon a unit?

21        A.   Mr. President, on one occasion I explained what a unit is.  A

22     unit begins with a squad, then a platoon, company --

23             THE INTERPRETER:  Can the General please slow down.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Probably you spoke too fast.  Interpreters were not

25     able to hear you.  Could you repeat your answer.

Page 38062

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very gladly, Mr. President.  Units,

 2     when we say a unit, what is it?  A unit is a squad, which means around

 3     ten people.  A platoon, the next unit, comprises around 30 men with

 4     various weapons, regardless of what sort of formation it is, whether

 5     artillery or engineers.

 6             The next higher unit is a company which comprises around a

 7     hundred men.  The next unit is a battalion, between 3 and 500 people.  A

 8     brigade is 2 to 3.000.  It could be more, 4 or 5.000.  For example, the

 9     Mountain Brigade where I was included 5.800 men.  So the range can be

10     quite big.  Divisions are from --

11             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   Thank you, General.  Thank you.  I'm satisfied with that, and I

13     believe that the Chamber knows this too.  Can you please focus on this

14     order from the 1st Motorised Brigade.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

16             MS. EDGERTON:  Your Honours, I am sorry, and as I said earlier, I

17     recognise it's very difficult to draw the line, but the questions and the

18     area in the cross-examination -- the question was whether or not sniping

19     by his forces was exclusively military on military, and then we went into

20     a discussion on the definition of sniping, and I --

21             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think Mr. Karadzic asked the witness to tell

22     us the definition of the sniper.  He initiated answering that issue, but

23     could you -- continue, yes.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Quite so.  And now we have another document that

25     Dr. Karadzic has brought up on the screen which is a document from the

Page 38063

 1     opposing forces that has, in my submission, insufficient foundation on

 2     the part of Dr. Karadzic to put to the General now, and I actually

 3     think -- although, again, I'm not saying that it's necessarily

 4     irrelevant, Your Honours.  I think we're getting outside of the area of

 5     cross-examination, and perhaps Dr. Karadzic could establish the

 6     foundation, to put a document from the other side, from the opposing

 7     Bosnian Army forces to the General before he shows him the document.

 8             JUDGE KWON:  But is he not trying to show that the activities on

 9     the part of the VRS snipers were military?

10             MS. EDGERTON:  Maybe, Your Honour.  Perhaps I rose too soon.

11             JUDGE KWON:  And before that the General referred to the goal of

12     snipers, one of their goals was to neutralise the snipers on the other

13     party.  Would it not be sufficient foundation?

14             MS. EDGERTON:  I'll leave it at that, Your Honours.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   General, could you tell us how this sniping platoon comprising

19     three battalions fits in at the brigade level with the information you

20     had.  We see where it was stationed at the Blagoje Parovic school, across

21     the street from Cenex.  How does this order fit with what you knew about

22     enemy snipers and was that the target of your snipers?

23             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Ms. Edgerton.

24             MS. EDGERTON:  Sorry, the sniper platoon does not comprise three

25     battalions.  That's a misstatement of the document.

Page 38064

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  No.  Let me explain that.

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  Could you -- if you read out the first

 3     paragraph.  Yes.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first paragraph says - this is

 5     fine - that a sniper platoon be formed from snipers from the 1st, 2nd and

 6     3rd Motorised Battalions, and what follows, from these battalions, they

 7     would take these men and set up a platoon, rather than the platoon would

 8     be formed on the basis of the three battalions as a whole.  The madam is

 9     right.  You cannot form a platoon from three battalions, but you take out

10     these men from these three battalions and then you establish the platoon.

11     It's a special sniper platoon which was formed, I think, within the 3rd

12     Motorised Brigade.  I think it's the 3rd.  So that would be my

13     explanation of -- of it up to here, Mr. President.  Is there anything I

14     should add?

15             JUDGE KWON:  I see the time, Mr. Karadzic.  Now, how much more

16     would you need?  Just for planning purposes.  I'm not pressuring you.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Only seven to ten minutes.  If we

18     could do that before the break, I hope I will finish.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Please continue.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we can just scroll down, please.

21             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Tell us whether the Blagoje Parovic school, where they were

23     stationed, and Magros, where they went to eat -- and then if we can show

24     what's at the bottom of the page, please.  Magros, where they went for

25     meals.  Were these legitimate targets?

Page 38065

 1        A.   These were legitimate military targets.  They were accommodated

 2     there.  They would be resting there.  The unit was deployed, whether it's

 3     resting or waiting, these were legitimate military targets, such areas.

 4     No doubt about that whatsoever.

 5             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can this be admitted?

 6             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, we'll receive it.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3526, Your Honours.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   General, you were asked about investigations and whether you

10     requested any investigations to be conducted, and you referred to

11     Article 90 of the annex to the protocol.  Was an investigation requested

12     with regard to Markale, a joint investigation, a mixed international

13     investigation, in accordance with that protocol?

14        A.   General Gvero said, because he attended talks in connection with

15     this, and he requested that a mixed military commission, which we had at

16     the level of the command of the UNPROFOR in the sector, should be set up

17     and investigate it.  They said that the UNPROFOR and the BH Army could

18     not guarantee the work of such a commission that would include Serbs.  I

19     don't understand how someone would know that the Serbs would be there

20     together with UNPROFOR.  Who was supposed to know in order to be able to

21     guarantee safety?  So they simply did not want such a commission to be

22     set up and to work.

23             I also said that on one occasion such a commission did do its

24     work at the airport and established that the BH Army forces were

25     responsible for that incident.

Page 38066

 1             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we please have a

 2     look at -- or, rather, I would draw the participants' attention to D2183

 3     and also P1652 in which requests for investigation are expressed.

 4             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 5        Q.   Was a mixed commission set up that would comprise Serbs?

 6        A.   On one occasion, as I said, such a commission for an incident at

 7     the airport was set up and Lieutenant-Colonel Ugresic was a member.  And

 8     I talked about that so I wouldn't repeat myself.  In other cases there

 9     were not such commissions for the reason that no security could be

10     guaranteed, but after the 5th of February, 1994, there was a commission

11     which had to establish the violations of truce and occasionally that

12     commission was active.

