1 Monday, 22 July 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone.
7 Mr. Tieger, has the Prosecution filed the response that I
8 referred to last week?
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President, I think we sent a courtesy copy
10 at about - Mr. Reid would know the precise time - around 5.00 on Friday
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 Yes, Ms. Pack, please proceed.
14 MS. PACK: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 WITNESS: SVETOZAR ANDRIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examination by Ms. Pack: [Continued]
18 Q. General, I want to start with your involvement in the Srebrenica
19 operations, 1995. You've been interviewed by the Office of the
20 Prosecutor on three occasions; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You maintained originally that you didn't enter Srebrenica town,
23 that you were never physically inside the town. Do you recall that?
24 A. I think that I said that I entered Srebrenica to inform
25 General Krstic of the line reached by our units.
1 Q. Let me just remind you of your second interview with the OTP.
2 MS. PACK: 65 ter 25369, please. This is dated April 2000,
3 3rd of April, 2000, and if you could go, please, to page 9. I'm afraid
4 it's only in English.
5 Q. I'm going to read it out to you.
6 MS. PACK: So just at the bottom there. Page 9 in the English.
7 Q. "Just for the clarity of what you just said, not to make
8 confusion of with what you told us in your previous statement, in the
9 first time-frame you get us, you said, 'I was in Srebrenica and Zepa.'
10 You meant the area of Srebrenica or the Srebrenica town and recall what
11 you told us first time because I am cautioning you on this answer, do you
12 mean Srebrenica area or Srebrenica town?"
13 And you answered:
15 Are you looking at your statement -- if you could look at the
17 A. Yes, I'm looking for it.
18 Q. And it's the last two pages of this interview.
19 MS. PACK: In the B/C/S it's over the following page, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
21 MS. PACK: Thank you.
22 Q. Just at the top in the B/C/S at line 3 is just what I read out
23 and I'm just going to read you what follows, you can see for yourself.
24 MS. PACK: And we can now go over in the English, please, to
25 page 10. And I'll just continue reading.
1 Q. So you answer to that question:
3 And then you say -- and then the question:
4 "Because you told us you never went to Srebrenica town last
6 And you answer:
7 "My unit was in Viogor. It is not to refer to the town of
8 Srebrenica, but on the operation."
9 Answer [sic]: "Yeah ... but ...
10 "Q. Just to make it precise, because you made that point very
11 clear last time that you did not at any moment enter the town?
12 "A. My unit never entered ...
13 "Q. Nor did you personally do that?
14 "A. The unit never entered.
15 "Q. And yourself?
16 "A. I only passed by but only ... passing by when I went to
18 "Q. Uh-huh, and what date was that?
19 "A. On the 12th ... but when I was heading for Viogor for ...
20 "Q. Our recollection is that you told us you went from Bratunac
21 to ...
22 "A. We went Suceska, Milici, for Zepa ... heading to Zepa.
23 Q. So you -- let me precise on this, sorry to give it up on
24 interview which was terminated, you say that 12 July you went through
25 Srebrenica town but coming from where and going towards where?
1 "A. No, through the town there is a certain road that" --
2 Excuse me?
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We're not receiving interpretation
4 nor can the witness see the text. So we need the next page and the
5 interpreters are unable to interpret because it's being read too fast and
6 then they can't see where it's being read from.
7 MS. PACK: Perhaps the interpreters could let me know if they're
8 able to read the transcript which is written on -- which is on e-court
9 now in B/C/S. We can turn over just now to the following page in B/C/S.
10 JUDGE KWON: Since we --
11 MS. PACK: Which would be the last page in B/C/S.
12 JUDGE KWON: We do not know where the interpretation stopped,
13 probably you have to start over again.
14 MS. PACK: Yes.
15 JUDGE KWON: And speak to the microphone.
16 MS. PACK: Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: And read slow, please.
18 MS. PACK: I'm unclear if the interpreters got any of it. Let me
19 start at the beginning. So we go back, please, to page 9 of the English
20 and to the preceding page in B/C/S, please. Thank you.
21 Now, does everyone have line 3 in B/C/S and in English, line 24?
22 So we'll go again.
23 "Just for the clarity of what you just said, not to make
24 confusion of with what you told us in your previous statement. In the
25 first time-frame you get us, you said, 'I was in Srebrenica and Zepa.'
1 You meant the area of Srebrenica or the," and if we can go over in the
2 English, please, "Srebrenica town and recall what you told us first time
3 because I am cautioning you on this answer, do you mean Srebrenica area
4 or Srebrenica town?
5 "A. Operation.
6 "Q. Because you told us you never went to Srebrenica town last
8 "A. My unit was in Viogor. It is not refer to the town of
9 Srebrenica, but on the operation.
10 "Q. Yeah ... but ... just to make it precise, because you made
11 that point very clear last time that you did not at any moment enter the
13 "A. My unit never entered ...
14 "Q. Nor did you personally do that?
15 "A. The unit never entered.
16 "Q. And yourself?
17 "A. I only passed by but only ... passing by when I went to
19 "Q. Uh-huh, and what date was that?
20 "A. On the 12th ... but was when I was heading for Viogor ...
21 "Q. Our recollection is that you told us you went from Bratunac
22 to Sase ..."
23 And then we can go over in the B/C/S to page 11. Continuing:
24 "We head Suceska, Milici, for Zepa ... heading to Zepa.
25 "Q. So, you ... so ... let me precise on this ... sorry to give
1 it up on interview which was terminated, you say that 12th July you went
2 through Srebrenica town, but coming from where and going towards where?
3 "A. No, through the town, there is a certain road that passes
4 nearby Srebrenica in the vicinity, which is in vicinity of Srebrenica
5 that leads to Viogor.
6 "Q. Okay, so we are back on your initial statement when you
7 claimed that you never went physically inside Srebrenica town, am I
9 "A. No, not at all.
10 "Q. Nor did you go to Potocari?
11 "A. /not translated/.
12 "Q. So, we are clear now."
13 Q. So you originally said to -- in interview by the OTP, that you
14 didn't enter Srebrenica town and you now do accept, don't you, that you
15 were in the town personally on the 11th of July; isn't that right?
16 A. No. Firstly, I wish to say that this wasn't an operation. This
17 was, above all, a battle. The operation is conducted by the corps. At
18 this level, we're talking brigade units which engage in battles and
19 combat. So let's, first of all, say that there was extensive combat here
20 for the separation of the two enclaves. As far as my presence in
21 Srebrenica is concerned, I think that in a third version, after a long
22 period of time, I clarified that I arrived in Srebrenica on the 9th to
23 visit my units. I brought them presents, cigarettes, some food.
24 General Krstic asked that I should remain and lead the mentioned combat
25 group. Because of the casualties that we had on the axis of the Zvornik
1 Brigade. I remained there, as is stated, until the 13th of July, when we
2 left --
3 Q. Can you pause a moment, please.
4 A. -- to the Zepa area.
5 Q. Just a question about the 11th of July. You now accept, don't
6 you, that you entered -- personally you entered Srebrenica town on the
7 11th of July; right?
8 A. No. I went outside of Srebrenica when NATO bombing took place,
9 this, in order for me to see what the situation was like with the command
10 where Generals Mladic and Krstic were. I also went there to inform
11 General Krstic of the line reached by my unit, to inform him how far my
12 unit had advanced --
13 Q. You've seen --
14 A. -- after that I went back to the unit.
15 Q. You've seen the now well-known video of you in Srebrenica town on
16 the 11th of July shaking General Mladic's hand; yes?
17 A. Yes, but that's on the edge of Srebrenica, on the way into
19 MS. PACK: I'm not going to put it up but the reference is
20 page 39 of e-court at Exhibit P4202.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. You can show it as well, but
22 after that I went back to the unit.
23 MS. PACK:
24 Q. Let's move on. In your interviews with the OTP and in your
25 statement, you have maintained that you only took up duties as Chief of
1 Staff of the Drina Corps in August; is that right?
2 A. I took up the duty of the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps on
3 the 8th of August. I think that you have my record of hand-over of duty
4 between me and the commander of the Birac Brigade --
5 Q. And that's your evidence, is it --
6 A. -- and if you don't, we'll find it.
7 Q. And that's your evidence, that you were not appointed Drina Corps
8 Chief of Staff before then? You're absolutely certain?
9 A. Certain? I can show you the document indicating the hand-over of
10 document between Colonel Vlasic who took over my brigade on the 6th of
11 August, that was when I handed over my brigade in the presence of
12 General Krstic. And on the 8th of August, I took up the duty of the
13 Chief of Staff. And an annex to the order is the statement of the
14 assistant in charge of mobilisation and organisation affairs and the
15 brigade commander --
16 Q. Well, let's --
17 A. -- and if you want me to submit it here, I can.
18 Q. Let's look at the document that you have referred to in your
20 MS. PACK: Which is 65 ter 02604 which is now Exhibit D3889.
21 Q. Just in fairness to have it up briefly to look at it and then I'm
22 going to show you some other documents.
23 A. Yes, this is the document, a record on the hand-over of duty or
24 the transfer of duty.
25 Q. And this is when -- your evidence is that you weren't appointed
1 as Drina Corps Chief of Staff before then; yes?
2 A. No, no.
3 MS. PACK: So can we look at P04485.
4 Q. This is the document dated 13 July by which you were appointed
5 Chief of Staff; right? You've seen that before? Yes?
6 A. Yes, absolutely. I did see the document. However, this document
7 does not mean that one has actually taken over a duty.
8 MS. PACK: Can we have P03044.
9 Q. This is the document you can see whereby you're appointed as
10 Drina Chief of Staff -- Drina Corps Chief of Staff with effect from the
11 15th of July, 1995, you can see that at the bottom, "appointed as of
12 15 July 1992," yes? This is the presidential decree?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Yes?
15 And on the same day your successor was appointed, wasn't he, the
16 successor in the position of commander of the Birac Brigade.
17 MS. PACK: We'll go to the next document, please, 65 ter 25375.
18 Q. This is the document, and you can see it's signed by Minister
19 Milan Ninkovic, dated 14th July 1995, identifies Ljubomir Vlacic as the
20 new commander appointed as of 15 July 1995 to the commander of the
21 1st Birac Infantry Brigade. You'd agree that that's what this document
22 states, wouldn't you?
23 A. Yes, I agree. However, Madam, this doesn't mean that both I and
24 Colonel Vlacic took up duty. First of all, Colonel Vlacic could not have
25 been transferred duty by me when I was in Zepa until the 2nd of July. It
1 was only on the 2nd of July that I arrived in the area of responsibility
2 of the Birac Brigade so it was impossible to do it. Now, between the
3 2nd and the 6th, the transfer of duty took place. In order for one to
4 transfer duties that are this responsible to someone, you need to first
5 inform the future commander of his duties and obligations. When I handed
6 over duty on the 6th, there was a ceremony where General Krstic, as the
7 brigade commander, addressed those present; and it was after that that I
8 officially handed over duty. A decree does not automatically mean that
9 duty was taken up. I could have taken up that duty five months later --
10 Q. You agree, don't you --
11 A. -- and that's a fact.
12 Q. -- that a brigade couldn't have two commanders at the same time?
13 A. The brigade had its commander until the 6th, that was
14 Colonel Andric, and as of the 6th it was Colonel Vlacic. However, what
15 you are unaware of is that as of the 9th of June until the 2nd July I was
16 in the Zepa battle-field and I was being replaced by Lazic Milenko. He
17 was standing in for me. Since Colonel Vlacic was my Chief of Staff and
18 deputy -- was in the area of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
19 Q. Help me with this: You would agree, wouldn't you, that once
20 Vlacic is signing off on command reports and orders as the commander of
21 the Birac Brigade, we can probably draw the conclusion that he was, in
22 fact, working and operating as the commander for the Birac Brigade;
23 right? That he'd taken up his duties; right?
24 A. He took up duty officially on the 6th and he signed document.
25 Previously, he would sign on behalf of the commander or for the
1 commander. I was still the commander but somebody was signing for the
2 commander or on behalf of the commander.
3 MS. PACK: 65 ter 25403, please.
4 Q. Help me with this document, please. It's dated the 22nd of July.
5 It's from the commander, 1st Birac Infantry Brigade and it's signed --
6 type-signed Lieutenant-Colonel Ljubomir Vlacic, 22nd July.
7 A. Yes, I can see that. Since I was absent, that's the
8 22nd of July, I was absent at the time and he could not have signed it as
9 commander. I don't think there is his signature here. It must have been
10 some of his desk officers who wrote it, it's a regular combat report, and
11 you would have duty officers who would automatically write him down as
12 commander on the basis of information they had but he wasn't. In order
13 to clarify this quandary, if I may ask you to take the statement by the
14 brigade commander and by the assistant for mobilisation and organisation
15 affairs, this statement was certified --
16 Q. Let -- let me just deal --
17 A. -- and handed over to the court. Yes, go ahead.
18 Q. -- with something else.
19 A. Yes, go ahead.
20 MS. PACK: 65 ter 25404, please.
21 JUDGE KWON: [Microphone not activated].
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
23 JUDGE KWON: General Andric --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE KWON: -- if your explanation is a correct one, this
1 document has something wrong. According to your explanation, your name
2 should have appeared and Mr. Vlacic should have signed it for you. Is
3 that correct?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] However, Mr. President,
7 Colonel Vlacic wasn't at the brigade at the time either. He was engaged
8 in combat of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and Colonel Lazic was standing
9 in for him. Did he put it automatically? I'm telling you under full
10 responsibility that a decree does not automatically mean transfer of duty
11 and that I handed over my duty on the 6th of August and received my
12 duties at the Drina Corps on the 9th of August, and there are documents
13 issued by senior levels that attest to that.
14 MS. PACK: May I have 65 ter 25403 admitted, first, before I go
15 on to the next document.
16 JUDGE KWON: Could you identify the 65 ter numbers that you are
18 MS. PACK: It's 65 ter 25403, the one that I've just referred to.
19 JUDGE KWON: Only --
20 MS. PACK: And if I can also have admitted -- I previously
21 referred to the interview, to three pages in that interview, 65 ter
22 25369, which I read, and it was pages 9 to 11 of the English. I'd ask
23 also just while I'm dealing with admission to have those three pages
25 JUDGE KWON: And you're not tendering the other two documents?
1 MS. PACK: The other two documents are already exhibited, P03044
2 is already admitted in evidence as is the prior --
3 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
4 MS. PACK: -- document.
5 JUDGE KWON: I was referring to 65 ter 2604.
6 MS. PACK: Yes, I'd like to have admitted, please, 25369, just
7 the three pages; 25375, which is the document appointing Vlacic to the
8 position of commander; and 25403, which is the document I've just shown
9 the witness.
10 JUDGE KWON: Any objection?
11 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President. And we would appreciate it if
12 these documents could be tendered at the time --
13 MS. PACK: [Overlapping speakers] ... absolutely, my apology to
14 Mr. Robinson.
15 Let me --
16 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. We'll admit those three documents.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibits P6452 through to Exhibits P6454
18 respectively, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask the Prosecution kindly,
21 do they have this telegram in written form? It's a telegram you cannot
22 see the signature. Perhaps there is an original document with the
24 MS. PACK: I'm not sure which document -- to which document
25 Dr. Karadzic is referring. 25403, which I've just admitted, I'm using
1 the best document that the Prosecution has.
2 If I can go to the next document in this chain it's 65 ter 25407,
3 please -- I'm sorry, my apologies. 25404. Now, I'm afraid I've only got
4 this in B/C/S at the moment and I would ask that we just look at the
5 B/C/S and obviously we'll arrange for it to be translated.
6 Q. If we can just look, please, just -- you can help us with this.
7 This is a document that's dated, you can at the top, the 25th of July,
8 1995. And if you look, it's an order from the 1st Birac Brigade? Is
9 that right? The 1st Birac Brigade command, yes?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Dated the 25th of July, yes, 1995?
