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
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
2 For the next matter, could the Chamber move into private session.
3 [Private session]
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.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we could please move into
6 private session, because my question is in the same context.
7 [Private session]
11 Page 37996 redacted. Private session.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise for the error. It was
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
25 You also said under D, yes?
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
25 JUDGE KWON: We can zoom in further. Ms. Edgerton, yes.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can it be MFI'd,
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: MFI D3520, Your Honours.
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
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
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 command of Republika Srpska, the
20 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, and our political leadership, 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
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 and it was about these Muslims and some other Muslims in the world [as
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]
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 our civilian life. We never manipulated them, especially not the
13 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
14 That would have been an omission on my part [as interpreted].
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
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
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
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
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll do my best.
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
1 whenever we make a mistake in accordance with international humanitarian
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
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
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I think that's what Ms. Edgerton suggested.
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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."
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
24 "[In English] A large number of BH troops were observed moving
25 towards Zuc area, possible rotation."
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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.
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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]
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,
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
25 JUDGE KWON: As regard 65 ter number 5280, 5306, 14472, 14481,
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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;
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.
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.