13        Q.   And with regard to Markale I?

14        A.   I said no.  Only the UNPROFOR commission did its work.  We

15     received a report about that, and it was only later that General Rose and

16     when you were already there -- that was later, after the incident.

17             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have 1D5546.  1D5546,

18     page 57 in e-court in the Serbian version, and page 34 in the English

19     version.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While we're waiting for the pages

21     to come up, let me just add that I also ordered, whether on the basis of

22     reports or protests or information I received, that certain

23     investigations be conducted.  We could see that yesterday from certain

24     documents.  That was my command, to be more precise.  It wasn't always me

25     personally.

Page 38067

 1             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 2        Q.   Can you please focus on Article 90.  Was that the article that

 3     you had in mind?  And Article 89 is the introduction.  It says that the

 4     in situation of serious violation of conventions and this protocol, the

 5     sides will take on themselves the obligation to act joint or separately

 6     in co-operation with United Nations.  And Article 90 talks about the

 7     commission.

 8             Can we please see the following page in the Serbian language.

 9             And was this the article that you referred to?

10        A.   Yes, Mr. President.  This is the article that I am quite familiar

11     with, because on many occasions I referred to it in talks with UNPROFOR

12     representatives.  I requested what Madam Prosecutor insisted on:  Why did

13     you request to receive a report of a commission?  Why would you need that

14     and so on?  What was a protest supposed to contain?  They here referred

15     to at some point, I'm not sure where, the 4th Geneva Convention and

16     Article 149, which also orders that all serious violations of the

17     conventions be investigated.  That was what I referred to, and that's it.

18     147, Article 147 of the 4th Geneva Convention.  It regulates what are

19     serious violations, what is categorised as such.  I'm not sure if I have

20     made myself sufficiently clear.

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we please see the

22     lower half of page 2?  The page that's on the screen now.  Yes.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Can you please just focus on this, whether you are familiar with

25     it and if that was what you requested.  What would be the authorities of

Page 38068

 1     the commission?

 2        A.   Yes, yes, under C.  Should I read it out?  It should "investigate

 3     all the facts that are claimed to represent serious violations as defined

 4     in the conventions and in this protocol or other serious violations of

 5     the conventions or of this protocol."

 6             So to investigate all facts.  And then the methods and the manner

 7     of work of the commission.  I wouldn't read it out because I think that

 8     everyone is familiar with this and that we would just use up too much

 9     time without much benefit, if I were to read it out.

10             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please have the following

11     page and from item 3 on I will read it.  It says five articles -- the

12     bottom, please.  Five members of the commission who are not the citizens

13     of any of the warring parties which are appointed by the commission

14     president.  And then let us look at the following page.  On the basis of

15     the principle of just representation of geographical areas especially

16     taking into account the warring parties.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Was there impartiality in the composition of the commissions

19     which investigated this?  Was that guaranteed to any of the warring

20     parties?

21        A.   Well, ho, ho, you see, those commissions that were set up, that

22     were in Sarajevo, they were not fully in accordance with the provisions

23     of Article 90, but I did refer to it, because if we didn't know how to do

24     it, then at least we should do as it is written here.  So we would have

25     some sort of legal justification how this should be worked, what sort

Page 38069

 1     reports to send, how this is done, what's the method of work, rather than

 2     just have the 1st Corps of the BH Army set up some sort of commission and

 3     it sends a report and then the UNPROFOR comes to lodge a protest with me,

 4     that is to say, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.  We did have, or at least I

 5     advocated, that the commission should be comprised as appointed, mixed.

 6     It didn't have to be completely independent but mixed, with

 7     representatives of all three sides, and with this -- this commission

 8     should led by UNPROFOR, whether its commander or one of its

 9     representatives.  And this has to be said.  It depends on the level at

10     which the commission would be set up.

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can several pages be

12     admitted, the ones that we looked at of Article 90 --

13             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber does not see the necessity to admit this

14     kind of law.  It's part of Geneva Conventions.  We have it as a matter of

15     law.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  But we can refer to

17     them in our closing arguments; right?

18             JUDGE KWON:  By all means.

19             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  One last document.  Can

20     we look at D632 briefly.  D632.

21             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] One last remark hopefully.

22     It is important for the General.  The General said something which does

23     not appear either in the English transcript or the French transcript.  He

24     said:  What was necessary in my eyes.  And from his point of view, this

25     is extremely important.  Page 73, line 3.

Page 38070

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

 2             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].

 3        Q.   The last document, D632.  General, sir, I asked you earlier what

 4     artillery preparation meant and why artillery preparation was done?

 5        A.   Mr. President, I seem to have begun to expound on certain other

 6     issues, and I overlooked this.  Artillery preparation is done mainly both

 7     in offensive and defensive activities.  However, it normally precedes an

 8     attack.  That's when preparations are done in order to neutralise those

 9     targets that would place at risk the approach and advance of forces in

10     what is shallow depth as it were.

11             Next, artillery support must be planned and depending on the

12     level of the unit that is being engaged and depending on the stage of the

13     operation that is being addressed, we would have, therefore, as I said,

14     artillery preparation and artillery support.

15             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Can we have the next

16     page.  Item 4:  I have decided.

17             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Did you know, General, that it said, as it reads here, through a

19     concentration of strong artillery fire in preparation and support fire is

20     to be opened along the route that is planned.  And then it further down

21     says:  Rout and neutralise the enemy by creating panic among Chetniks and

22     civilians, et cetera.

23             Did this really happen?  Did you have experience of this?

24        A.   Well, exactly in these areas that are mentioned here, Ilidza,

25     Stupsko Brdo, Zlatiste, in the direction of Dobrinja, Hresa, in the

Page 38071

 1     direction of Vogosca and Rajlovac, along those routes they would always

 2     be trying to soften the area, as it were, through fire support, fire

 3     preparations.  They wanted to see if along the fire that they opened,

 4     whether they could also deploy infantry and other forces as well.  Of

 5     course this was the case when circumstances were normal, as it were.

 6             However, up at Zlatiste and Hresa, well, for Hresa they would

 7     always have preparation.  As for Zlatiste, quite a few times they would

 8     have no preparation.  They would simply climb the hill and suddenly be up

 9     at the plateau, and they managed to surprise us this way on a couple of

10     occasions.