12 A. Yes.
13 MS. PACK: And if we could turn over the page, please.
14 Q. You can see there, can't you, personally signed by the commander,
15 Ljubomir Vlacic?
16 A. Yes, I see it.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. PACK: I'd like to have that document admitted, please.
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6455, Your Honours.
21 MS. PACK: Just --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would just like to add that it's
23 a fact that a signature is there, but someone cannot sign as the brigade
24 commander when the previous brigade commander did not hand-over duty to
25 him. Secondly, I did not see Colonel Vlacic from July 9th until the
1 2nd of August, so when a duty officer hands over duty in an office, he
2 has to do it with a report, not like this. I mean, how can you hand-over
3 duty over the telephone? Then you should ask him why he signed, but I
4 think that duty was handed over the way I said.
5 MS. PACK: Could I have, please --
6 JUDGE KWON: General Andric, is it not by any chance possible
7 that the take-over ceremony could take place as a formality after actual
8 hand-over had taken place?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A ceremony can take place, but the
10 hand-over of duty between two commanders could not be physically carried
11 out. If I was in Srebrenica on the 9th and from the 13th in Zepa, we
12 only saw each other on the 9th or the 2nd. So you cannot hand-over --
13 you're not handing over a file, you're handing over a brigade. So I'm
14 responsibly stating that that was so. As for why he signed documents,
15 that is something that I'm seeing now for the first time.
16 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
17 MS. PACK:
18 Q. You were signing documents, weren't you, as Chief of Staff of the
19 Drina Corps in July; right?
20 A. It's possible.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
23 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that it's not clear in
25 the transcript, just like earlier, instead of "August," July was
1 mentioned. But I will clarify that. However, on page 14, line 24, could
2 we please clarify with the witness what is the ninth month and what is
3 the second month. It was the 2nd of August that was mentioned, but the
4 witness needs to confirm that.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 2nd of August. On the
6 2nd of August, I arrived in the area of responsibility of my brigade.
7 MS. PACK: Yes, I think that's what the witness is saying, so
8 obviously he's just making a mistake.
9 JUDGE KWON: Did you meet Lieutenant-Colonel Vlacic on the
10 9th of July?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I left Lieutenant-Colonel
12 Vlacic on the 9th of July and I went to Srebrenica on the 9th of July, as
13 I said previously, to tour my combat forces. Then on the 9th, according
14 to the -- pursuant to an order of General Krstic, I remained along the
15 axis of attack of my combat group until the 13th, in the morning, in
16 Srebrenica. From the area of Viogor on the 13th, we continued to march
17 towards Zepa. Until the 9th of -- the 2nd of August, 1995, when on the
18 2nd of August, together with my combat group, I arrived at Sekovici and
19 there is a written record of this, a TV video record of this. So this is
20 something that can be documented.
21 MS. PACK: I'd like to clear up this confusion, please. Can we
22 turn to 65 ter 25402. Now, I'm -- I apologise, we don't yet have a
23 translation again of this document, so in B/C/S only.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confers]
25 MS. PACK:
1 Q. Let me just describe it and perhaps you can agree that I'm
2 describing this document correctly --
3 JUDGE KWON: I forgot to note the previous document will also be
4 marked for identification. Let's continue.
5 MS. PACK: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. President.
6 Q. So this document is entitled "Drina Corps command work-plan for
7 August 1995," and you can see that it's dated the 28th of July, 1995.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That's the first page.
11 MS. PACK: Can we please go to the last page, 7.
12 Q. Do you recognise the signature as yours?
13 A. Yes, yes. Could you bring back the second page, please -- the
14 first page, please.
15 Q. I'd ask you just to confirm, this is your signature, yes?
16 A. I confirm.
17 Q. Signed as Chief of Staff, yes?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Drina Corps Chief of Staff?
20 A. Yes, yes, yes. Can I look at the first page, please.
21 MS. PACK: Go back to the first page, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the Drina Corps
23 command work-plan for August 1995, but it's true that I signed it
24 retroactively after I took up that duty because the operations officer
25 made the plan. When I arrived on the 8th, I signed it. I could not have
1 signed it on the 28th because I was in Zepa. In Zepa, no document was
2 signed because there were no conditions for the document to be brought or
3 for it to be drafted. It was during the combat.
4 Q. So your evidence is --
5 A. Before that is the truth.
6 Q. -- that this was signed retroactively, that you wouldn't have
7 signed anything as Drina Corps Chief of Staff until 8th of August; is
8 that right?
9 A. This is the work-plan for the month of August. In view of the
10 fact that the operations officer prepared the plan when I came -- which
11 should have been signed by the Chief of Staff, Krstic was the Chief of
12 Staff at the time, somebody was supposed to sign it, I signed that plan
13 when I came. That is the monthly work-plan, no order. It's just the
14 work-plan of the Drina Corps command. It's an unimportant, insignificant
15 document in terms of the operation for Srebrenica and Zepa --
16 Q. So you wouldn't --
17 A. -- it's not important.
18 Q. You wouldn't have signed anything until the 8th of August, is
19 that right, when you say that you were appointed Chief of Staff; yes?
20 A. I don't know what you are asking of me, and I'm saying again I
21 was the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps from the 8th of August on and I
22 signed this plan here. Probably I don't remember. It was probably done
23 retroactively. In view of the fact that it's a monthly work-plan, it has
24 no significance. You're trying to convince me the whole time. I'm
25 responsibly telling you when I took up that duty. You cannot take up
1 duty in a forest, I mean without any record, without anything like that.
2 I mean, you're trying to convince me about something that is pointless.
3 MS. PACK: I'd like to have that document admitted, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: We'll mark it for identification --
5 MS. PACK: Thank you. And if we can [overlapping speakers] --
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
7 THE REGISTRAR: As MFI P6456, Your Honours.
8 MS. PACK: Thank you. And one last document, please,
9 65 ter 25405.
10 Q. We'll deal with this quickly. Dated the 3rd of August, prior to
11 the date upon which you say you were appointed, type-signed by you, Chief
12 of Staff Drina Corps command, and it's an order, yes? If we turn over
13 the second page in the English we can see the signature. Agreed?
14 A. I can see that this is the communications organisation and order
15 of the newly formed Drina Brigade, Drina Corps command. This is a
16 document to organise the communications.
17 MS. PACK: I'd like to have that admitted, please.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6457, Your Honours.
20 MS. PACK:
21 Q. Do you still maintain your denial, General Andric, that you
22 weren't appointed to the Drina Corps position of Chief of Staff of the
23 Drina Corps until August 8th, that you didn't take up duties in July?
24 A. No, I assert that I did not take up my duty then but that I took
25 it up on the 8th of August. And I want to show you the whole time a
1 document, a statement by the assistant for organisation and mobilisation
2 who was responsible and he prepared this, signed it before the court,
3 that that was when I took it up. It's possible that I appeared in the
4 Drina Corps later but not officially.
5 Q. We're going to move on. You have told us in your statement - and
6 let me just remind you of the paragraph, 29 - you have told us, and I can
7 summarise what you say, that nobody obstructed Hague Tribunal
8 investigators in the zone of the Drina Corps in their investigation -- in
9 their investigations, for which you were personally thanked. That's what
10 you tell us at paragraph 29 of your statement?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Your evidence is that you would not personally obstruct
13 investigations by the Office of the Prosecutor, is it? Is that your
15 A. I was three times in the offices of The Hague Tribunal when
16 summoned but also when my father died I went even then. And the
17 investigators were very grateful because I did respond. They came
18 numerous times to the corps command area of responsibility while I was
19 the corps commander. I always received them. So it's possible that
20 sometimes I did not, but for the most part I did.
21 Q. You had three meetings in 1999 to 2000, early 2000, with
22 Momir Nikolic and others. Do you recall that?
23 A. With Momir Nikolic? I met with quite a number of commanding
24 officers, in view of the fact that the corps area of responsibility was
25 quite large and there was a series of units in the area of
1 responsibility. So whether I met with somebody two, three, four times,
2 once or three or four times, I don't know.
3 MS. PACK: Can I have, please, 65 ter 22350 and it's the last
4 page, please, in the English and also in the B/C/S.
5 Q. I want to remind you of meetings you had with Momir Nikolic in
6 December 1999/early 2000. This is what he says. I'll read it.
7 "I was summoned to an interview by the ICTY in December 1999.
8 Just prior to attending this interview, I was called to a meeting at the
9 Zvornik Brigade Headquarters. I met General Andric, Dragan Jokic,
10 Lazar Ostojic, Dragan Jevtic, and General Miletic there. There were also
11 some civilian lawyers from Belgrade present.
12 "The lawyers instructed us on our legal rights. General Miletic
13 appealed to our patriotism and asked us not to divulge information which
14 would damage the state, and General Andric said we should say as little
15 as possible. After my meeting with the ICTY, I met again with
16 General Andric. The topic of the conversation was the same and he wanted
17 to know if I had spoken about the killings to the ICTY. I was also
18 visited by State Security just prior to my meeting with the ICTY, and was
19 threatened that I should not speak of their involvement.
20 "Several months after the first meeting, I attended again a
21 similar meeting that was held again in the Zvornik Brigade headquarters,
22 with the same individuals including, I think, Dragan Obrenovic, who had
23 been recently summonsed by the ICTY. General Miletic and Andric again
24 told us not to provide any information related to the Srebrenica events
25 to the ICTY."
1 You accept that you told Momir Nikolic and others not to provide
2 any information related to the Srebrenica events to ICTY?
3 A. No, quite the contrary. I received a document from the Chief of
4 the General Staff to help all of those people who were in any way
5 suspected or were witnesses. And primarily the aid was in the financial
6 sense, material sense, particularly when I asked him and when I told him
7 not to talk about the killing, how could I say that to him when I did not
8 even have information about that. Therefore, that is not true.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the Prosecutor please explain
10 the context in which this document was obtained from Nikolic. Was that
11 in the context of the plea agreement --
12 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, that's improper intervention.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that --
14 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic, you can take that up in your
15 re-examination, if necessary.
16 MS. PACK:
17 Q. Let me show you the first page, please, of this.
18 MS. PACK: Can we look at page 1.
19 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, just for information, this is
20 Exhibit D02081.
21 MS. PACK: Thank you. This is a statement of facts and
22 acceptance of responsibility of Momir Nikolic.
23 Q. Now, this set of meetings, General, this set of meetings and what
24 you said to Momir Nikolic, this reflects, doesn't it, your approach in
25 your dealings with the Office of the Prosecutor, doesn't it? Your
1 approach is to say as little as possible, isn't it?
2 A. No, no, that is not true. Quite the contrary. I had a
3 completely different position, that everyone should be held responsible
4 for what they did. I never was in favour of concealing people who
5 inflicted harm, not only to the Muslim population but also who harmed the
6 reputation of their own Serbian people. So that was not my objective.
7 My objective was to provide material assistance pursuant to an order
8 received from the superior command and also professional assistance if
9 necessary. I think that there was one meeting. I don't recall --
10 Q. Your interest --
11 A. -- any others.
12 Q. -- was to inhibit the investigation of these Srebrenica events,
13 wasn't it?
14 A. No, no. That was never my goal. I wouldn't have responded to
15 the summons three times, and as commander of the corps, I would not have
16 ordered all of my senior officers to respond also.
17 Q. Your interest has been to lie to the Office of the Prosecutor,
18 hasn't it?
19 A. No. Why would I lie.
20 Q. Let's go to Zvornik and Vlasenica, please, in 1992. You tell us
21 in your statement that Zvornik municipality was in the zone of
22 responsibility of your brigade from its establishment until the
23 2nd of June, 1992, and that Vlasenica municipality remained in your zone
24 of responsibility until 16th January 1993. And I'm just summarising your
25 statement at paragraph 2; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You were effective, weren't you, in Zvornik?
3 A. Effective, what does that mean?
4 Q. Well, let's see what you achieved.
5 MS. PACK: Can we look at P03055.
6 Q. This is the order you refer to in your witness statement that you
7 say wasn't implemented. It's dated the 28th of May, 1992. And you'd
8 agree that it's signed by you; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And let us just read what you order at paragraph 6.
11 "The moving out of the Muslim population must be organised and
12 co-ordinated with the municipalities through which the moving is carried
13 out. Only women and children can move out, while men fit for military
14 service are to be placed in camps for exchange."
15 This is your order, yes?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You didn't issue an order revoking this order? No?
18 A. I issued this order on the 28th of May, when Muslim forces from
19 Kalesija were attacking along the Tuzla-Zvornik axis. So I was in the
20 middle of combat, but that is not reason for me to justify myself, quite
21 the contrary. This order or, better said, information was given to the
22 TO staff in Zvornik for the reason that the TO staff commander did not
23 act pursuant to the order of the 15th of May, 1992, which was an order
24 for defence signed by lieutenant -- by Colonel Tacic. Because he did not
25 place his units under the command of the Birac Brigade. He used the same
1 units wilfully. In order to prevent this wilful conduct, uncontrolled
2 taking of prisoners and so on, I wrote this order because I received
3 certain information before that from people from Zvornik that there were
4 several paramilitary formations there and that they were committing some
5 improper things. They were --
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
7 A. -- bringing prisoners out without a judgement and they were
8 liquidating them. But on the 31st, I issued an order in view of the fact
9 that the TO staff did not want to subordinate and place itself under my
10 command. On the 31st, I issued an order of a request nature, where I was
11 asking for the command of the TO staff in Zvornik to participate in
12 co-ordinated action on the Tuzla-Zvornik axis, to send their operative
13 officer in order to organise this co-ordinated action, which means that
14 this order of mine from the 31st proves that this order of the
15 28th of May was not implemented or carried out --
16 Q. Yes. You've addressed --
17 A. -- that much.
18 Q. -- this theory in your statement. Let me just ask you this,
19 you --
20 A. Absolutely. Go ahead, yes.
21 Q. You're aware, aren't you, that within days of your order, between
22 4- and 5.000 Muslim men, women, and children were forced out of the
23 municipality, loaded onto buses at Djulici by soldiers from various VRS
24 companies and police working together. You're aware of that, yes?
25 A. I'm not aware of that. However, I received information and
1 that's why I issued the order. That's why I issued the second order as
2 well. It is pointless for me to go on explaining. I could go on
3 explaining for two days, but it would still be pointless. The TO staff
4 command did not obey my order. They were not under my subordination.
5 This was stated by the TO staff commander and the president of the
6 Serbian municipality of Zvornik at the special court for war crimes in
7 Belgrade where they were on trial. I appeared there as a witness and I
8 asked them and they confirmed that they never took my order into account.
9 They never obeyed my command. I don't know whether this suffices at all.
10 Q. Djulici was in your zone of responsibility before the
11 2nd of June? Yes? Yes?
12 A. No. Again, for an umpteenth time I am telling you that the
13 TO staff and its command and the 6th Infantry Battalion were not placed
14 under my command. I was not in command of those units at all.
15 Q. You -- let me just tell you what else happened Djulici on -- this
16 is on the 1st of June. Over 700 men, over the age of 16, men, as you
17 say -- wait a second -- men as you describe at paragraph 6 of your order,
18 men who were fit for military service, they were separated from the women
19 and children and they were taken to Karakaj technical school, where they
20 were guarded by soldiers from the Karakaj Company. You're aware of that?
21 A. No. I don't know why you are asking me about that again and
22 again. I told you to go to the statements from the special court in
23 Belgrade, where both the TO staff commander and the commander of the
24 6th Infantry Battalion stated they were not under my command at all. I'm
25 not saying that I didn't sign the order and I can explain why I did it,
1 but, again, it's totally pointless.
2 MS. PACK: Let's go to P3237, please.
3 Q. You'll be familiar with this document. It's from the command of
4 the Eastern Bosnia Corps, your then corps command, and it's dated the
5 7th of June, 1992, addressed to the Main Staff. Let me just ask,
6 please --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Yes?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10 MS. PACK: And in the English, can I ask, please, that we go to
11 the second page. We can stay on the same page in the B/C/S.
12 Q. And in this report, the Eastern Bosnia Corps in -- on the
13 7th June 1992 is reporting in paragraph 8:
14 "In the area of Zvornik we have around 500 prisoners, and in the
15 area of Vlasenica around 800."
16 Now, it's right, isn't it, that those 500 prisoners are the
17 prisoners at Karakaj technical school, and the 800, the prisoners at
18 Susica camp which you set up, yes?
19 A. You have to ask the commander of the Zvornik Brigade,
20 Mr. Colonel Blagojevic, about that. When it comes to Susica, I believe
21 that there were prisoners, but I believe that there were about 650 of
22 them. Because on the 17th of June, and even before that on the 6th, I
23 drafted a letter which was to be sent to the command of the East Bosnia
24 Corps to deal with the prisoners. And then on the 17th of June, again
25 the commander of the Main Staff ordered that the prisoners should be
1 transferred to Batkovic camp, in Bijeljina, that is.
2 Q. Yes, we'll come back to Susica.
3 MS. PACK: I'd ask for P05400, please.
4 Q. You can see it's another order of the 7th June 1992 --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- from the command of the Eastern Bosnia Corps.
7 A. Yes. Yes, I can see that.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MS. PACK: I'd ask to go to the page 4 in the English, page 3 in
10 the B/C/S.
11 Q. And I'd ask you to look, please, at paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8.
12 Let's look at paragraph 5.8. Paragraph 5.7 orders that the Zvornik
13 Brigade continue their ciscenje operations and ensure traffic flow
14 through the Drina River valley. And you at paragraph 5.8, you, the
15 Birac Brigade, same thing at the end there.
16 "At the same time, carry out ciscenje, /mopping up or cleansing/,
17 operations and ensure traffic flow in Drina River valley ..."
18 That's describing ethnic cleansing, isn't it?
19 A. We're talking about the Zvornik Brigade, not about Birac Brigade;
21 Q. Well, look -- look at paragraph 5.8, please.
22 A. Yes, the same thing.
23 Q. It's describing ethnic cleansing, yes?
24 A. No, not ethnic cleansing. No. It's the mopping up of the
25 territory to deal with paramilitary formations, both on the Muslim side
1 as well as on the Serbian side. We had a problem with paramilitary
2 formations in Zvornik. The situation was such that we had to clash with
3 them, and that applied to certain armed groups on the side of the Muslim
4 Crisis Staffs and local units as well.
5 Q. Well, let's sit and look at the areas where you were operating.
6 MS. PACK: 65 ter 24560, please.
7 Q. In October - we'll have this document up in moment - in
8 October 1993, which is this document here, you gave a report of your
9 brigade's activities since its establishment and that's what this
10 document represents, doesn't it, dated the 30th of October, 1993, from
11 the command of the 1st Birac Infantry Brigade. Yeah? Yes?
12 MS. PACK: I'd like to focus on Vlasenica municipality. So if we
13 look at page 3 of the English and B/C/S page 3, just at the bottom of the
14 English, bottom two paragraphs in the English. Thank you. And in the
15 B/C/S, it's also the bottom three paragraphs in the B/C/S. It says:
16 "The liberation of the town of Vlasenica on the 21st of April,
17 1992, saw the start of the combat operations from that area and so in
18 May 1992, we reached the line: Drum - Kula - Jaroblje, this from
19 Piskavica via Alihodzic, Urici and Mesici.
20 "In June 1992 we went further on: Dzemat, Begici, Kuljancici, so
21 that on the 2nd June 1992, having started from Gradina and going via
22 Hrastovac - Pijuk and Jasikovice, we reached the Grobic-Potajnik line.
23 Constant enemy assaults only serve to speed up," and over the page,
24 please in the English, "the shift of our forces forward. By the
25 4th July, our forces were already along the line the villages of
1 Becirevici - Rogosija - Jasikovac - Potajnik."
2 And if we jump forward, please, to in the English page 7, B/C/S
3 page 7, you describe the areas you liberated in Vlasenica. At the bottom
4 of the English, bottom two -- last-but-one bullet point, "in the
5 territory of the municipality of Vlasenica ..." and in the B/C/S it's the
6 second paragraph. Let me read it.
7 "In the territory of the municipality of Vlasenica, a number of
8 villages were liberated: Piskavica, Alihodzic, Urici, Mesici ..." it
9 goes on. The Gradina feature, and so on, I don't need to read it all out
10 to you. You can see that.
11 These are areas in which units under your command, within your
12 zone of responsibility, were involved in operations, is that right, in
13 1992? Yes?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And what this meant, liberating these areas, this meant cleansing
16 these areas of Muslims; right?
17 A. No, no. You have to go back to the period of the month of April.
18 Up to the 19th of April, that is. Up to then there was practically no
19 Muslim population in Vlasenica. On the 18th of April, the last official
20 of the Muslim authorities, Izet Redzic accompanied by the president of
21 the Crisis Staff, Mr. Stanic, at his own request was transferred to the
22 territory under the Muslim control. This means that departures were
23 organised throughout the month of April. These villages here that are
24 mentioned in this document, that was a festive moment when the brigade
25 celebrated its anniversary and those villages were in the hands of the
1 enemy, not of the civilian population. The enemy was armed. They had
2 caused a lot of problems, they had inflicted a lot of casualties, and at
3 that time there was an ongoing struggle between the two enemy forces.
4 Q. Let me just --
5 A. Let me remind you --
6 Q. Let me ask you some questions about these villages. Drum?
7 A. Go on.
8 Q. The evidence in this case is that on the 2nd of June, over
9 20 male Muslim villagers were executed in Drum by soldiers. You're aware
10 of that; right?
11 A. No, I am not aware of that.
12 Q. Soldiers who were supported by an APC. Didn't hear about this
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get the reference?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you, the area of
16 responsibility of the Birac Brigade during that period of time comprised
17 seven municipalities. The battalions within those municipalities were
18 independent, which means that my battalion commander was fighting on the
19 Vlasenica-Cerska axis. I believe that that was the 5th Battalion. The
20 1st Battalion was engaged on the Tuzla-Zvornik axis. The 3rd Battalion
21 was engaged on the Sekovici-Kladanj axis. Therefore -- or the
22 Skelani Battalion was engaged in Skelani. I'm reading this the same way
23 you are, and believe me, I don't remember this. I did not participate in
24 all that, but I'm sure that some of my battalion commanders did. I --
25 Q. Did what --
1 A. -- can't remember --
2 Q. -- did execute Muslim villagers? Is that what you're saying?
3 A. No, no, no. In the liberation thereof.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we get the reference?
5 MS. PACK: Yes, KD --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What is implied under the term
7 "execution," and can we get the reference as to where it says that those
8 were executions?
9 MS. PACK: I'll provide the references. KDZ603, statement
10 exhibited as P03262 at paragraphs 7 to 23. See also KDZ230. Also
11 Defence witness Mane Djuric, testimony on the 7th of March, T 34970.
12 Those are my references. Thank you.
13 Q. Gradina, another village that you liberated. The evidence in
14 this case is that Muslims in the Gradina operations --
15 A. And what was the date of that? Give me the date?
16 Q. Let me ask the question. Muslims in the --
17 A. Well, you said -- I can't talk about things without being aware
18 of the date. I have to focus on my answer, but I have to be aware of the
20 Q. Muslims in the Gradina operations in June 1992 were rounded up
21 and detained, their houses were burned and other villages were burned.
22 That's the evidence is the case. Reference KDZ033 statement, P03227,
23 paras 38 to 43.
24 Are you aware of those operations?
25 A. No, and I believe that the army did not participate in those
2 Q. By the end of 1992 you'd been very effective in Vlasenica
3 municipality, hadn't you, General? You'd cleared the territory,
4 virtually all of it, with the exception of this Cerska enclave, of
5 Muslims; right?
6 A. You said, "General, you were effective," but I can tell you that
7 I was not actually. If you analyse the situation and if we go back to
8 that period, you will see that there were no generals there and that the
9 army or the battalion, rather, did not participate in that. If my memory
10 serves me right, I have information about Gradina, according to which
11 special units or some other TO units were involved in that. No battalion
12 of the Birac Brigade was involved in those operations.
13 Q. This was your zone of responsibility, right?
14 A. I agree that that was my area of responsibility; however, in
15 principle, an area of responsibility of a brigade is 10 to 15 kilometres
16 normally, but my zone -- area of responsibility was 160-kilometres wide.
17 That was the core zone or the core area. I don't know which brigade
18 would have been able to control such an area of responsibility. If I'd
19 been able to do that, I'm sure that military experts would think that I
20 was a Napoleon no less.
21 Q. And you were reporting to your corps on liberating these areas
22 and you well knew, didn't you, you well knew, well understood the aim of
23 the operations that you were carrying out in your zone of
24 responsibility --
25 A. No, no.
1 Q. -- to conquer and clear that territory of Muslims; right?
2 A. No, no. I believe that this was a speech which was delivered on
3 the anniversary of the brigade. When you deliver a speech of that kind,
4 you want to mobilise your fighters, and you receive information from your
5 subordinate battalion commands as to what they'd done. The operative
6 drafts a speech, and such a speech has to be delivered when things are
7 celebrated. Then you try to raise the morale of their fighters to help
8 them persevere in their struggle.
9 MS. PACK: Let's deal with this document by document. I'd ask
10 for this document to be admitted in evidence, please.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6458, Your Honours.
13 MS. PACK:
14 Q. And you know and I know that you're referring to the transcript
15 of your speech, 1D09090 - if we could have that up - that you refer to in
16 your witness -- that's exhibited with your witness statement. Let's just
17 look at that speech.
18 MS. PACK: We don't need to look at the first page in English.
19 If we can look at the second page in the English, please, and the second
20 page in B/C/S. It's just the transcript. Second page, please.
21 Q. This is what you say, your speech in Milici:
22 "My favourite applause will be when the Serbian Bosnia is free
23 and it will be when we are all equally involved in that struggle, the
24 Serbian history will show that I can tell you that never" --
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
1 MS. PACK: [Overlapping speakers] --
2 JUDGE KWON: Do we have an English translation?
3 MS. PACK: Oh, my apology. I thought it had come up. Yes, there
4 should be one. It's certainly been uploaded because it was provided to
5 us by the Defence. And could we have the second page, please, in both.
6 Thank you. And it's the last paragraph we want to look at. Thank you.
7 "My favourite applause will be when the Serbian Bosnia is free
8 and it will be when we are all equally involved in that struggle, the
9 Serbian history will show, but I can tell you that never in the Serbian
10 history we had such a chance to win. This brigade holds 70 per cent of
11 the territory of SAO Birac compared to the 30 per cent that the enemy
12 holds. According to that, just a little effort is needed to retain those
13 areas and to conquer more, then the President Karadzic can go peacefully
14 to the conference. Otherwise, if we allow the enemy today, tomorrow,
15 until 26th, 27th, to perform what is intended, then I fear that we will
16 allow them to meet its objective. That is why I call you all once
17 more ..."
18 You well understood the aim of the operations that you were
19 carrying out, didn't you, to conquer and clear that territory of Muslims;
20 isn't that right?
21 A. Well, you are actually twisting things. This speech was a
22 consequence of the attack of the 28th Division on the Serbian village of
23 Podravanje. On the 24th, 33 civilians were killed on that occasion,
24 40 went missing, 90 were expelled. The village of Milici and the bauxite
25 mine were under threat. They were of vital significance for
1 Republika Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. I returned and I
2 asked the representatives of the radio to organise a rally, where I was
3 to appeal to all able-bodied men to come to the front line. And if you
4 listen to the recording of that speech, there were women and children
5 there and I was begging them to appeal to their parents to defend Milici
6 and Republika Srpska.
7 Therefore, who was engaged in operations here? On the 25th, the
8 situation was as it was. The morale was low, there were a lot of
9 casualties. I gathered as many people as I could, even the oldest ones
10 who were not able-bodied, and I set out to try and break through in order
11 to protect villages from Derventa to the bauxite mine. On the 25th,
12 luckily enough, we managed to suppress the enemy although they had
13 inflicted a lot of casualties.
14 What would you expect me to say at that rally? What would you
15 expect, to praise Naser Oric? Of course not. I couldn't after so many
16 casualties and those were not the only casualties. 3 .200 men and about
17 500 women and children had been killed by the 28th Division, and now you
18 expect me to watch calmly when my fighters and civilians were being
19 killed. This was a speech aimed at mobilising all able-bodied men. On
20 the 26th, in the territory of Vlasenica, the same division attacked from
21 the territory of Rogosija and killed 28 new people so there --
22 Q. Pause a moment, please --
23 A. Please wait. 60 people were killed over the period of two days.
24 What was I supposed to do? Applaud? I couldn't applaud.
25 Q. Let's focus on Vlasenica municipality.
1 MS. PACK: Can we have 65 ter 19119, please. I just want to
2 locate a few places on the map. This is the map book. I don't know if
3 Your Honours have it with you. It's at page 50 of the hard copy of the
4 map book. And the 65 ter 19119, if we can have that on the screen. It's
5 just a single map of Vlasenica municipality.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Ms. Pack, 19119 has yet to be released.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 MS. PACK: My apologies --
10 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, line 18, page 35, there
12 is something unclear. The witness's answer was interrupted. Maybe it
13 would be good if the witness was allowed to finish his sentence.
14 JUDGE KWON: I think we can go on.
15 MS. PACK: I'm afraid it's going to have to be enlarged a bit. I
16 hope it shows it better on the screen. Perhaps it can be enlarged just
17 so the surrounding areas are removed. Thank you.
18 Q. Now, the key -- we can see the key in a moment just so we can get
19 the distances right. Now, this is a map you'd recognise of Vlasenica
20 municipality. Now, the place names are in English but I can read them
21 out to you. You see where the red dot is on the left is Drum village.
22 And just below that with the orange triangle, Susica camp. You see those
23 locations? And if you move to the right, you can see Milici. Yes?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if we go upwards -- upwards from Milici we can see at the top
1 of the page Cerska, yes?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if we go back towards the centre, we can see Gradina?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. PACK: And if we can just zoom out again, just to get the
6 whole of the map.
7 Q. At the top of the page there, right at the top centre, village
8 Gobilje, you see at the top, above Cerska? Just have a look.
9 A. This is Cerska.
10 Q. Just above that, Gobilje, yes?
11 A. Yes, yes, Gobilje.
12 MS. PACK: And then finally if we can zoom out and just look at
13 the key.
14 Q. You can see the key there. 0 to 20 kilometres, that's the
15 distance represented by the line at the bottom left; can you see that?
16 So you can help us with the distance --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- the distance from, let's say, Susica camp to Milici, what is
19 about 10, 15 -- 15 kilometres? You're a better judge than me.
20 A. Roughly 15 kilometres.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. PACK: Could I have that map admitted, please?
23 JUDGE KWON: Is this not part of evidence that we have already
25 MS. PACK: I understand that the map book hasn't been admitted in
1 its entirety, although Your Honours do have it. So each individual map
2 is admitted as we go along, and this one hasn't yet been admitted as I
3 understand it.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well, we'll admit it.