11        Q.   You did mention it and the participants can see themselves that

12     in all these items we have artillery support mentioned, and it is stated

13     which unit is to be launched from where.

14             Let me ask you this, General:  Did you carry out artillery

15     preparations directed at the town of Sarajevo, and did you ever have a

16     plan, action, or operation aiming to capture an area of the town which

17     would imply artillery fire first and that fire was planned to come from

18     your corps?

19        A.   Mr. President, yes, we did have such cases and I did mention

20     them.  It was at the time when we were mounting an attack at Otes.  We

21     had artillery preparations preceding, certain targets were neutralised.

22     However, this was very difficult in this area because there was

23     reinforced concrete there and we really didn't have the assets that would

24     enable us to do this efficiently.  There were artillery preparations for

25     a number of attacks at Zuc and Vraca, the area that we lost, or in the

Page 38072

 1     direction of Zabrdje.  We had artillery support also when we were taking

 2     back recapturing certain areas.  We had to have artillery support in

 3     those instances as well.  As for some other attacks directed at the town

 4     that would involve preparations on our part, no, we didn't have that.

 5        Q.   Otes is said to be in the inner core of town.  Can you tell the

 6     Trial Chamber where this is?

 7        A.   It's in Ilidza.  It's an area of Sarajevo in the direction of

 8     Hadzici.  It is ahead of Blazuj on the right side.  So you would have

 9     Ilidza, Blazuj on the right-hand side and then you have a neighbourhood

10     called Otes.  And if you recall, I said that across from Otes there was

11     Golo hill and that Otes was only 800 metres away from Golo hill, and

12     there was always a danger for the 1st Corps to link up there.  And in

13     that case, the entire area of Ilidza would be completely encircled and

14     cut off and it would have been done for.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Yesterday at page 11 you were answering the question

16     of why Grkovic was replaced.  He didn't have any depth.  Can it be seen

17     in this document that Nedzarici was a target of the attack, on page 1,

18     item --

19             JUDGE KWON:  That's a very leading question.

20             MS. EDGERTON:  Yes.  And this document was not properly

21     introduced to the General.  This is a document from the ABiH forces,

22     signed by -- and by the way, the translation, the English translation is

23     incomplete, and there's no basis for the General to comment on this

24     document.  We don't know if he's seen the document.  It's -- the way this

25     has been set up is simply inadequate, in my submission.

Page 38073

 1                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  The Chamber agrees with Ms. Edgerton.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I may be quite inept since

 4     I'm taking -- I'm rushing through it and I'm an amateur.  Please consider

 5     that as well.

 6             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Now, General --

 8             JUDGE KWON:  If you need time, we can a break now.

 9             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   I do hope that I will finish.  This is the last question.

11             What would have happened, General -- or, in other words, did such

12     artillery preparations have to be responded to and what would have become

13     of Nedzarici had this attack of theirs been successful in cutting through

14     to Nedzarici?

15        A.   When we spoke about Grkovic and his battalion yesterday, it was

16     deployed in the area of Nedzarici.  We could see that some elements of

17     five brigades were confronting the battalion that was under constant

18     pressure.  Can you now picture a commander who has only a small area

19     across -- through Kasindolska Street to pull out in the direction of

20     Ilidza?  In this area I think it's Kasindolska Street.  If I'm mistaken,

21     I apologise.  If that area is cut off and linked up with Sokolovic

22     Kolonija, in that case the unit is left there without a way out.  Under

23     such conditions and force with such power that made quite a few crimes in

24     Pofalici and Trnovo, and they knew very well what was coming their way if

25     the BH corps came their way, to be a commander and to have to issue

Page 38074

 1     commands constantly for two years under such circumstances, you can

 2     imagine his state of mind.  I know, I was in Lukavica where shells were

 3     landing every day, and believe me when I tell you that this is really

 4     taxing on a person.  It will exhaust you.  You can perhaps live through

 5     it for two or three months and after that it becomes unbearable, and

 6     that's why the individual had to be removed from the area although he

 7     fought there very courageously.  And that was my answer in relation to

 8     that gentlemen and Nedzarici.

 9        Q.   Thank you, General.  If I were allowed to, I would pay a great

10     deal of compliments to you for your work and conduct but I will only

11     thank you for your testimony.

12        A.   Mr. President, I merely wanted to relate a bit of the truth of

13     Sarajevo to all of us to the extent that I know, and, of course, I would

14     very much like all those who know more to come here, it's their duty,

15     because Sarajevo deserves it, from one side and the other.

16             Finally, I would like to -- I don't know if I am allowed to say

17     anything else.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Unless my colleagues have a question for

19     you that, that concludes your evidence, General Galic.  On behalf of the

20     Chamber, I'd like to thank you for your coming to The Hague again to give

21     it, but before -- can we go into private session briefly.

22                           [Private session]

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)


Page 38075

 1                           [Open session]

 2             JUDGE KWON:  Our thanks also goes to you, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, for

 3     your assistance.

 4             The Chamber will take a break and given that the Chamber has an

 5     extensive session this time, we will -- the Chamber is minded to have an

 6     hour break.  So we'll resume at five to 2.00.

 7             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [No interpretation]

 8             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin?

 9             MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  I would

10     like to thank the Chamber as well as all the people who contribute to its

11     functioning.  Thank you very much.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to

13     thank you for the very fair treatment of me from -- that I was afforded

14     by the Tribunal and from both sides who were very fair and correct in

15     their questions to me.  The only problem that bothered me was the fact

16     that light was lit during the night and that created quite a few

17     difficulties for me.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Have a safe journey back.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

20                           [The witness withdrew]

21                           --- Recess taken at 12.54 p.m.

22                           --- On resuming at 1.55 p.m.

23                           [The witness entered court]

24             JUDGE KWON:  Could the witness take the solemn declaration,

25     please.

Page 38076

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 2     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Martic.  Please be seated and make

 4     yourself comfortable.

 5                           WITNESS:  MILAN MARTIC

 6                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 7             JUDGE KWON:  Good afternoon, Mr. Bourgon.

 8             MR. BOURGON:  Good afternoon, Mr. President.  I just would like

 9     to say that I am here as the counsel assisting Mr. Martic, and I would

10     like with the leave of the Trial Chamber to be assisted by an interpreter

11     during his testimony, just in case I have to intervene and speak with

12     Mr. Martic during his testimony.

13             JUDGE KWON:  The Chamber sees no difficulty with that.

14             MR. BOURGON:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.

15             Probably Mr. Martic --

16                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

17             JUDGE KWON:  I take it that Mr. Martic is well aware of this, but

18     I would rather repeat.

19             Before you commence your evidence, Mr. Martic, I must draw your

20     attention to a certain Rule of Evidence that we have here at the

21     International Tribunal, that is, Rule 90(E).  Under this Rule you may

22     object to answering any question from Mr. Karadzic, the Prosecution, or

23     even the Judges if you believe that your answer might incriminate you.

24     In this context, "incriminate" means saying something that might amount

25     to an admission of guilt for a criminal offence or saying something that

Page 38077

 1     might provide evidence that you might have committed a criminal offence.

 2     However, should you think that an answer might incriminate you and as a

 3     consequence you refuse to answer question, I must let you know that the

 4     Tribunal has the power to compel you to answer the question.  But in that

 5     situation, the Tribunal would ensure that your testimony compelled in

 6     such circumstance would not be used in any case that might be laid

 7     against you for any offence save and except the offence of giving false

 8     testimony.

 9             Do you understand what I have just told you, Mr. Martic?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

12             Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency.

14                           Examination by Mr. Karadzic:

15        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, President Martic.

16        A.   Good afternoon, President Karadzic.

17        Q.   Very well.  Did you give a statement to my Defence?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   I kindly ask you, and I recall myself that we make breaks between

20     question and answer and speak slowly so that everything is recorded in

21     the transcript.

22             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we call up in e-court 1D07360.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Can you see in front of you the statement that you gave to my

25     Defence team?  Is that the statement?

Page 38078

 1        A.   Yes.  That's the statement that I gave to your Defence team.

 2        Q.   I'm waiting for interpretation, and I kindly ask you to do the

 3     same.

 4             Did you read the statement and sign it?

 5        A.   Yes.  I read it and signed it.

 6             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can the witness be shown the last

 7     page, please, so that he may authenticate his signature.

 8             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   Is that your signature?

10        A.   Yes, that's my signature.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Does the statement faithfully reflect what you told

12     the Defence team?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   If I were to put the same questions to you today in this

15     courtroom as were put to you when the statement was taken from you, would

16     your answers essentially be the same?

17        A.   Yes.

18             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I tender this statement,

19     92 ter statement, into evidence.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, this statement is being tendered

21     under seal, and a public redacted version is found at 1D07361, which we

22     would also tender as a public exhibit, and the difference is that the

23     last sentence of paragraph 63 has been redacted.

24             JUDGE KWON:  Yesterday I remember I said that the Chamber would

25     like to hear from the parties as to the relevance of paragraph 42, 47.

Page 38079

 1             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  We're prepared to do that

 2     right now.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Simply the statements that are the basis of those

 5     paragraphs were taken from the admitted exhibit which is the plea

 6     agreement of Milan Babic.  So in Milan Babic's plea agreement, which the

 7     Chamber has admitted as paragraph -- as Exhibit P758, certain assertions

 8     were made, and those assertions are rebutted by Mr. Babic in those -- by

 9     Mr. Martic in those paragraphs.  So we believe that since the exhibit

10     forms a part of the factual information that was presented during the

11     Prosecution's case, that its relevant to and even fair -- only fair that

12     we be given a chance to rebut that.

13             JUDGE KWON:  But Mr. Babic's plea agreement was admitted only for

14     the purpose of assessing his credibility, was it not?

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Well, I didn't understand it that way, because it

16     seems like we had the practice of admitting exhibits for all purposes.

17     So once something is admitted, even if that may have been the basis for

18     its admission, I don't understand that it can only be used by the Chamber

19     for that purpose.

20             JUDGE KWON:  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

21             MR. TIEGER:  I would also -- first of all, I should begin by

22     saying we're essentially in agreement with the Defence on the

23     admissibility of those paragraphs.  With respect to this particular

24     issue, I think it has been understood -- the plea agreement contains a

25     factual basis, and I think that factual basis has generally been

Page 38080

 1     understood when someone testifies to be incorporated into the

 2     representations made by that person when he acknowledges and accepts the

 3     plea agreement and the accompanying factual basis.  So it's an additional

 4     reason in support of those advanced by Mr. Robinson, I think.

 5             Beyond that, I would also -- sorry, I would also add that we

 6     agree that it can only be fair if the Prosecution is permitted to advance

 7     these propositions that the other party is entitled to rebut them with

 8     such evidence as they have.  And even if the material is not

 9     independently relevant, this material dealing with the parallel structure

10     and members of the JCE, of course, has independent relevance as well.

11             JUDGE KWON:  The portions of evidence related the setting up of

12     the parallel structure were excluded from Mr. Babic's transcript.  I will

13     consult my colleagues.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We'll -- the Chamber will receive both

16     versions of Mr. Martic's statement.  Shall we give the number first.

17             THE REGISTRAR:  Yes, Your Honour.  65 ter 1D7360 will be

18     Exhibit D3527, under seal, and 1D7361 will be Exhibit D3528.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Shall we deal with associated exhibits.

20             MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, Mr. President.  Mr. President, there are a

21     total of 14 associated exhibits being offered with the statement.  Six of

22     them are being offered for admission in full, and eight, which are the

23     intercepts, are being offered for being marked for identification at this

24     time.

25             JUDGE KWON:  As regard 65 ter number 5280, 5306, 14472, 14481,

Page 38081

 1     14485, I meant five items, these five items, in the Chamber's view do not

 2     form an inseparable and indispensable part of the statement in the sense

 3     that statement can be understood without these underlying documents.  For

 4     that reason, the Chamber will not admit those five items.

 5             And in the motion, the accused moved to tender 65 ter 5278 as an

 6     additional associated exhibit of Milan Babic's 92 quater package, but

 7     given that the Prosecution did not seek tender that document and that his

 8     testimony could be understood without admitting this document, we will

 9     not admit that document, i.e., we'll deny the request.  Those intercepts

10     will be admitted being marked for identification.  So the numbers for

11     those exhibits will be given in due course by the Registry.