5 MS. PACK: I'm grateful.
6 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P6459, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a break if it is convenient?
8 MS. PACK: Yes, it is. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll have a break for half an hour and resume at
11 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue, Ms. Pack.
14 MS. PACK: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. We just, before we broke, we were looking at a map of Vlasenica
16 municipality. Vlasenica Battalion was under your command; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. The security officer of the Vlasenica Battalion, Captain
19 Risto Vidovic was under your command; right?
20 A. He was under the command of the battalion commander.
21 Q. Major --
22 A. Professionally under the command of the chief of security of the
24 Q. Major Mile Jacimovic was the commander of the Vlasenica
25 Battalion. He was under your command; right?
1 A. Yes, he was.
2 MS. PACK: Can I have P03240? Now, do we also have -- we have it
3 also in English, I believe.
4 Q. This is the order, isn't it, by which you set up Susica camp,
6 A. This order does bear my signature; however, it was not pursuant
7 to this order that I established the camp. If you want an explanation, I
8 can give one.
9 Q. Paragraph 1 of this order states:
10 "Set up a camp in Vlasenica ..."
11 Is that Susica camp?
12 A. Yes, it was Susica camp; however, go back to the heading. The
13 command of the brigade of the Serbian Army Birac. The date,
14 31st May 1992. What does it state in the heading? Security for
15 prisoners, order. I suppose you would have instead here the
16 establishment of camp because first you have to establish something in
17 order to provide security for it. To organise a camp does not equal
18 establish a camp. Organise a camp means organise order, law and order,
19 discipline, whereas setting up, establishing, is when you are forming it.
20 In other words, this order does not relate to the establishment of a
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And it is in that sense that the
23 English translation is wrong.
24 MS. PACK:
25 Q. This is an order, isn't it?
1 A. I told you that it is an order that I signed; however, we -- you
2 fail to understand what organise -- organising means and what
3 establishing means.
4 MS. PACK: Let's go to P03220, please.
5 Q. This is another document which relates to the camp which you set
6 up, Susica. It's dated the 14th of June, 1992. Paragraph 2 we can see
7 indicates that there are 640 prisoners in the camp; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. There were men, women, and children?
10 A. I don't know the composition.
11 Q. You don't know the composition of the camp that you set up, that
12 you're reporting on the numbers of prisoners held in it?
13 A. We're going back to the same issue. I didn't establish the camp.
14 I organised it. Let me explain this for Mr. President here. The camp
15 came into being as a result of the circumstances prevailing, especially
16 in Zvornik, where there were paramilitary formations which arbitrarily
17 took up people such as in Celopek out of schools, work-places, executed,
18 et cetera.
19 According to the information I received, it became clear to me
20 that I had to issue an order to organise the camp and primarily to
21 secure -- to provide for its security, and it was to that effect that I
22 instructed the commander that a POW camp should be set up. The commander
23 made an assessment of it, designated the organs that would be in charge
24 with maintaining law and order in the camp.
25 Now, the brigade command or the battalion command would not be
1 the ones to set up camp. They would designate the areas where people
2 would be assembled pursuant to an order, whereas a camp would be set up
3 pursuant to an instruction from the corps. So as a result of this order,
4 the POWs should be transferred as soon as possible from the areas of
5 combat, in the process they should be disarmed and seized of certain
6 items, to the areas where they would be assembled. And then after they
7 are registered and categorised, they would be transferred to a camp,
8 which is at the level of the corps.
9 So my requests vis-à-vis the superior command - there was several
10 of them - I remember one of the 17th of June where I informed the
11 superior command that we had I think 650 prisoners and that I asked that
12 the matter be resolved as a matter of urgency. Based on my request, the
13 commander of the Main Staff ordered the command of the East Bosnia Corps
14 that the matter be resolved. Fortunately for me, in late June,
15 400 persons were taken to a camp at the level of the command of the
16 East Bosnia Corps.
17 Q. Let's go back to the order, please, the order by which you set up
18 the camp, P03240.
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: Why don't you use the -- to organise --
21 MS. PACK: To organise the camp [overlapping speakers] ...
22 JUDGE KWON: -- given his interpretation or testimony.
23 MS. PACK:
24 Q. Can we please clarify. By "prisoners of war," are you including
25 within that language women and children?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Just let --
3 A. Let me explain this to you so that there should be no dilemma
4 about it. The word "organise" ended up here for the reason that there
5 was a reception centre in Vlasenica in the month of April, not only for
6 the Muslims but for the Serbs as well who had left Gorazde, Tuzla,
7 Kladanj because they were expelled to the municipality of Vlasenica and
8 other municipalities. There were some 3- to 4.000 of them. Now, because
9 it was impossible to put them up in homes, the Vlasenica Crisis Staff
10 decided that they should spend several days there whereupon they would be
11 sent to Serbia and to other municipalities. In addition, not only men
12 but also women and children were put up there who, after the 21st, when
13 the Crisis Staff took up authority, when in a way the TO was established,
14 because they were fearful for their security they asked that the
15 president of the Crisis Staff should provide safe accommodation for --
16 Q. Wait a moment, please --
17 A. -- 24 hours before their transfer to Kladanj and elsewhere be
18 arranged. I will wait.
19 Q. Are you now saying that this camp is a reception centre? Is that
20 your evidence?
21 A. This camp was a reception centre in the month of April,
22 practically until my order was issued.
23 Q. Can we look, please, at paragraph 3 of your order.
24 "The security organ of the battalion in Vlasenica shall conduct
25 operative interviews and shall submit all useful information for control
1 and command to the Birac SV Brigade ..."
2 That's something else that you ordered on the 31st of May; right?
3 A. Absolutely. This because among prisoners there were armed
4 fighters, unit commanders who had committed criminal offences against the
5 Serb population, and of course the security organ had to send relevant
6 information to the battalion commander and the brigade commander, that's
7 to say me, on the basis of these interviews.
8 Q. So you'd accept then, wouldn't you, that members of the -- of
9 your brigade and the Vlasenica Battalion took Susica camp detainees away
10 for interrogation, took them out of the camp, yes?
11 A. I do accept that the chief of security of the battalion took out
12 individuals - and that wasn't often - singled out those individuals who
13 were relevant for security issues. However, those same persons were
14 taken back. There is no evidence to the effect that this person did not
15 take back to the camp the Muslim or the prisoner of war he had initially
16 taken out.
17 Q. The evidence in this case is also that women were removed from
18 the camp and raped. Are you aware of that?
19 A. No, I wasn't aware of it. Let me tell you right away, the
20 brigade command - I'm going back to the heading here - had the task of
21 securing prisoners, that's to say the camp itself. The camp wasn't
22 intended only for the POWs but also for storing material and technical
23 equipment. In military professional terminology, a camp is an area where
24 quarters are organised for troops and for storing materiel and military
25 equipment. A camp doesn't have any specific connotation for anyone. You
1 have "camping" arising out of the word "camp." Mobile and immobile
2 camping. So what we have here is a reception centre, a storage centre
3 for materiel and military equipment, and POWs all at once.
4 Q. Is it your evidence --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Line 16 misses the -- the word
8 "connotation" misses negative, there is no negative connotation.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
11 MS. PACK:
12 Q. Is it your evidence that your only concern for POWs, detainees in
13 the camp at Susica and in other detention facilities in Vlasenica, your
14 only concern was for their welfare; is that your evidence?
15 A. No. I didn't have time to take care of it because of the area of
16 responsibility. As far as the brigade command is concerned, it issued a
17 task to the battalion to provide for the entire camp compound, not just
18 that, for the POWs to make an assessment and that was the role the army
19 had to play. If you see who the commander of the camp was, who the
20 deputy was, who was in charge of security, you will see that it wasn't
21 the army that was involved in it.
22 Q. Let me ask you about another facility in Vlasenica.
23 MS. PACK: I'd like to go into private session, if I may.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 [Private session]
11 Pages 41687-41688 redacted. Private session.
16 [Open session]
17 MS. PACK:
18 Q. This is what this individual says. I'll read it slowly.
19 "During his inspection, Andric approached me."
20 I'll just go to the next paragraph.
21 "Svetozar Andric approached me, pointed with his finger at me and
22 said, 'Why are you so sad'" --
23 JUDGE KWON: Next page for the interpreters.
24 MS. PACK: Page 4 of the statement in e-court, please. I'm
25 reading from paragraph 19 now.
1 Q. Paragraph 19, and it's going to go all the way down the page.
2 "I replied: 'Comrade Major, I am not sad, I am sick.'
3 "He said: 'I am asking you for a second time: Why are you sad?
4 You are the saddest person here.'
5 "I replied again: 'Comrade Major, I am not sad. I am sick.'
6 "He then asked if someone had beaten us. I told him that nobody
7 had even touched us. Yet I was fully covered in blood-stains, due to the
8 wound I had sustained on my forehead and my broken teeth, and I was
9 wearing a sweater which was stiff from having earlier been soaked in
10 blood, and which then looked like tar. This blood was due to injuries I
11 had received in ..." two villages he names.
12 "He said: 'I know the difference between sorrow and illness.
13 You are sad.'
14 "Svetozar Andric continued to inspect the rows of detainees and I
15 could hear his steps on the wooden floor. The other detainees at that
16 time were in a terrible state, bloodied and beaten. There was not a
17 single detainee without blood traces. After a while, I could hear
18 Svetozar Andric's steps as he approached me again. He said: 'You don't
19 want to tell me why you are sad,' and I replied, 'I told you.'"
20 Going to paragraph 26:
21 "As a result of bad hygienic conditions, we smelled badly so the
22 guards wore masks on their faces. They gave a mask to Andric as well,
23 but he did not use it."
24 Paragraph 28:
25 "I saw Svetozar Andric for a second time ..." just jumping,
1 "about two or three days later a group of Muslim men had recently been
2 transported to the gym. Svetozar Andric again inspected all the
3 detainees and again stopped to speak to me. He said to me, once again:
4 'You don't want to tell me why you are sad.' I again said: 'I am not
6 "I was thirsty, hungry, and unwashed. All of us detainees had
7 been urinating and defecating in our underwear while we were detained. I
8 saw Svetozar Andric for a third time at" this location.
9 "This was a couple of days after the second visit."
10 That's all I wanted to read out.
11 Do you remember that exchange?
12 A. Tell me, please, what municipality is he from?
13 Q. I said -- I described in private session where the facility is
14 that we're talking about. I don't want to deal with it in public
16 A. Well, I simply don't know the man. If you told me that he was
17 from somewhere down there, I was born in Kalesija, I might perhaps
18 believe that I know the man. But to be talking to him this way for three
19 times makes no sense.
20 Let me tell you, first of all, my conscience is completely clear.
21 In my estimate, if I recall correctly, if they are from Paprace, there is
22 one witness priest Pahomije, the president of the municipality Jankovic,
23 where I was with them and I told the president of the municipality and
24 asked the priest who was there that nobody should be harmed, not a hair
25 on their head should be harmed. And I always fought for the security of
1 all the prisoners. My Muslim colleagues can testify to that, both those
2 who fought me. I fought them, they fought me --
3 Q. Well, General --
4 A. -- I saw later on TV a man who was in charge of the special
5 unit --
6 Q. General --
7 A. -- allow me to finish --
8 Q. -- with great respect, your Muslim colleagues have stated in a
9 statement that they gave to the OTP that you gave -- engaged in this
10 sadistic and inhumane exchange; right?
11 A. No. I absolutely deny this. Never.
12 MS. PACK: I'd like to admit those -- that one page, please, and
13 the preceding page, the bottom paragraphs, if I may.
14 MR. ROBINSON: We would object.
15 JUDGE KWON: Is it consistent with our practice?
16 MS. PACK: It's been read on the record so I understand that --
17 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Shall we continue, Ms. Pack.
18 MS. PACK:
19 Q. You know, don't you, that prisoners of war, over a hundred of
20 them, 140, 150, were killed --
21 A. No.
22 Q. -- detainees of Susica camp in --
23 A. No --
24 Q. Excuse me --
25 A. -- no.
1 Q. You accept now that these -- that there was a massacre of between
2 140, 150 of the last remaining detainees at Susica camp at the end of
3 September 1992, yes?
4 A. Who told you that?
5 Q. Well, you take great pains to deny that you were aware of it at
6 the time in your statement. Let me just take you to the statement at
7 paragraph 7.
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. Now, in your statement at paragraph 7, not only do you -- you
10 describe -- you say that you were in Milici in September/October 1992; is
11 that right? That's how you seek to distance yourself from this massacre
12 at Susica camp?
13 A. Madam, you are interpreting it the way it suits you. I did not
14 say anywhere that I knew of the crime, and for your information, I found
15 out about the crime only when President Karadzic's Defence contacted me
16 and told me: Do you know about that crime? I said: Well, people are
17 there alive to testify. I was surprised, simply. I didn't know about
18 that crime.
19 Second, you cannot put something to me that I did not say.
20 Q. So do you not accept that these detainees were killed? The last
21 remaining detainees at Susica camp were killed before the camp was then
22 closed down? You don't accept that now?
23 A. No, I don't accept it. I just have information from my
24 assistants for morale, religious and legal affairs, Major Stanisic. When
25 I returned I was in Milici first, then in Skelani. So when I came to the
1 meeting with my assistants, he told me that the Susica camp was closed
2 and that an exchange was carried out of prisoners of war pursuant to the
3 approval of the chief of the public security centre.
4 Q. When did this meeting take place then, this information you had
5 from Major Stanisic?
6 A. It was sometime on the 15th of September, at the collegium in the
7 brigade, because he was in charge of prisoner exchange --
8 Q. That was before the camp closed down --
9 A. -- then --
10 Q. -- and that was before the massacre?
11 A. Excuse me. The 15th of October, the 15th of October. Excuse me.
12 The 15th of October. You said that the massacre was on the 13th -- the
13 30th. This happened on the 15th. So I am telling you, I swear before
14 the Tribunal that I did not know until Mr. Sladojevic, during my
15 preparation, told me about it. And the reason is the Vlasenica Brigade
16 was formed that month, so I practically was not any more in charge of
17 that territory.
18 MS. PACK: Mr. President, I'm aware of the time and I will be --
19 I would ask for another 20 minutes if possible because I have one topic I
20 would want to deal with after Susica, if I may.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please proceed.
23 MS. PACK: Thank you.
24 Could we go briefly again into private session.
25 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
1 [Private session]
6 [Open session]
7 MS. PACK: -- a document that I had asked to be admitted earlier
8 was admitted marked for identification, P06456. The translation's now
9 been uploaded so I'd ask to have that to admitted in full now, if I may,
10 Mr. President.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
12 MR. ROBINSON: No objection.
13 JUDGE KWON: In light of the Prosecution -- the Defence's
14 response, we'll fully admit it.
15 MS. PACK: Thank you.
16 I'd like to go, please, to P03162.
17 Q. Now, this is a report from you, isn't it, that relates to
18 operations that you were carrying out under directive 4 that, of course,
19 you're familiar with. And let's just see what you say in this document
20 about your activities. Just look at the second paragraph, please. And
21 you can see there you explain that the village of Gobilje has been burnt
22 and tomorrow the plan is to do Paljevine. This is something you report
23 to the Drina Corps command, yes?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. This describes you burning a village in the course of operations
1 in 1993?