12             MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you, Mr. President.  And we won't tender

13     those documents that you've excluded and we'll simply try -- lead live

14     the document 05278.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  Please proceed, Mr. Karadzic.

16             Yes, Mr. Bourgon.

17             MR. BOURGON:  Mr. President, I just note that there appears to be

18     a difference between the B/C/S version of the statement, which does not

19     have the footnotes, and the English version of the statement, which does

20     have the footnotes.  I don't know how that came about because I was

21     involved in the final packaging of these two statements, so what I

22     propose, Mr. President, is that between now and Monday we will prepare

23     another version that will be shown to the Prosecutor in terms --

24     including in B/C/S which has the footnotes so that the two are identical.

25     Thank you, Mr. President.

Page 38082

 1             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you, Mr. Bourgon.

 2             Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.

 3             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I will now read out the

 4     summary of President Martic's statement slowly in English.

 5             [In English] Milan Martic is former president of the Republic of

 6     Serbian Krajina, now in Croatia.

 7             From late 1990 until 1996, President Martic had many telephone

 8     conversations with Radovan Karadzic and attended meetings with him.  He

 9     believe that they had well over 50 contacts during that period.

10             Most of their discussions before April 1992 involved efforts to

11     avoid the dissolution of Yugoslavia.  Dr. Karadzic wanted to preserve

12     Yugoslavia and to use all peaceful and diplomatic means to do so.  He was

13     a major factor in convincing the Serbs in Croatia to accept the

14     Vance Plan which brought United Nations troops to Croatia.

15             Mr. Martic found Dr. Karadzic to be an extremely tolerant man

16     with no hatred for Muslims or Croats and with no desire to create a pure

17     Serbian territory.  Dr. Karadzic recognised that whatever solution was

18     found for Bosnia and Croatia would involve substantial numbers of one

19     group living as minorities in the territory governed by another group and

20     that their rights would be fully respected.  There was never any plan to

21     expel Muslims or Croats from the Bosnian Serb-held areas and certainly no

22     joint criminal enterprise to achieve such a plan.

23             During the war, President Martic attended meetings between

24     Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim leader from north-western Bosnia,

25     Radovan Karadzic, Slobodan Milosevic, and others.  Dr. Karadzic liked

Page 38083

 1     Abdic and agreed with his non-fundamentalistic approach for Bosnia.  In

 2     expressing his support for Mr. Abdic, Dr. Karadzic showed that he had no

 3     desire to expel or commit crimes against Muslims.

 4             Mr. Martic refutes the evidence of Milan Babic that

 5     Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic planned to force Slovenia and

 6     Croatia to leave Yugoslavia and to have that part of Croatia which was

 7     occupied by the JNA remain in Yugoslavia.  He states that from his

 8     contacts with the two men, there was never any plan or desire that

 9     Slovenia or Croatia leave Yugoslavia on the part of Slobodan Milosevic or

10     Radovan Karadzic.

11             Both Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic opposed Babic's plan

12     in 1991 for unification of the Krajinas.  Serb Krajina in Croatia and

13     Bosnian Krajina.  They favoured the preservation of Yugoslavia without

14     changes in the borders.

15             Mr. Martic refutes the evidence of Milan Babic that the

16     Yugoslavia -- Yugoslavian National Army engaged in a war so that the

17     territories it captured would not be left with any Croatian inhabitants.

18     He states that for his contacts with the JNA officers, he never

19     understood that the JNA had a goal of expelling Croats from their homes.

20             Mr. Martic refutes the evidence of Milan Babic that the JNA

21     mistreated Croatian prisoners.  He relates one occasion in August 1991,

22     after Croatian policemen were -- had been prisoner in Kijevo where

23     General Mladic took custody of 45 of the prisoners on behalf of the JNA.

24     Upon taking custody of them, he treated them to a dinner at a local

25     restaurant and released them.

Page 38084

 1             Mr. Martic refuse -- refutes the evidence of Milan Babic that the

 2     attack on Kijevo was the beginning of a plan for the forcible permanent

 3     removal of the non-Serb population from Serbian-dominated area of

 4     Croatia.  Milan Martic states that civilians left Kijevo after he issued

 5     a warning that military operation would be commencing there to remove a

 6     blockade that had cut off vital supplies to Serbian villages.

 7             Mr. Martic refutes the evidence of Milan Babic that

 8     Radovan Karadzic used the fact of Martic's arrest on 8th of September,

 9     1991, in the northern Bosnian village of Otoka, as an excuse to stir

10     upset ethnic tensions.  To the contrary, Dr. Karadzic urged restraint

11     among Bosnian Serbs while his release was being -- Martic's release was

12     being negotiated.  Thanks in part to the intervention of Dr. Karadzic and

13     his strenuous efforts to avoid violence, Mr. Martic was released on the

14     afternoon of 9th of September without any loss of life and a wider war in

15     Bosnia was averted.

16             That would be a short summary, and for that moment I do not have

17     questions for President Martic.

18             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Robinson told us that you would lead live one

19     document.

20             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.  I apologise.  I thought that

21     the letter was admitted.  However, I would like to ask President Martic.

22             I would like to call up 65 ter 05278.

23             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

24        Q.   Mr. President, in your testimony -- or, rather, when Mr. Babic

25     testified in your case, you presented a letter that the late Babic had

Page 38085

 1     sent to The Hague Conference on Yugoslavia on the 5th of September, 1991.

 2     Do you remember that letter?

 3        A.   Yes.  The letter was written by the late Milan Babic, and he

 4     signed it as well.  It was adopted by the government on the

 5     5th of September, 1991.  I was a member of that government, so I remember

 6     the moment when that document was created.  We used it here for a very

 7     simple reason.  What he wrote to the peace conference on Yugoslavia and

 8     to the nine other addressees that he sent it to is completely different

 9     interpretation of the events that happened during that time as opposed to

10     how he testified here.  If we look at that letter and look at it

11     realistically, many of the indictments would not exist.  Many of us would

12     not have been on trial here.  I hope that this Trial Chamber will take

13     this document into consideration and that it will be able to look at

14     Milan Babic as he was then and as he was when he testified in my case,

15     because we are talking about two completely different persons.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Does this letter contain elements which he mentioned

17     later, especially concerning myself?