2 A. And that we would continue with Paljevine, is that right, and to
3 continue --
4 Q. Mm-hmm. And you were burning houses, weren't you, to force the
5 Muslim population out; right?
6 A. You did not read until the end, and then we continue with
7 Paljevine or the burning.
8 Mr. President, I will have to explain something here in two
9 sentences. First of all, the command of the Birac Brigade - after the
10 4th Armoured Brigade left, headed by Colonel Tacic - left just two active
11 officers behind. Everything else at the command was in the military
12 sense insufficiently trained. Those operatives who stayed in the course
13 of the day, they had their own duty officers who would report back to the
14 corps command with a daily report. And then in the first item you see
15 that we had five or six casualties in the Bisina axis towards Zivinice.
16 We had some wounded. The person who wrote that document wrote about the
17 village of Gobilje. The village of Gobilje is to the west of the
18 facility of Paljevine, Udrc. The village was a fortified line of defence
19 of the Muslim forces. And then it says "and we continue on to
20 Paljevine," not meaning to continue burning but to do facility 841, that
21 is the facility of Paljevine where the Muslim regular forces were putting
22 up a powerful resistance. So it was not our intention to burn any
23 villages because it had already been destroyed in previous action by
24 shells, but they used it as a shelter. That is for sure.
25 Q. You're smiling, General. Is it amusing to you that you were
1 burning Muslim villages during the course of these operations in 1993?
2 A. Well, perhaps I just appear like this. I'm not smiling. Because
3 the questions that you are putting, you are putting to a person, to a
4 general who was not involved in things like this and would never order
5 such a thing. Secondly, you are putting things to me that are not
6 expert. This was not written by the commander. There was a daily report
7 written every day to the corps command, and it would be signed by a
8 simple warrant officer. So if you look at item 1, you will see that
9 after five killed fighters it's not a surprise, and I even think that
10 there was a girl who prepared this. I think that she was angry and that
11 she said Paljevine, but I explained that that was a defence sector of the
12 Muslim forces.
13 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
14 MS. PACK:
15 Q. So you're saying that this document describes a village as having
16 been burned because a girl wrote it and, what, that isn't the reality,
17 that didn't happen, this village wasn't destroyed; is that your evidence?
18 A. Well, no. Listen, again you don't understand me. Had that
19 person been professionally trained, she would not have written it in that
20 way. She would have written sector -- defence sector in the village of
21 Gobilje destroyed, we continue with our action towards the Paljevine
22 feature. A layperson would write down "we burned it," that would be a
23 layperson. This is what I think. This is my professional opinion. As
24 far as we're talking about Paljevine or burning, my own house was burned,
25 my whole village --
1 Q. I'm not asking you about your own house --
2 A. -- was burned in 1995, in June, I know -- oh, yes, yes, all
3 right. You are not asking me about that.
4 Q. Can I please --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please.
6 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
7 Let us see -- yes, Mr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On page 55, line 9/10 it says [In
9 English] "Destroyed in previous action by shells." [Interpretation] And
10 he said "in previous fighting, the village was destroyed in previous
12 JUDGE KWON: I don't know what difference it make. The
13 translator said they were -- had been already destroyed in previous
14 action by shells. We could understand it, couldn't we?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But it was fighting, not shelling
16 of the village.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, I said that, the sector
19 MS. PACK: Well, let's go to P3161, please. In the English we
20 can see over the page, and similarly in the B/C/S, we can see again this
21 is a report coming from the Birac Infantry Brigade command.
22 Q. And we can see again this is a document that is from the
23 commander, you, of the Birac Brigade.
24 MS. PACK: We just look perhaps at the second page just to
25 clarify that, in both the B/C/S and English.
1 Q. And just see ... signed by you. You'd agree? And then we --
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. -- look at the preceding page, please. And we can see described
4 at the bottom of the page in English --
5 MS. PACK: My apologies, it was the preceding page in English but
6 remaining on the second page in B/C/S. I do apologise. Thank you.
7 Q. So we can see in the English:
8 "In the course of the day special units of the 1st Birac Light
9 Infantry Brigade," and you can see where that appears in the second
10 paragraph in the B/C/S, yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It says they took and destroyed the village of Gobilje, "thus
13 freeing up the left flank of the main forces in the attack on Cerska. At
14 the entry into the village, our soldiers found weapons and other military
15 equipment as well as food and cattle which the enemy left behind when
16 fleeing from our forces."
17 So this is the village from which the enemy had fled which you
18 destroyed. We see it again in this report; right?
19 A. No, no. The village of Gobilje had fortified positions, but
20 between the villages of Gobilje and Paljevine there was facility 841
21 where there was cattle.
22 Q. Well, you don't talk about --
23 A. And they referred to that in the paragraph.
24 Q. You don't talk about fortified positions here. You say that at
25 the entry into the village our soldiers found weapons and other military
1 equipment and then you say that had been left behind when the enemy fled.
2 You didn't need to burn the village, did you?
3 A. The village had been destroyed earlier. At the entrance to the
4 village, the enemy did not have enough time to take their weapons from
5 the trenches. It was a fortified position, so when they fled they
6 practically left their weapons behind. You know, that was a fortified
7 feature. So when we captured it, the enemy simply did not have time to
8 take a part of their weaponry from the line. So they took some weaponry
9 and some they did not. That was it.
10 MS. PACK: Can we look at the last document, P05261.
11 Q. Now, this is an intercept, intercepted communication, and I want
12 to read you from the bottom of it, Zivanovic - Gaborovic. This is an
13 intercept dated the 8th of February, 1993, 10.45. Just look at the
14 bottom, please.
15 "Catch up with them and fuck their mothers now."
16 "Understood." That's the answer.
17 "Zivanovic: Hold tightly the positions ... are the Turks' houses
19 "Answer: They are burning, they are burning.
20 "Zivanovic: Way to go, as many as possible."
21 This is the strategy, isn't it, to force the Muslim population
22 out of the Podrinje area, burning houses, and this is what you were
23 doing, wasn't it, in your 1993 operations, destroying, burning houses to
24 force people out; right?
25 A. That was not the strategy of the Drina Corps, or rather, the
1 Birac Brigade. I have to just say that in the period from 1941 to 1945,
2 no Serbian man from age 18 to 65 was left. Everything was either killed
3 or driven to Jasenovac. This agreement -- there was an agreement --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat what he said.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Andric, you spoke a bit too fast for the
6 interpreters to understand. I'm not sure if you are responding to the
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the translation it was not said
9 that he spoke fast but not enough.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can repeat --
11 JUDGE KWON: No, Mr. Andric, what happened in 1941 to 1945 are
12 not relevant.
13 Please, shall we proceed?
14 MS. PACK: I just want to look at one final document, please --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just want to say that this was
16 not the strategy of the Drina Corps or of the Supreme Command or of the
17 Main Staff. Quite the contrary. As far as municipality of Birac is
18 concerned, the SAO Birac government agreed with the Muslims --
19 JUDGE KWON: We heard that --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- municipalities of Tuzla,
21 Kalesija --
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we heard that --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that the population should move
24 out safely. So there was no strategy of burning in order to do it that
25 way; the people had already left. As for the burning and the shelling
1 and destruction through that that happened, these were combat positions.
2 MS. PACK:
3 Q. Let me just ask you to look at one more document?
4 MS. PACK: 65 ter 01219.
5 Q. There was a huge international outcry, wasn't there, as a result
6 of these operations in 1993?
7 A. 1993. I don't know in what context.
8 Q. Well, you talked about it in your statement.
9 A. In my statement I said that the Security Council, I think in
10 April, adopted Resolution 819 about the demilitarisation of Srebrenica
11 and Zepa, if that's what you're thinking of.
12 Q. I'm going to read from the report that was written at the time by
13 the Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights. This is the
14 front page, it's dated May 1993.
15 MS. PACK: And if we could turn, please, in the English to
16 page 5, and similarly in the B/C/S at page 5.
17 Q. I'm just going to read paragraphs 13 and also 15. Para 13:
18 "The pattern of the previous seven months was changed when Serb
19 forces reportedly went on the offensive against the Cerska enclave from
20 15 January 1993 until the last village, Konjevic Polje, fell on or around
21 10 March 1993. One hamlet was taken at a time. Every day there were
22 thousands of shells from the tanks in the surrounding hills. In hamlets
23 such as Gobilje, it is alleged that each house was individually targeted
24 and people moved from house to house as the shelling progressed.
25 Government forces would purportedly fall back to the next village, moving
1 civilians back as they did so until that village was about to fall, too.
2 Many of the witnesses had fled their homes with Serb forces right behind
3 them. People who were unable to move, such as old people, invalids and
4 the wounded, reportedly remained in the villages to be taken."
5 And just at paragraph 15 --
6 A. Can we move a little bit the text -- okay. All right, I see it.
7 MS. PACK: And paragraph 15, we're going to have to go over in
8 the B/C/S, please. I'm just going to read out the B/C/S related to
9 Cerska village and in the English which is the last couple of sentences.
10 "One witness reports watching from the mountain above as Serb
11 forces entered Cerska village with infantry, then tanks and then armoured
12 vehicles: 'The houses had already been destroyed by shelling, but even
13 if a piece of a roof was intact, the Serbs would set it on fire so that
14 everyone else could see.'"
15 Q. That reflects the strategy, doesn't it, destroy the villages to
16 drive the Muslims out, burn as many houses as possible? You would accept
18 A. No, I repeat that that was not our strategy and I will prove it
19 as follows. From the Cerska area, thousands of people were moving from
20 villages --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch all the villages.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By taking Cerska, by capturing
23 Cerska on the 1st of March and then Konjic on the 15th of March,
24 Mr. President, President Karadzic actually helped together with the
25 military leadership, with the assistance of General Morillon, to prevent
1 revenge from the Serbian population that was returning to their villages,
2 and it was not our goal to burn villages so that they could leave. They
3 had already left, but we practically saved them precisely thanks to the
4 help by the president, President Karadzic, and General Morillon.
5 As for the Serbian villages around Srebrenica, does anybody ask
6 why they were torched? Somebody should ask that of me. But I guarantee
7 it was not our strategy and the military and political leadership did a
8 great thing by preventing revenge from the Serbian people who had
9 suffered major, major casualties in Cerska.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Transcript, please.
11 MS. PACK: I'd like --
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was not recorded a whole part of
14 the answer where the general, General Andric, talks about how many Serbs
15 were killed before Cerska fell in the neighbouring villages. This is
16 page 61, lines 24 and 25, nothing of that was recorded. And that is
17 actually the pretext for the revenges that we're talking about.
18 Could he please be asked what he was thinking of, how many of
19 them died and by whose hand.
20 JUDGE KWON: It's not relevant.
21 Shall we continue.
22 You can take up that issue in your re-examination.
23 MS. PACK: I'd like to admit just that portion of the report to
24 which I've referred.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Objection, Mr. President. I think again since
1 it's been read in, it can be sufficient. But this is based on a lot of
2 unidentified hearsay and I don't believe it's sufficiently reliable to be
3 admitted on its own.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson, the points you raised go to the weight
6 in the view of the Chamber.
7 What page are you tendering, Ms. Pack?
8 MS. PACK: Yes, Your Honour, it's page 5, please.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes, we'll admit page 1 and 5.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, and the corresponding B/C/S pages, that would
12 include page 6, I'm told.
13 Shall we assign a number.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P6460, Your Honours.
15 MS. PACK: Thank you. I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Good morning to everybody.
19 Re-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General, sir.
21 A. Good morning, Mr. President.
22 Q. Could you please tell us why that part of Podrinje was liberated
23 only in spring 1993, a year into the war? What was the life like in
24 Podrinje during that year?
25 A. I know that in 1993 we decided to launch that operation because
1 in 1992 -- enabled all those who wanted to live together with us to
2 remain living with the Serbs; however, the Muslims from Vlasenica,
3 Kamenica, Zvornik went to Cerska. They set up their units there. They
4 linked up with the units of the 28th Division led by Naser Oric and they
5 continued to launch attacks against the positions of the Serb soldiers,
6 i.e., the Serb villages. Even after the international community
7 proclaimed Srebrenica, Zepa protected areas, in the depth of municipality
8 of Milici there was a village of Visnjica and that was in 1995 and that
9 was the introduction and all those operations. There was also Kotolac
10 [phoen] on the Drina River as well as Rijeka river. In the depth
11 Naser Oric's forces carried out operations in protected areas and they
12 killed innocent people, they burned villages. They killed and they
13 plundered as much as they could. They forced people to jump into the
14 Drina River in order to save themselves.
15 Q. Thank you. You did not finish your answer a while ago, i.e.,
16 your answer was not fully recorded. Before the liberation of Cerska, how
17 many Serbian casualties were there which may have led to retaliation?
18 A. From what I know, up to then there were about 2.000 Serbian
19 casualties. In late 1995, 3.240 according to what I remember.
20 Mr. President, let me remind you of the 12th of March, 1992. I was a
21 major in Bratunac when I first buried 95 Serb casualties, mostly
22 civilians. Unfortunately, among those civilians, there were also four
23 pregnant women. The temperature was in the 40s and Bishop Vasilije held
24 a speech. Mrs. Biljana Plavsic was also there and they forced me to say
25 something as well. I did say something as the commander. I don't know
1 what I said at the time. However, among those numerous victims there
2 were civilians and that gave me such a fright. I was so stressed that I
3 couldn't believe that a human mind could do something like that. I
4 turned completely grey. Kravica and Bozici in 1992, I have a list of the
5 38 people who were killed there, mostly elderly people and women, and a
6 series of other --
7 JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ...
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- places in the territory of
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
11 MS. PACK: Mr. President, I didn't ask about Bratunac or any of
12 these locations. These questions don't arise out of any questions that I
13 put in cross-examination.
14 JUDGE KWON: Further, it goes too far.
15 Please continue, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Can we now look at P6460. That was the last document that we had
18 on the screen. I'm interested in page 2. It would be page 5 in the
19 Serbian, page 5. Page 5, paragraph 13.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Could you please explain, regardless of the gravity and value of
22 this exhibit, it says here government forces would allegedly withdraw to
23 the following villages, and they would take civilians with them. Until
24 the moment that village faced the fall too. Could you please tell us who
25 was it who took away the civilians or who chased them away; and what does
1 it mean when it says the government forces in the villages?
2 A. The government forces were actually local communes; however,
3 according to what I know, the units that were in Cerska and Srebrenica
4 together with the units in Cerska ordered the civilian population to
5 leave and go to the municipality of Srebrenica. 150 villages were
6 destroyed around Srebrenica. They were ordered to settle in Srebrenica
7 which was completely clean. So there were no government members, there
8 were only commanders.
9 Q. What was the ethnicity of those government forces, i.e., the
10 units that fought in those villages?
11 A. Those were Muslim units which means that they were in the
12 villages, although in the territory of Cerska there were a lot of Serbian
13 villages. And when we liberated Cerska, like I've already told the
14 Trial Chamber, owing to you and the military command, we forbade
15 retaliation, we forbade anybody from entering those villages until we
16 placed the whole territory under our control.
17 Q. What did you discover there? Were there any excavations of mass
18 graves when those areas were liberated? Did General Morillon participate
19 in all that?
20 A. I don't remember. I had two conversations with General Morillon
21 in Mali Zvornik. I remember the conversation that we had about the
22 desire of the Muslim population from Srebrenica to move out. We --
23 MS. PACK: Objection --
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- organised ourselves on the
25 Tuzla-Zvornik axis and I can't remember any of the things that you've
2 MS. PACK: I allowed some of this to go, but I think again it's
3 straying into areas well beyond what was asked in cross-examination so it
4 doesn't arise.
5 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
6 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think the issues of Cerska does arise from
7 the document, the Mazowiecki document that she showed and the questions
8 she asked, but it seemed like the witness had completed his answer so
9 perhaps we can move on.