18        A.   No, not at all.  Here he talks about the struggle for survival.

19     He warns various institutions as to what was going on in Croatia and in

20     the territory of SAO Krajina.  He wanted to participate in the

21     international conference in order to be able to explain that.  He

22     describes the nature of the new Croatian government.  He calls it a

23     neo-fascist government.  He compares them to the notorious NDH that was

24     created by Ante Pavelic and supported by Adolf Hitler during the period

25     of 1941 and 1945.  He truly testifies in this letter about what was going

Page 38086

 1     on.

 2             Later on, in his testimony in the Milosevic, Krajisnik, and my

 3     cases, the difference was drastic.  Finally, when this document was shown

 4     to him, he committed suicide, unfortunately.  He hanged himself.  And the

 5     Trial Chamber said that he had died.  He -- anybody in the right state of

 6     mind can distinguish between a normal death and a suicide.  After he was

 7     shown this document he committed suicide.  I don't know whether he has

 8     been ridden with remorse.  I was very sorry to hear that, but I knew that

 9     he was a sick man.  Not only did I know that, everybody else knew it.

10        Q.   When you -- when you -- when you say that he was sick, what do

11     you mean?

12        A.   Whoever spent some time with him could notice that he suffered

13     from some psychological problems, and even as a layperson I could spot

14     his paranoia, his narcissistic nature.  As a layperson, I'm not an

15     expert, but I could share with you some details of his health.

16        Q.   Mr. President, you don't need to.  I just wanted to -- you to

17     tell us what kind of sickness.

18             Mr. President, as we look at this letter and as -- if we compare

19     it to his testimony about the same events, which of the two testimonies

20     are true?

21        A.   What he wrote in his --

22             JUDGE KWON:  Just a second.  Yes, Mr. Tieger.

23             MR. TIEGER:  No objection to this witness offering factual

24     testimony.  I do object to purported expert analyses, particularly those

25     that weren't even noticed.  So if Mr. Karadzic wants to lead this witness

Page 38087

 1     through events about which he has information, which he observed, or

 2     received information about, that's one thing, but he's moving down an

 3     inappropriate path now.

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  The Chamber agrees with Mr. Tieger's

 6     observation.  If you deal with specific events, that's fine, but in a

 7     lump sum way, in this way, it's not appropriate for a witness to comment

 8     in that way.

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.  I'll ask about facts.

10             MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. President, what was your position in the government of

12     Krajina at the time?  Did you attend the session that adopted this

13     document?

14        A.   At that time, in September 1991, I was the minister of the

15     interior in the government headed by Dr. Milan Babic.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Was this adopted by the government as a reasonable

17     account of the events?

18        A.   It was unanimously adopted and it reflected the events with a

19     hundred per cent accuracy.  I would not say a word differently to what he

20     wrote at the time and signed.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22        A.   I can corroborate this with some facts, some of which relate to

23     my first indictment.  The difference in the indictment was caused by the

24     testimony of Milan Babic.

25        Q.   Thank you, Mr. President.  I'm sure that we will have

Page 38088

 1     opportunities to do that during cross-examination.

 2             You said that there is a significant -- a significant difference

 3     between this letter and the late Babic's testimony in the Milosevic,

 4     Krajisnik, and Martic cases.  How would you describe this difference?

 5        A.   The difference is huge.  Here he talks about the role of the

 6     JNA --

 7             MR. TIEGER:  Excuse me.  Objection.  I'm sorry, Mr. Martic.

 8     Don't --

 9             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I withdraw and I tender this letter

10     into evidence.

11             JUDGE KWON:  Very well.  We will receive it.

12             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit D3538, Your Honours.

13             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have any more questions for

14     the witness, Your Excellency.

15             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Martic, as you have noted, your evidence in

16     chief in this case in its most part has been admitted in a written form,

17     i.e., through your written statement in lieu of your oral testimony.  Now

18     you will be cross-examined by the representative of the Office of the

19     Prosecutor.

20             Yes, Mr. Tieger.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:

23        Q.   Mr. Martic, although the issue of your indictment and trial was

24     raised to some extent in the recent questioning you had with

25     Mr. Karadzic, there is simply a brief reference to that trial in the

Page 38089

 1     statement that you provided the Court and that was admitted earlier

 2     today, and that's at paragraph 11, where you note that you were found

 3     guilty of committed of crimes committed in Croatia between August 1991

 4     and December 1995.  And I wanted to focus a bit more fulsomely on the

 5     conviction for your participation in those events.

 6             First of all, the crimes that are referred to in paragraph 11

 7     included murder, torture, cruel treatment, imprisonment, deportation and

 8     other inhumane acts, persecution, and attacks on civilians; correct?

 9        A.   Yes, that's what is written.

10        Q.   And I noted that although your statement makes reference to

11     events in Kijevo, it did not refer, insofar as I could tell, to some of

12     the events in other locations in Croatia.  For example, it did not refer

13     to the events in Hrvatska Dubica where 41 civilians were murdered in

14     October 1991 by the Milicija Krajina.

15             MR. ROBINSON:  Excuse me, Mr. President, I have an objection to

16     this because his evidence is limited to things that have been admissible

17     in this case.  So these things are not in his statement because they're

18     not part of the evidence that's been admitted so far, and its unfair then

19     to imply that somehow this is an omission that these things are not in

20     his statement.

21             MR. TIEGER:  Well, if Mr. Robinson wants to -- is welcome to draw

22     whatever insinuation he thinks may be made by that, but the question is

23     an accurate one.  There's a factual representation made in the statement,

24     and I'm asking about the reality of the events that are referred to

25     there, i.e., the crimes for which he was convicted as alluded to in

Page 38090

 1     paragraph 11.  Now, if Mr. Robinson feels there's an insinuation he

 2     doesn't like, that may or may not arise from the juxtaposition of those

 3     facts but it doesn't preclude the question being asked.