10 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Karadzic.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. And now can
12 we look at P6450. I'm interested in page 4 in that document -- no.
13 P6450. It seems that we are the cause of the confusion. I apologise.
14 Can we now look at P3161.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. How did these fighters die? In this document you say that you
17 had six fighters who were killed, among them three had their throats slit
18 in a dugout. Can you see that?
19 A. Yes, I believe that that happened in the area -- let me just see,
20 six killed. Yes. That was in the area of the Kladanj and Vlasenica --
21 in Bisina area. They were killed by the enemy fire, mortar fire, rifle
22 grenades, cannons. A lot of the weaponry remained there from the
23 15th of May, 1992, when unfortunately that column was burnt in Tuzla, in
24 the depots of the TO unfortunately. 1995, in an attack against the Vis
25 feature, the SFOR forces participated in that attack --
1 Q. We'll come back to that, yes. Tell us, please, the three whose
2 throats were cut, should they have been taken prisoner first? Could
3 their throats be slit from afar?
4 A. As soon as they took up their positions, they were arrested and
5 their throats were slit immediately. Those fighters did not spend any
6 time as prisoners, they were killed immediately.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now go to the following
8 page, please.
9 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation].
10 Q. When we -- when it comes to Gobilje, when you look at the second
11 paragraph, it says that they took and destroyed the village of Gobilje,
12 and thus they dealt with the left flank of the main forces. What does
13 that mean, can you explain?
14 A. As I've already told you, Gobilje was a fortified position of the
15 Muslim fighters and we dealt with the left flank with our brigade between
16 the Vlasenica and Birac Brigades. They kept on coming from that sector
17 and entering Serbian villages where they burnt and killed civilians, and
18 then they would return to their own sector. That's how we linked up our
19 forces and we prevented further killings.
20 Q. Thank you. And then in the following paragraph it says the
21 Zvornik -- if the Zvornik Brigade continues the attack, Udrc will not be
22 a threat to any unit. What is Udrc, was that militarily justified?
23 A. Udrc was the largest feature in the territory of Cerska.
24 Everything that happened, all the evil that befell us started from the
25 Udrc facility. If the Zvornik Brigade managed to conquer that facility
1 and take it, then those operations coming from that area would stop.
2 Q. From the military standpoint, how would you qualify this?
3 A. That would be taking up military position, a military feature.
4 It was not a village, it was not any such thing. In simple terms, it was
5 a facility or a feature that was of some significance for preventing
6 further enemy activity.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now look at 65 -- or rather,
9 P648 --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction: P6458.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. In paragraph 8 you explained -- or rather, in your statement,
13 paragraph 8, you explained reasons for operations against the Muslim
14 8th OG.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3 or page 4 in
16 this document. Page 4 in this document.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have already talked about that.
18 I've already explained.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could you please start reading from: "We shouldn't forget ..."
21 You are reporting about the event that happened on the 26th of September,
22 1992, in Podravanje village; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you just briefly tell us what happened there and whether that
25 resulted in the mass burial in Vlasenica?
1 A. On the 24th, in the village of Podravanje in Milici municipality,
2 there was a massacre, and on the 26th that repeated in Vlasenica. Within
3 the space of two days, 34 plus 29 people were killed, a total of 59 or
4 63, if my calculation is correct, and over 50 were wounded and eight
5 people went missing --
6 MS. PACK: Objection --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- over the space of two days.
8 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
9 MS. PACK: Your Honour, I think going into this level of detail
10 just isn't relevant --
11 JUDGE KWON: And unnecessary.
12 Yes, Mr. Karadzic.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The following page, please.
14 And while we are waiting, I have to explain why the General spoke
15 about Paljevine. The word "Paljevine" in our language means to burn
16 something. However, Paljevine is a hill --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a feature. It's a trig point
18 and its number is 841. I've already explained that.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Please, can you look here where it says that on the 2nd of March,
21 1993, our forces broke up resistance in the enemy stronghold in the
22 village of Gobilje. And on the -- from that day on, that village was
23 under our control. Was that a village, actually? What kind of
24 resistance did the villagers of that village put up? To what degree was
25 that village militarised?
1 A. You can tell from the document that attacks were launched from
2 that village. It was a fortified position of the enemy forces as I've
3 already explained.
4 Q. Thank you. You spoke about the take-over of command, i.e., when
5 you became the Chief of Staff.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at 1D9319. This is
7 Radenko Jovicic's statement.
8 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Could you please explain the statement to us. We received that
10 from you and it was signed in 2002.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D9319
12 provided the courtesy of the witness.
13 MS. PACK: Just to clarify, this is the document that was handed
14 to me during my questioning of the witness. We'd need some clarification
15 of where it is from.
16 JUDGE KWON: Please continue.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you tell us, where is this from --
19 MS. PACK: I apologise, the witness walked up to the Defence and
20 gave it to them during the break. So that's the circumstances --
21 JUDGE KWON: Oh.
22 MS. PACK: -- in which this document was obtained by the Defence
23 today. It was given to them in the break by the witness.
24 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Robinson.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, but the document was the
1 one that I sent in in 2002 to the office of The Hague Tribunal in the
2 Ramici case in Republika Srpska. I was required to submit it. It's got
3 court certification. The document states when certain individuals took
4 up duty and it was issued by the person in charge of organisation and
5 mobilisation issues. So it's an authentic document.
6 And if I may go back to the duty of brigade commander, Vlacic,
7 who signed documents over there. I was thinking about it when sitting in
8 that restroom over there, Colonel Vlacic could not have signed any of the
9 documents because he was not in Sekovici at the time. He signed them
10 retroactively because he was in the Sarajevo-Romanija battle-field.
11 MS. PACK: I think this needs --
12 JUDGE KWON: Just a second.
13 MS. PACK: Sorry.
14 JUDGE KWON: Do you agree that you handed over that document to
15 the Defence during the break?
16 Mr. Robinson, do you confirm that?
17 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE KWON: Do you object to the Defence using this document?
19 MS. PACK: I don't, but I would like greater clarity as to the
20 source of it because it doesn't --
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
22 MS. PACK: -- it hasn't been accurately stated, I don't think, by
23 the witness.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
25 Mr. Karadzic, could you lead the witness in that regard.
1 Shall we take a break?
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you are inclined to do so. I
3 was thinking about finishing in some ten minutes.
4 JUDGE KWON: Very well. Please continue then.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. General, sir, can you tell us briefly what the document is. If
7 you provided it, then probably the Prosecution have it. We will have an
8 ERN number. So what's the document? Who was it issued by?
9 A. It's a document issued by the assistant for the Chief of Staff
10 for organisation and mobilisation issues. He gave a statement saying
11 that he knew that Colonel Andric was not in Vlasenica during the transfer
12 of duty on the 13th of July, 1995. On the stated day, in the corridor,
13 outside of the corps command --
14 Q. Go slowly, please.
15 A. Yes.
16 "On the mentioned day in the corridor outside the corps command,
17 it was ordered that all the officers of the corps command be lined up.
18 When this was done, General Mladic came out of the office in the company
19 of General Zivanovic and Colonel Krstic and orally stated that as of that
20 day Colonel Krstic would be the commander of the Drina Corps and Colonel
21 Andric the Chief of Staff. Let me note that no order was being read at
22 the time or a decree on the mentioned appointments.
23 "On the mentioned day, the 13th of July, 1995, Colonel Andric did
24 not take up duty as the Chief of Staff of the corps because, as I said,
25 he was not present when the senior officers were lined up and given the
1 oral order on the transfer of duty. I am not aware at all of the time
2 when he took up the duty of the chief of corps.
3 "On the same date, 13 July 1995, the then or the hitherto
4 commander of the corps, General Zivanovic, came to my office and ordered
5 that I should send out a dispatch informing all corps units that the duty
6 of the corps commander was taken up by Major-General Milorad Radislav
7 Krstic and that the hitherto commander, Major-General Milenko Zivanovic,
8 was appointed to a new duty in the VJ-VRS.
9 "Colonel Svetozar Andric was appointed Chief of Staff of the
11 Q. [No interpretation]
12 THE INTERPRETER: May Mr. Karadzic please repeat what he said
13 because we have just finished interpreting the document. And let me
14 note, we have not interpreted item 4. I don't know if the witness read
15 that far, it was too fast.
16 MR. ROBINSON: Mr. President, also the Prosecution has given us a
17 translation of this document. I didn't want to interrupt, but it seems
18 like if you want to put that on the ELMO, if it will go any faster, but I
19 think number 4 is important so it probably should be translated.
20 JUDGE KWON: Did you read out item 4 as well, Mr. Andric?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not manage to.
22 JUDGE KWON: No, I -- it was a question for you.
23 Yes, please -- no, I'm not asking you to read it out.
24 I'll leave it to you, Mr. Karadzic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if it's being admitted, there
1 is no need for it to be read out.
2 JUDGE KWON: I don't see a basis to admit this kind of document.
3 It's --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can you then read out paragraph 4, please.
7 A. "The appointment of Colonel Svetozar Andric to the duty of the
8 Chief of Staff of the corps" --
9 Q. Please go slowly.
10 A. All right.
11 "... does not mean that it was at that same time that he took up
12 the mentioned duty. It often happened in practice that a duty would be
13 taken up in due time or not at all."
14 MS. PACK: Your Honour, I would also ask just because it isn't
15 clear to me that it's been made sufficiently clear of the circumstances
16 in which it appears that this statement was taken. There's an
17 introductory paragraph prior to the heading "statement," which says:
18 "In connection with the questioning of General Andric as a
19 suspect in the office of The Hague Tribunal in Banja Luka, I hereby give
20 the following.
21 "Statement ..."
22 And then it follows.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 MS. PACK: Thank you.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. General, were you still commander of the 1st Birac Infantry
3 Brigade on the 17th of July?
4 A. Yes.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now show up 3501, a 65 ter
7 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. General, is this your regular combat report for the 17th of July,
9 covering the 16th of July as well?
10 A. Yes, it's a report from my brigade. I didn't sign it. I wasn't
11 in the area of responsibility of the brigade at the time; I was in Zepa.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be admitted?
14 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3891, Your Honours.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Were you commander of the brigade on the 18th of July as well?
18 A. Yes, on the 18th as well.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we have 65 ter 25407.
20 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Can you tell us what is this document? You're ordering that an
22 order of yours be complied with; right?
23 A. Yes. It's the 18th of July. I was still in Zepa. The person
24 who was acting on my behalf, Colonel Vlacic, issued this order.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be admitted?
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Where is Stoborani situated? You're asking for logistics
6 A. It's in the direction of Han Pijesak and Zepa.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can it be admitted?
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D3892, Your Honours.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you tell us, who was the owner of the Susica facilities? Who
13 did it belong to?
14 A. According to my information, they belonged to the TO staff, and I
15 believe that there was a shed there belonging to a company but I don't
16 recall exactly.
17 Q. Thank you. Was our understanding correct that the camp was
18 established in April as a reception centre, which held both Muslim and
19 Serb civilians?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know when it was that prisoners of war arrived in Susica
22 for the first time?
23 A. I don't remember.
24 Q. Were civilians within the jurisdiction of the brigade?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Thank you. When your visit to that sports gym was discussed, you
2 arrived there to see Serbs who had been exchanged out of Tuzla. Were
3 these Serbs in the same hall or gym as this Muslim who allegedly spoke to
5 A. Mr. President, I don't recall me speaking to that person at all,
6 but I do remember that at the same time I met a group of Serbs and spoke
7 to them - it was a group of elderly persons. As for this person
8 mentioned here, I don't remember that.
9 Q. Do you remember if Serbs and Muslims were held in that same gym
10 or is there several rooms there?
11 A. Well, there's a single PE gym. Hazily I seem to remember that
12 Muslim civilians had already left for Kladanj and Olovo and Zivinice. In
13 the meantime, on the border with Kladanj the civilians had already gone
14 and Serbs came this way from the central prison in Tuzla. That's as much
15 as I can remember.
16 Q. Thank you. To what extent is the information about personal
17 hygiene correct? Let me not repeat them.
18 A. Frankly, I don't remember. I never set foot to Susica camp.
19 Q. I'm sorry, I'm talking about the Vlasenica gym.
20 A. I don't remember --
21 MS. PACK: [Previous translation continues]...
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- especially the gym itself, it
23 was very clean. It had its --
24 JUDGE KWON: Just a second --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- auxiliary rooms. It was a
1 sports gym where children --
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Pack.
3 MS. PACK: It's just a location which I had dealt with in private
4 session very specifically, just so the parties are aware that that
5 location shouldn't be identified publicly. Simply because we were in
6 private session when the location was identified specifically for the
7 reasons I stated in private session and then we went back into public
8 session for the exchange.
9 JUDGE KWON: Shall we go into private session briefly.
10 [Private session]
11 Page 41723 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Thank you, General, sir, for your effort and testimony. I have
12 no further questions.
13 A. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish you the best of luck and to
14 prove the innocence of the Serbian people.
15 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Andric, the Chamber is not dealing with the
16 guilt or innocence of the Serbian people at all.
17 That concludes your evidence, General Andric. The Chamber thanks
18 you --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE KWON: You are free to go now, but we'll adjourn -- we'll
21 rise all together.
22 We'll resume at 1.30.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.44 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
3 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. Before we get started with
4 Dr. Dunjic, I just wanted to make a request that two exhibits be
5 withdrawn which are duplicates and that's D3812 and D3815. They were
6 duplicates of D3786 and D3793.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. While we are dealing with administrative
8 matters, in light of the Defence motion for clarification which was filed
9 before the Appeals Chamber, the Chamber was wondering whether there would
10 be any point of holding a hearing tomorrow.
11 Mr. Tieger?
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, we considered that, Mr. President. Our
13 position that the decision is anything but ambiguous in any event - and
14 we're also hoping, of course, that the Appeals Chamber will act with all
15 appropriate haste in getting this back accordingly - but in any event, we
16 think that we could resolve the issues presented by the motion,
17 particularly since there is a possibility that the resolution will have
18 time implications considering, for example, the upcoming adjournment. So
19 we think there is value to proceeding and would encourage the Court to do
21 JUDGE KWON: Would you like to make any observation,
22 Mr. Robinson?
23 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I think we'll be dealing with a lot of
24 hypotheticals. So in my view, just thinking logically as opposed to
25 strategically, it seems that it would be better to deal with the motion
1 when we have more concrete information. But we're ready to proceed
2 tomorrow if you prefer.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is of the view that it has to wait the
5 resolution by the Appeals Chamber.
6 MR. TIEGER: In that case, Mr. President, I don't know the
7 protocol within Chambers, but if there is anything the Trial Chamber
8 could do to encourage the fastest possible response by the Appeals
9 Chamber, I think under the circumstances that would be best all the way
11 JUDGE KWON: We'll do our best.
12 MR. ROBINSON: They'd probably also be assisted by a very quick
13 response to the motion from the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE KWON: Good afternoon, Dr. Dunjic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
16 JUDGE KWON: Would you make the solemn declaration, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: DUSAN DUNJIC
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Doctor. Please be seated and make
22 yourself comfortable.
23 Yes, Mr. Karadzic, please proceed.
24 Examination by Mr. Karadzic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Dunjic.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we look at 1D25180 in
3 e-court, please. 1D25180. Yes, that's it.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Professor, did you draft an expert report for this case?
6 A. Yes, pursuant to your request, I did make an expert report which
7 consisted of analysing reports that were provided to you by the
8 Prosecutor's office. It's a written report. This is the report, a copy
9 of the report, that I have with me. I drafted this report in 2009,
10 August 2009.
11 Q. Thank you. First of all, I would like to ask you to look at
12 page 4 in this document -- but actually, I would just like you to tell us
13 briefly where and when you were born. I would like you to tell us about
14 your education, about your CV, but I will go in order.