 4             JUDGE KWON:  But how is it relevant to this case, Mr. Tieger?

 5     Can we not move on?

 6             MR. TIEGER:  Mr. President -- okay.  I'm willing to move on but

 7     let me answer the question.  This is a witness who has been brought in

 8     here to attest to the benign nature of the people with whom he was in

 9     contact, indeed, as you'll hear in a moment, the people with whom he

10     was -- he participated in a joint criminal enterprise for which he was

11     convicted.  I think it is instructive for the Court to know the crimes

12     that occurred as a result of that joint criminal enterprise and this

13     witness's participation, particularly when he's trying to convince the

14     Court that he's in a position to persuade you about the benign intentions

15     of the accused.

16             JUDGE KWON:  Well, that said, as you said, please move on,

17     Mr. Tieger, then.

18             MR. TIEGER:

19        Q.   Among the allegations you make in your statement, Mr. Martic, is

20     the one at paragraph 23 where you assert that the -- and as was repeated

21     in the summary by Mr. Karadzic, that the allegation of a joint criminal

22     enterprise in which Radovan Karadzic and yourself were members with the

23     objective to expel Muslims and Croats from the Serb-held areas of Bosnia

24     and Croatia is entirely wrong.  The fact is, Mr. Martic, that you were

25     convicted of just such a joint criminal enterprise, that is a joint

Page 38091

 1     criminal enterprise to forcibly remove the majority of the Croat, Muslim,

 2     and non-Serb population from one-third of the territory of the Republic

 3     of Croatia and from large parts of the Republic of Bosnia and

 4     Herzegovina.  That's correct, isn't it?

 5        A.   No.  I would like to answer your first question, because that

 6     bothers me, what the -- what somebody mentioned, the gentleman mentioned.

 7     May I go on?

 8             JUDGE KWON:  I don't think I'm following you.  What question do

 9     you have in mind, Mr. Martic?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Where he speaks about crimes in

11     Hrvatska Dubica and with which I was charged and convicted for.

12             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Martic, I said that it would not be relevant to

13     this case.  Could you please answer the question now asked.

14             MR. TIEGER:

15        Q.   The question was simple, Mr. Martic.  You claim in paragraph 23

16     there was no joint criminal enterprise with Dr. Karadzic to forcibly

17     remove Muslims, Croats, and other non-Serbs from large portions of

18     Bosnia.  And the question is:  Isn't it true that you -- that in fact you

19     were convicted of participation in a joint criminal enterprise to

20     forcibly remove Croats, Muslims, and other non-Serbs from territories in

21     the Republic of Croatia and from large parts of the Republic of Bosnia

22     and Herzegovina?

23        A.   It is true that I was convicted, but I absolutely claim that

24     there was no joint criminal enterprise.  This is a construct that was

25     made by this Tribunal --

Page 38092

 1        Q.   Mr. Martic -- excuse me, sir.  Sorry.  Let me just try to

 2     identify some ground rules, if I may, because I'm not happy when I have

 3     to interrupt a witness and shout over your responses, but I ask you to

 4     focus on the question.  The particular question was, of course, whether

 5     or not it was true that you were convicted.  You answered that question

 6     and then you began to explain your view on the particular construct that

 7     was used and so on.  I've been given a certain amount of time to ask you

 8     particular questions.  I'm trying to frame my questions in a way that

 9     allows me to use that time as efficiently as possible, and where the

10     question in fact may call for an explanation, the Court will give you a

11     chance to do that; but where the question is fairly simple, that is,

12     isn't it true that you were convicted of that, and you can answer it as

13     you did, then I ask you to co-operate with the effort to make these

14     proceedings as efficient as possible and simply focus on the question.

15     If you feel unfairly constrained, Mr. Karadzic can both ask for

16     elaboration in redirect and the Court can intervene to allow you to

17     expand on an answer where it's appropriate to do so.  Okay?

18        A.   Well, it is okay, but the way I understood your question was that

19     I was supposed to agree with you that there was indeed a joint criminal

20     enterprise.  That is one thing.  And then you asked me whether I was

21     found guilty and convicted for that charge and I said yes.  But we're

22     talking about two totally different issues here, two totally different

23     questions.

24        Q.   Well, then you misunderstood the question.  The question was

25     whether or not you were convicted for a joint criminal enterprise as I

Page 38093

 1     explained it and you answered it in the affirmative.  Now, let me answer

 2     [sic] a follow-up question to that.  It's also true, isn't it, that in

 3     that particular case, your case, the Trial Chamber not only found beyond

 4     a reasonable doubt that you participated -- there was a joint criminal

 5     enterprise and that you participated in it and therefore were responsible

 6     for various crimes, but the Court also found that among the -- those

 7     others who participated in the joint criminal enterprise were

 8     Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic, and the accused, Radovan Karadzic;

 9     correct?

10        A.   That's how it was.  That was the Court's decision.

11             MR. TIEGER:  And let me -- let me call up quickly -- we have

12     limited amount of time today.  We will be adjourning in about five

13     minutes.  I just want to call up quickly 65 ter 09000.

14        Q.   Mr. Martic, can you identify, please, the persons depicted in

15     that photograph, and tell us, if you recall, when it was taken.

16        A.   Personally, of course, I remember these people.  They are my

17     friends.  I believe that the photo was taken sometime in 1994.  Of course

18     I know everybody.  Do you want me to name them?  But you know them

19     yourself, don't you.  You know who these people are.

20        Q.   One way or another one of us has to name them, so why don't you

21     go ahead and just name them, moving from left to right.

22        A.   Well, okay.  The first one is Stojan Zupljanin.  Sitting next to

23     him is Franko Simatovic, and then Momcilo Krajisnik.  Jovica Stanisic is

24     the next one, President Dr. Radovan Karadzic, myself, and the person

25     standing behind me is Dragan Kijac.

Page 38094

 1        Q.   And although I didn't ask this as part of the earlier question,

 2     it's also correct that Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic were also found by

 3     the Court to be participants in the joint criminal enterprise for which

 4     you were convicted by the Trial Chamber in your case; correct?

 5        A.   As far as I know they have not been convicted yet, and personally

 6     I don't think why they should be.  There's no reason why they should be

 7     convicted of anything.

 8        Q.   You may be confusing their case with the findings in your case.

 9     I just simply wanted you to confirm as indicated in paragraph 446 of the

10     Trial Chamber judgement in your case that, like Mr. Milosevic,

11     Mr. Mladic, and Mr. Karadzic, Jovica Stanisic and Frenki Simatovic were

12     found to have been participants in the joint criminal enterprise charged

13     and found in your case?