15 A. I was born in 19 -- on the 8th of April, 1950, in Belgrade, where
16 I completed my elementary and high school education, also the faculty of
17 medicine in Belgrade. At the same time, I got a job at the Institute for
18 Forensic Medicine in Belgrade.
19 Q. Can I please ask you to speak a bit more slowly so that
20 everything can be recorded in the transcript.
21 A. Yes, very well.
22 I am working at the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the
23 medical faculty in Belgrade. I am a full-time professor there. I have
24 been a full-time professor since 2000. In 1977, I got my master's
25 degree. In 1980, I did my doctoral thesis, and that same year I
1 specialised in forensic medicine.
2 Q. Thank you. And are you able to tell us briefly about your
3 professional experience, which posts you held, and what it is that you
4 did in the profession?
5 A. First of all, I am a forensic medical officer. This is often
6 confused with a pathologist. A forensic expert is not the same as a
7 pathologist. A forensic pathologist and a pathologist are two different
9 Q. Could you please explain the difference to us.
10 A. The difference is in the following. A pathologist deals with
11 illnesses and changes, morphological changes on the organs and the
12 tissues in order to establish the type of illness or disease. A forensic
13 pathologist on top of that deals with wounds, injuries, and all forms of
14 violent or natural health damages in order to establish the cause of
15 death. Therefore, the main difference lies in the fact that through the
16 morphological and pathological substrate we determine the cause of death
17 of a person.
18 In the briefest possible terms, from the very beginning of my
19 work as a doctor, I decided to specialise in forensic medicine and I
20 worked on all forms of natural and violent deaths, which I had the
21 opportunity to encounter during my work at the institute. Outside of the
22 institute, in my work in the field, I was working on exhumations, on
23 different cases. Among other things, I worked on an exhumation in 2000
24 because at that time I was already a director of the Institute for
25 Forensic Medicine, so I worked on the exhumations in Batajnica about this
1 Tribunal and Madam Carla del Ponte were personally informed about. We
2 informed them about the way in which we worked and our objectivity. What
3 I believed to be my moral duty is to inform you that the Institute for
4 Forensic Medicine where I come from is one of the oldest forensic
5 medicine schools in the area of the Balkans which started its work in the
6 mid-19th century when we already had our own professors which were
7 educated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and in Czechoslovakia. So that
8 the foundations of forensic medicines as it is practiced in our institute
9 is based on the best forensic medical schools, this is the German school,
10 and then over the past few decades we have enriched it with new
11 developments that come from the Anglo-Saxon systems. In our institute,
12 our medical students which graduate in forensic medicine study from
13 textbooks written by our professors, but they are also presented with all
14 other textbooks adapted from different schools, either from the
15 Anglo-Saxon or the Russian traditions.
16 I emphasise this because in my works up to now and in my
17 testimony before this Tribunal up to now, I had the opportunity to see
18 how my colleagues performed autopsies.
19 Q. All right. Thank you. Can you please tell us how many
20 scientific and expert works did you publish, you yourself or together
21 with your associates?
22 A. Throughout this period, after my doctorate, after my master's
23 degree, I published, I think, some 200 professional and scientific works.
24 However, I would like to single out, out of all of those papers, my
25 professional work primarily as a forensic medical expert in a project
1 from 1995 or 1996 completed in 2000, financed by the republican
2 government or the education ministry. This is a project involving work
3 to establish psychosomatic consequences of torture of prisoners during
4 the Yugoslav civil war which were held in prisoner-of-war camps by the
5 Muslims and Muslims and Croats together as well as the Croat armed
6 forces. That part of my research was summarised in a book and it's
7 substantiated with photographs and documents. That book drafted by
8 myself and my associates was presented to Madam Carla del Ponte and the
9 book details the torture of prisoners in different camps in the area of
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.
11 Another thing which I believe is significant is that for the past
12 30 years, I worked on countless number, if I can put it that way, of
13 reports on all types of murders, deaths caused by fire-arms, other kinds
14 of weapons, other kinds of violent deaths. One of the most significant
15 works and reports was one done at the request of the special prosecutor
16 and the special court in Belgrade dealing with the killing of the Serbian
17 Prime Minister, Zoran Djindjic. This was in 2003.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. All right. I apologise.
20 Q. I actually wanted to ask you: How frequently and how many times
21 did you appear before courts and which ones?
22 A. I appeared before all courts in the country, the former
23 Yugoslavia, and then in Serbia and Montenegro. But what I believe is
24 also important to say is that in 2011, I was elected into the medical
25 academy, the academy of sciences, on which occasion I presented my work
1 on the killing of King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic in Marseilles and I
2 discovered something which was not known until then, and that is that he
3 was shot with three projectiles and it's possible that there were also
4 four, which indicates that perhaps more than one assassin was involved.
5 So I believe that in this area I am quite well informed.
6 As for the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, I
7 already wrote that as well, I was involved in work on all of the cases so
8 I'm going to remind myself by going through the text. So the Dusko Tadic
9 case, the Foca case, IT-96/93; Zoran Vukovic who was charged here, I
10 reviewed that twice, this is case IT-96-93/1; then Milan Simic, I also
11 reviewed that documentation, this is IT-95-9 IT; I also worked on the --
12 I was an expert witness on the case of General Stanislav Galic, IT-98-29,
13 where I worked on the sniper action in Sarajevo, on that topic; then I
14 worked for the Defence in the Plavsic/Krajisnik case, this is IT-00-39
15 and -40; and I drafted a large report, or rather, several reports which I
16 was not called upon to defend for whatever reasons, I mean they were not
17 presented before the Tribunal. I worked on the Vujadin Popovic case, I
18 mentioned that also, IT-05-88. I assisted, or rather, I was an expert
19 witness in some way in the case against Haradinaj, testifying to the
20 events in Kosovo in 1998; and in the case of Racak, I testified for the
21 Prosecution on that topic here. I was a witness in the Milutinovic
22 et al. case, IT-05-87, as well as in the Vlastimir Djordjevic case which
23 was sometime in April 2009. And now I am testifying in this case, your
24 case, where, other than all the documents that you provided to me on CD,
25 DVD, and in written form, in 2011, we had the opportunity to meet when we
1 were hearing the Prosecution expert witnesses. This is it as far as my
2 work is concerned.
3 Q. Thank you, Professor. How many documents did you receive in
4 terms of the number of documents or the number of pages?
5 A. Believe me, this is still a mystery for me. In your case alone I
6 received ten DVDs, I don't know how many CDs, perhaps two; and then
7 subsequently more CDs were submitted, so we're talking about a huge
8 number of cases, a huge body of information in electronic form. All
9 those are collective and individual reports, autopsy reports, photos,
10 anthropological reports, documents regarding anthropological analysis,
11 photos from various sites, photos from post-mortems, photos of artefacts,
12 letters that are about all the investigations that were carried out in
13 Srebrenica. So it's really impossible for me to tell you how many pages
14 we're talking about. I believe that you and the Trial Chamber know best
15 how many pages those are because you have to read all of them.
16 Q. Thank you. You worked on documents, right? In your profession,
17 is it possible to work only on documents? What kind of documents do
18 these have to be? In repeated expert analysis, should the conclusions be
19 the same based on documents?
20 A. Working on documents alone is not an unusual procedure for an
21 expert in forensic medicine. I as an expert in forensic medicine have to
22 first look at a document to see whether they are adequate and whether
23 they meet certain standards, whether they were drafted in a standard way,
24 whether the description is good; and only after that, once I become
25 familiar with those facts, can I then decide whether the documents are
1 valid or not. This is how things are done. Let me paraphrase what I've
2 just said.
3 For example, I had a written document on the examination of the
4 body of King Aleksandar Karadjordjevic. Two doctors described the wounds
5 on his body. In order to check the description of the wounds, in order
6 to arrive at the same conclusion as anybody else who after so many years,
7 after 70 years, decided to analyse the body, you have to have an
8 unambiguous description of the wounds following the standards of the
9 forensic medicine. Since the description was not accurate and it was not
10 clear whether we're talking about two gun-shot wounds or one gun-shot
11 wound and two entry/exit wounds since that was not known, and I question
12 the number of lesions, I was allowed to examine the clothes that were on
13 King Aleksandar's body at the moment when he was shot. I identified a
14 damage on the clothes that corresponded to the description. So
15 indirectly I could accept those as the description of entry/exit wounds.
16 In other words, documents that you delivered to me, all the documents, I
17 had to first evaluate them in terms of their reliability, which means
18 whether the forensic standards have been complied with, whether the
19 documents contained all the relevant indicators. If all those existed,
20 then either I today or somebody in 20 years' time, when we look at that
21 same document, we will definitely arrive at the same conclusion. If I
22 cannot arrive at that conclusion today, that means that the document in
23 question, i.e., the description in the document is not accurate or good.
24 Q. Thank you. What is the hierarchy of importance in those
25 documents? How important is a description with regard to the final
1 opinion of the expert?
2 A. What is most important in any document in addition to its
3 validity, i.e., that it has undergone an administrative procedure, which
4 is what is done, there has to be a formal protocol applied. We are
5 talking about the post-mortem or autopsy report. In other words, there
6 is a standardised form of such a report which contains or has to contain
7 certain information. What one observes during an autopsy or during an
8 examination has to be described in detail. This is the autopsy findings.
9 Based on the findings, we can arrive at a conclusion. For example, if
10 there is a fracture of the femur, you have to find that in the
11 conclusion. And then the opinion which is given at the end is arbitrary.
12 It is based on the conclusion and on the findings; however, it is
13 individual and it is characteristic of any one individual or expert who
14 provides such an opinion. It's based on the know-how and the experience
15 of such an individual. So such opinions can be very arbitrary, even
16 incorrect. They can be malicious, they can be intentionally incorrect,
17 and that's how we perceive them in forensic medicine.
18 The most important thing about any document is its authenticity
19 and precision in description, I'm talking about autopsy reports here.
20 They have to respect a certain form so that everybody who reads this
21 document may arrive at the same conclusion. As a result of that,
22 opinions of various experts cannot be drastically different.
23 Q. Thank you. In Chapter 1, pages 9 through 12, you list all the
24 documents that have been submitted to you, i.e., all those documents that
25 you perused in order to draft your expert report. However, since we're
1 talking about your expert report in the case of the assassination of
2 King Aleksandar which happened in 1934, you were provided with documents
3 and with the king's clothes. In this case, were you provided with both
4 documents and the clothes?
5 A. No, in this case I was provided only with written documents in
6 electronic form and some hard copies, and among those electronic records
7 I found photos, black-and-white photos and coloured photos, and there
8 were also some audio recordings that were recorded during the
9 exhumations. I had a major problem and a major difficulty, I have to
10 admit that, to look at a locality or a mass grave, if you will, and to
11 find the original report as to how things were found in archaeological
12 terms and then to find the records on how the exhumation was carried out
13 and what were the characteristics of the grave. I had difficulty to find
14 how bodies were removed from those pits. And then I had to go through
15 all the files in order to find the autopsy reports for the bodies that
16 were found at that particular locality, and then I had to go to another
17 file in order to find the artefacts that were found in situ and yet
18 another file where I could find the artefacts that were found on the body
19 and yet another file where I could find anthropological reports and
20 photos of post-mortems. The material was so ample, so extensive, that it
21 took me a lot of time to go through all of it. I managed to cover just a
22 few cases, a small number of locations, that is, in somewhat greater
23 detail within the space of time that I was given for the analysis.
24 Q. Thank you. What happened to the physical evidence, the
25 biological material, the clothes, did you look for all that? Do you know
1 whether they exist? And if you had them, would that have helped you in
2 arriving at your findings that would be beneficial from the judiciary
3 point of view?
4 A. What one can see is this: Artefacts and objects that were found
5 during exhumations and post-mortems have all been described. Their
6 descriptions are in the reports. Some were even photographed. The main
7 pathologist recorded all of them in the main report for certain
8 locations. However, I did not have an opportunity to look at all of
9 them, i.e., to look for them and to examine them personally. I received
10 a letter on the 3rd of June, 2009, in the case that I was involved with
11 and that was the Vujadin Popovic case, IT-05-88. Zoran Zivanovic, the
12 Defence counsel for Vujadin Popovic, brought me a list of things which
13 are in the possession of the Prosecutor, which were not submitted to the
14 Prosecutor, and the third list of the physical evidence that was
15 destroyed. I don't know based on everything that was here about the
16 physical evidence. For example, clothes which is soiled or the traces of
17 blood. I really don't know how I would be able to check whether that
18 corresponds to the entries made in a report because they don't exist.
19 The physical pieces do not exist. I give you a document with a
20 description and then you either believe me or you don't believe me. I
21 cannot give you an opportunity to see for yourself. I'm talking about
22 the document that was given to me that I obviously commented upon.
23 Why is this important? This is important not only for
24 theoretical reasons but also from the aspect of the attitude towards the
25 entire procedure when it comes to establishing the truth. If certain
1 artefacts are either destroyed or lost or not properly described, as a
2 professional I deem this to be showing disrespect to a profession as well
3 as a negligent attitude towards the Court and the Tribunal. I allow
4 myself as a professional forensic expert to say this because we are
5 duty-bound when we carry out our analysis to also submit the physical
6 evidence which may be of importance for the Trial Chamber and which may
7 corroborate our claims, and the Trial Chamber must have the artefacts in
8 its possession.
9 Q. Thank you. Would it be customary for destroying materials before
10 they are used by the Defence, and what is then the position of the
11 Defence and the Trial Chamber?
12 A. Irrespective of who is involved, either the Prosecutor or the
13 Defence, it doesn't really matter. If artefacts are destroyed, neither
14 the Prosecutor nor the Defence are able to check things. In this
15 situation the question was raised. Somebody asked me, as a matter of
16 fact, in the Vujadin Popovic case and somebody told me that the artefacts
17 were photographed and described. And then I said: Well, wait. A photo
18 cannot replace an expert report which involves description and the traces
19 and everything else, because I don't know what's on the other side of the
20 photo. A photo is two-dimensional. I don't know what's behind the
21 photo. So a photo can never replace physical evidence and to be
22 considered as unambiguous or fully reliable in our forensic profession,
23 that is.
24 Q. Can you please tell us this: The presence of biological material
25 on artefacts, can this be established from a photo? Can it be
1 established in any other way by a direct inspection of such artefacts?
2 A. Only by a direct inspection. A photo will, for example, indicate
3 that there was a projectile and that there are projectile -- there are
4 traces on the projectile. You cannot tell whether those are the traces
5 of blood or rust or any other such thing that may exist. A photo cannot
6 tell you that. In order to be able to establish that, I have to carry
7 out a full analysis and this applies to every forensic expert. Once I
8 have carried out a forensic analysis, I can tell you what I found. I can
9 apply a DNA analysis in the case of biological material, and then I can
10 tell you who the body belonged to, i.e., whose body the projectile passed
11 through and inflicted death on that person.