14        A.   It's says in their indictment that they were members of that

15     notorious joint criminal enterprise.

16             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance.  The

17     interpretation that the gentleman received was that the two of them have

18     already been convicted, which is why he answered the way he did.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.

20             MR. TIEGER:  Yeah, I understood there to be some confusion which

21     is why I re-asked the question as I did.

22        Q.   Your statement also states in paragraph 16 --

23             MR. TIEGER:  At this point, given the nature of the answers, I

24     tender the relevant portions of 25046 which is the Trial Chamber

25     judgement.  As well as the photograph, which is 09000.

Page 38095

 1             JUDGE KWON:  I'm sorry, you're tendering part of the judgement.

 2             MR. TIEGER:  Just paragraph 446 at this point.  We'll see if we

 3     have to amalgamate others.

 4             MR. ROBINSON:  Mr. President, I don't think there's any need to

 5     make a judgement into evidence.  You can refer to it in -- or the parties

 6     can refer to it without being in evidence.

 7             MR. TIEGER:  That's fine.  I have no problem if it's judicially

 8     noticed in that manner.  So in that case, I just tender 65 ter 09000.

 9             MR. ROBINSON:  No objection to that.

10             JUDGE KWON:  Mr. Martic, do you know where was it -- where it was

11     taken?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wish you could give me one of

13     those photos to keep as a souvenir.  I would love that.  This is a

14     celebration, a commemoration of something.  I can't remember what.  Could

15     you please give me one such photo as a gift, as a souvenir, please?

16             JUDGE KWON:  We can print out if you want, but it is not the time

17     to discuss who should keep the original.  But my question was where this

18     photo had been taken, if you remember.

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I can't remember

20     where it was taken.  I recognise the people.  I believe that we

21     celebrated something, which is why we met, but I don't know exactly

22     where.  I believe that the photo was taken in 1994, though.

23             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  We'll receive it.

24             THE REGISTRAR:  As Exhibit P6305, Your Honours.

25             JUDGE KWON:  Yes.  If it is convenient, shall we adjourn for the

Page 38096

 1     week?

 2             MR. TIEGER:  We might as well at this point, Mr. President.

 3             JUDGE KWON:  But before we adjourn, I'd like to issue an oral

 4     ruling.  I think we can do it in the presence of the witness.

 5             The Chamber refers to the accused's 79th motion for finding of

 6     disclosure violation filed on the 24th of April, 2013, in which he seeks

 7     an express finding that the Prosecution violated Rule 66(A)(ii) of the

 8     Rules of Procedure and Evidence by failing to disclose three documents,

 9     i.e., two information reports and one set of interview notes pertaining

10     to Tarik Kupusovic, Milorad Bircakovic and Vahid Karavelic, by the

11     7th of May, 2009, deadline for the disclosure of such material.  The

12     accused also seeks a remedy for the repeated violation by the Prosecution

13     of its disclosure obligations and repeats his request that the

14     Prosecution be ordered to make its database available to his Defence

15     team.

16             The Prosecution responded on the 8th of May, 2013, and argued

17     that the motion should be dismissed given that the accused "fails to

18     claim or show that he was prejudiced by the late disclosure" of the

19     material in question.  The Prosecution acknowledges that the material

20     should have been disclosed under Rule 66(A)(ii) by the 7th of May, 2009,

21     dead-line.

22             The Prosecution emphasises that the accused made no attempt to

23     identify or substantiate any prejudice caused by the late disclosure and

24     this could warrant summary dismissal of the motion.  The Prosecution

25     further observes that Kupusovic was reclassified as a reserve witness in

Page 38097

 1     July 2010 and was never called to testify.  Similarly, Karavelic was

 2     dropped as a Prosecution witness in December 2010, and Bircakovic's

 3     evidence was admitted pursuant to Rule 92 bis.  The Prosecution further

 4     contends that there was no prejudice given that the newly disclosed

 5     material "adds nothing new of any substance to the information already

 6     possessed by the accused," and in any event, it would be open for the

 7     accused to seek to add Kupusovic and Karavelic to his witness list if he

 8     wanted to elicit the information contained in the new material or seek

 9     reconsideration of the Rule 92 bis decision not to call Bircakovic for

10     cross-examination.

11             The Chamber having reviewed the newly disclosed material finds

12     that the Prosecution violated 66(A)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure and

13     Evidence with respect to these three witnesses.  However, considering

14     that Kupusovic and Karavelic did not ultimately testify in this case and

15     the third witness, Bircakovic, was a Rule 92 bis witness, and in the

16     absence of any attempt by the accused to assert any prejudice with

17     respect to the late disclosure, the Chamber finds that the accused was

18     not prejudiced by these disclosure violations and in the absence of

19     prejudice dismisses the remainder of the motion.

20             The Chamber reminds the accused of its instruction in the

21     decision of the accused's 77th and 78th disclosure violation motions

22     that:

23             "The accused should not consider the process of filing disclosure

24     violation motions to be a numerical exercise of recording each and every

25     violation.  The accused should instead focus on how a specific violation

Page 38098

 1     has caused him prejudice and how any newly disclosed material could have

 2     within used by him to advance his case in light of the material already

 3     in his possession.  It is one thing to argue that multiple documents have

 4     been disclosed in violation of the Rules, but such violations are

 5     unlikely to cause prejudice if the contents of the newly disclosed

 6     material adds nothing new or of any significance to material already in

 7     the accused's possession."

 8             On my part, I refer to my partially dissenting opinion in the

 9     Chamber's decision on the accused's 37th to 42nd disclosure violation

10     motions and decline to make a finding of violation in the absence of

11     prejudice to the accused.

12             THE ACCUSED:  If I may without contesting ...

13             JUDGE KWON:  We'll entertain your views later on.

14             Mr. Martic, Mr. Martic, we are going to adjourn for the week, and

15     we will resume on Monday at 9.00 in Courtroom III instead of Courtroom I

16     only for that day, and I'd like to advise you not to discuss with anybody

17     else about your testimony.  I take it you understood that.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am aware of it.

19             JUDGE KWON:  Thank you.  The hearing is adjourned.

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.52 p.m,

21                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 13th day

22                           of May, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.