12 Q. Thank you. You mentioned three types of physical evidence, the
13 physical evidence that was provided to the Prosecution, the evidence that
14 was never provided, and the evidence that was destroyed. What is the
15 ratio between the three? In your view, how much of the material was
16 destroyed and how come that some of the items were never received by the
18 A. I apologise. I have to consult my analysis.
19 Q. Can you tell us what you're looking at, which chapter?
20 A. It's Chapter 3, page 20. Here it goes, the list of destroyed
21 items, which is unnumbered, according to my calculation there are more
22 than 1.300 of them. The items in this list were recovered from almost
23 all the graves claimed to have been linked with Srebrenica. It follows
24 from that table that a significant number of identification documents
25 found in the graves had been destroyed -- has been destroyed. For
1 instance, 34 IDs from the Lazete 1 grave, 34 were destroyed and three
2 were in and out provided to the Tribunal to begin with. Shreds of fabric
3 that were important were also destroyed because they were used as
4 blindfolds for some of the exhumed individuals, elsewhere as ligatures,
5 and of course they may be used for other purposes as well, we're talking
6 about the fabric. That fabric would have special forensic significance
7 because now, as things stand, I am not in a position to tell you, and I
8 mean the Tribunal in general, whether what has been said about certain
9 types of fabric in certain grave-sites is correct as to the way they were
10 used. Was the strip of fabric truly where it is claimed that it was
11 ligature knotted or was it a rubber band that would be used for tying up
12 hair or as headband, et cetera. And of course, 30 to 40 similar strips
13 of fabric can be found in one locality, and that of course might indicate
14 or point to one answer.
15 So this is just this one piece of information that is highly
16 significant because it paves the way for manipulation in different
17 directions and so on and so forth. It follows from table 1 that the
18 entire artefacts retrieved from grave-sites, only 21.6 per cent were
19 preserved, that 37.1 per cent were never even provided to the Tribunal
20 and 41.29 per cent have been fully destroyed. So I'm referring to what
21 is contained in these reports.
22 Q. In addition to elements of biological material present, when it
23 comes to artefacts, clothing, personal effects, was it possible that the
24 elements retrieved on them were of origin other than biological and which
25 could, nevertheless, contribute to the establishment of the cause of
2 A. In addition to the biological material, which is very important
3 for identification purposes, such as DNA testing, there are other items,
4 personal effects, clothing, which may be contaminated with a variety of
5 substances, and I mean toxic substances. They can be charred or damaged
6 through a projectile, a shell, or in some other way. All these are
7 issues that may help and facilitate the explanation of a death. If you
8 have a person with shrapnel injury and if you find burnt clothing and
9 charred bones on that person, this will allow you to come to a conclusion
10 that the individual was injured by a shell which exploded nearby, that
11 there may have been other individuals in that same area who may have
12 incurred similar injuries and this may allow you to conclude that the
13 individual was killed in shelling in combat, let's say. So if all the
14 individuals retrieved in an area had shrapnel injuries, they could all
15 have perished from a single shell and similar.
16 So these are the sort of forensic conclusions that may arise from
17 the analysis of a single artefact.
18 Q. Thank you. In the absence of soft tissue, where there is full
19 skeletonisation, can the clothing reveal the type of asset that has
20 caused the death of an individual, whether it was a projectile, a shell,
21 or something else? Would it be possible to establish this on the basis
22 of clothing as you were able to do in the case of King Aleksandar? Could
23 one arrive at certain conclusions with the help of clothing in the
24 absence of soft tissue?
25 A. If a corpse is skeletonised with no soft tissue but there is a
1 presence of clothes, the defects present in the clothing which need to be
2 examined closely would, as a rule, if they were the result of a
3 projectile or shrapnel, have to be consistent with the injuries visible
4 on the hard tissue, of course not soft tissue because it's not there. On
5 this basis, the degree of probability rises that this individual may have
6 incurred a certain type of injury, if the defects present on the hard
7 tissue and the clothing are consistent. Of course, this does not allow
8 you to make a full assertion. It's quite a different matter if you have
9 to find what the cause of death was. We're talking here only about
10 identifying injuries and damage to the clothes.
11 Now, what did I have? I only had an incomplete description of
12 the injury to the torso and it was on the basis of the description of the
13 clothing that I was able to tell that the description is consistent with
14 the injury as described. However, I did not talk about the cause of
15 death. I only said what was possibly the cause of death.
16 Q. Thank you. Page 98, line 1, the Professor said that probability
17 rises and this is not what is recorded. So probability rises if we have
19 Is that the case, Professor, probability increases?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Who was supposed to take care of artefacts, clothing, personal
22 effects? Who was supposed to have custody over these matters and to
23 provide them to the parties to a proceeding?
24 A. I can only assume what the case was based on what the practice is
25 in our jurisdiction. It is all up to the court. The court will decide
1 what sort of evidence will be kept in the court records and they can be
2 made available to the parties to the proceeding.
3 I don't know what sort of system was applied at the site itself.
4 I suppose that the pathologist in charge or the investigator in charge of
5 a certain site would be the one to say which bodies would be placed in a
6 refrigerator unit, which bodies would be sent for autopsy once exhumed,
7 what sort of item would be kept where. So I suppose that it would be
8 either the investigator in charge of a locality or the pathologist in
9 charge. The pathologist in charge who, in my view, were the forensics
10 Mr. Lawrence and Patrick --
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- had to take care of that because
13 I've just indicated what the importance of these artefacts can be later
14 at trial.
15 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. We have one name missing, Clark?
17 A. Yes, and Christopher Hamilton Lawrence.
18 Q. Thank you. You said that they were well aware of it, just as you
19 are; right?
20 A. What I said was that they too are aware of all these issues that
21 I've mentioned, and I do believe that what was done was outside of their
23 Q. Thank you. Did you see a document whereby the Tribunal or the
24 Prosecutor's office, which was in possession of these artefacts, provided
25 their approval that such a large number of artefacts be destroyed?
1 A. No, I didn't see any such document. I don't know who issued the
2 order to destroy them.
3 Q. Thank you. Did you find in these descriptions that the clothing
4 or artefacts were tested for the presence of gunpowder or other chemical
5 substances that would in addition to biological substances help establish
6 the cause, manner, and time of death?
7 A. I'm trying to recall this. I think that gunpowder residue was
8 not tested. I even think that Mr. Haglund, the archaeologist in question
9 who, when asked by us about a certain assertion of his that I'm going to
10 refer to later, said himself that no such tests for gunpowder residue
11 were done. I can confirm at this time, after all that time, that any
12 positive tests, if obtained, would not in fact have any evidentiary
13 probative value for the Court. Even if gunpowder residue were to be
14 found, this does not mean that the part of body or clothing tested was,
15 in fact, in the vicinity of the barrel of a fire-arm that caused that
16 injury. Because gunpowder residue may be transferred from one surface to
17 another. If I have gunpowder residue on my hands and I take this note
18 pad in my hands and put it elsewhere, the note pad will have gunpowder
19 residue. So that much is true if the test for gunpowder is positive. If
20 it's negative, that again doesn't mean anything because of the lapse of
21 time. So in fact, no tests for gunpowder residue would carry any
22 probative value for the Court.
23 Q. Thank you. Would the presence of gunpowder residue be able to,
24 based on its pattern, indicate that it was a soldier or a civilian, or
25 could you tell us anything about those who opened fire from a fire-arm?
1 A. Finding gunpowder residue on the palms of hands, the lower arms,
2 or parts of clothing may indicate that the person in charge was in
3 contact with items such as a fire-arm which, when fired, left gunpowder
4 residue. Now, was this person a combatant in the sense of being a member
5 of the opposing side is not something that is up to me to establish. As
6 a forensic officer, I am there to establish whether there is any
7 gunpowder residue, where, what is the concentration, the pattern, and
8 nothing more.
9 Q. Thank you. One of the documents that you attached quite a bit of
10 significance to and you deal with in Chapter 2 at page 12 is the document
11 by Dusan Janc, Prosecution investigator, dated 13 March and 9 April 2009.
12 Can you tell the parties what the gist and significance of the document
13 are and how this document was important for you as a forensic expert?
14 A. I have to say that I became familiar with the document in the
15 Vujadin Popovic case. A report made by Investigator Dusan Janc on
16 13 March, a report made by that same investigator on 9 April 2009, those
17 were the documents that you have just indicated. I have it here, a copy
18 of it. And I referenced them here. To me as a forensic expert, the
19 document has multi-fold significance, and I mean the report done by the
20 ICTY Prosecution investigator. It contains a number of evidentiary
21 materials that I had my doubts about when I was looking at the various
22 findings. This is what it's about.
23 He produced a report on the 13th of March which has annexes A and
24 B, where the total number of primary and secondary graves is indicated,
25 those primary and secondary graves that are mutually connected through
1 DNA testing. We are talking about mass graves of sorts. Following his
2 analysis, he said that the total number of mortal remains in primary and
3 secondary graves hailed from mass execution sites, Orahovac, Petkovci
4 dam, Kozluk, Pilica.
5 The first term that is used here is "mass execution sites." As a
6 forensic expert, my understanding of the term is as the site of execution
7 or firing by a firing squad. In other words, it's a term which
8 predetermines the character and type of injury present in those who were
9 exhumed. And what is it that has been exhumed? In his corrigendum which
10 is visible here, it is stated as follows:
11 "This corrigendum," we're talking about the second or third
12 paragraph, "is submitted in order to clarify and correct the facts
13 regarding Kravica and Branjevo as execution sites and identified
14 individuals connected to these execution sites as presented on pages 36
15 and 37 of that report."
16 He himself goes on to say:
17 "Regarding the Kravica execution site, not all of the currently
18 identified individuals (total of 1319) can be attributed to this
19 execution site. This conclusion is based on different sources ..."
20 And then he goes on to list the sources. They include expert
21 reports, documents, witness statements and their testimonies. And then
22 he goes on to say:
23 12 of the individuals found in grave Glogova 1 have to be
24 excluded in relation to Kravica because they are victims who returned
25 from Serbia to the Army of Republika Srpska and then they disappeared and
1 were shot sometime in July -- 26 of July of 1995.
2 Then bodies of individuals from locations other than the Kravica
3 warehouse and the second piece of evidence is the bodies of persons from
4 locations other than the Kravica warehouse which were also taken to the
5 Glogova -- he himself says from the Vuk Karadzic school, in Bratunac, up
6 to 80 bodies. According to the testimonies of protected witnesses, then
7 from Potocari, 6 to 7; Konjevic Polje, 10 to 15; and along the
8 Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road, one full truck of collected bodies.
9 From what he has written, it does not only arise that the bodies
10 linked to Kravica is not the number of bodies that was identified, that
11 those are bodies that were found that were subsequently brought, but you
12 can see that these were bodies from the wider area, not only from
13 Srebrenica but from the broader area and that they were buried. So now
14 we have the question -- since the identifications were carried out there,
15 I'm going to link that and then I will come back to this later. This
16 means the following for a forensics expert, that in the Glogova site
17 there were subsequent burials carried out, that bodies were brought that
18 has already decomposed, which means that if the bodies were already
19 decomposed, it means that the death occurred much earlier, before
20 July 1995. And from Janc's report, his first report, it can be seen from
21 the list of victims linked to Srebrenica includes all of these cases
22 related to Kravica, includes the cases from Potocari, 1 to 7, 1 and 2 --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Potocari 1 and 2 and Tisova 7 even
25 cases are included from Bljeceva which the cantonal prosecutor's office
1 in Tuzla declared, for these 46 victims, had nothing to do with
2 Srebrenica. This is on page 14 of my report. Therefore, the Janc report
3 has to be interpreted - and I am interpreting it from the forensic
4 aspect - as practically confirming my view from previous analysed autopsy
5 reports and previous cases where I asserted that if exhumed bodies in one
6 location which have different degrees of putrification, that could
7 indicate that there is a different time of death, one; different time of
8 burial under 2; different causes of decomposition, and not just that a
9 different degree of putrefaction would reflect the actual situation in
10 the grave as Mr. Lawrence wrote. And even the archaeologist
11 Richard Wright when I listened to him.
12 Why do I say this? I say it because when I -- actually, when
13 Mr. Christopher Lawrence was asked if different degrees of putrefaction
14 can indicate different time of death, he answered yes, here before this
15 Tribunal when I was just a consultant and when I was listening to his
16 testimony as requested by the Prosecution in 2011. You will recall that.
17 Therefore, the report by Dusan Janc is important in several
18 aspects because it overturns the thesis that those people on the list who
19 are missing in connection with Srebrenica were all -- all died in
20 Srebrenica within a ten-day period and they did not because some of them
21 died much earlier. And I proved that in my expert report because
22 according to documents provided by the Prosecution, this person died in
23 1993. This is Potocari 1 and 2. Then Bljeceva, Bljeceva 1 which was
24 discovered, there are 46 cases there of persons buried and expected
25 before the events in Srebrenica and the cantonal prosecutor's office in
1 Tuzla wrote that these cases are unrelated to Srebrenica. So that
2 somebody who wrote a report for the ICMP or any other organisation for
3 missing persons included those cases as well.
4 What else I would like to emphasise is this. This protected
5 witness who was here, I don't know who it is, PW161, doesn't matter what
6 his name is, he said that a full truck of bodies was gathered -- P, PW,
7 P. It's not K, correct it, it's P, PW161.
8 A full truck of collected bodies. So now I put the question
9 where they were collected from and what was the state that these bodies
10 were in. Because if a body, as Janc said, is found in a primary grave,
11 Glogova 1, and a part of that same body in primary grave-site Glogova 2,
12 then either Glogova 1 is the primary grave for that body or it's the
13 secondary grave for that same body or, and what is more probable in my
14 opinion, is that it's a primary grave-site for both parts of the body but
15 who was buried because it -- the body had already -- previously had
16 putrefied and these were two separate body parts in two different areas,
17 so one part was buried in Glogova 1 and the other in Glogova 2, and when
18 you do the DNA analysis, you can actually see that it is one person.
19 When you do the DNA analysis, a certain number found in one place has to
20 be connected. You cannot count the same person as being buried in
21 Glogova 1 and in Glogova 2. You have to subtract some numbers here.
22 Q. Does that mean then that the conclusion is, or rather, how does
23 this relate to conclusions that some body was a victim of execution and
24 then was subsequently buried in one grave and then transferred so that a
25 part of that body was buried in a different grave? Can you make that
1 conclusion if these options are possible or specially if one were to say
2 that there are two primary graves and then in both primary graves there
3 are parts of one and the same body?
4 A. I cannot accept it in that form, that it's a question of
5 execution. The probability is very slight that something like that could
6 happen. In my view, finding parts of a single body on two different
7 locations would rather indicate that that particular person was either
8 killed or died or the body putrefied, and then due to different external
9 conditions the body parts were separated, which indicates also the role
10 of animals. Possibly a person with an open wound would attract wild
11 animals. And then you would have disarticulation so that parts of a body
12 that are disarticulated would be found in different graves. This report
13 is significant in itself because it indicates that victims were buried in
14 several time-periods in the same place, that some were already decomposed
15 even before they were brought, and that would indicate -- I apologise,
16 that would indicate different times of death. That is the essence of
17 Janc's report. And then he corrects himself.
18 And of course something that I cannot accept is that the term
19 "places of mass execution" is continually used. Mass execution sites
20 would imply executions in a certain area, executions being carried out in
21 a certain area. But based on my analysis and examination of autopsy
22 report, there is a very small, a limited number of persons, with
23 injuries. I couldn't even find a body that I could say was the body of a
24 victim who was executed, except for those people where it was established
25 beyond any doubt that there were ligatures, wires or ropes. In such
1 cases where such ligatures were found, I would believe that they were
2 victims of executions. There is a very slight difference with others
3 where no ligatures were found. That doesn't mean that all those persons
4 died by execution. There could be -- the cause of death could be
5 shrapnel, projectiles, one or two of them which could indicate death
6 caused by shells as a consequence of combat.
7 Q. Professor, thank you. Are you able to tell us how many bodies
8 were found with ligatures who without doubt could be considered to be
9 victims of execution? Could you please tell us how many such bodies did
10 investigators find, bodies with ligatures?
11 A. Taking into account the descriptions and firm evidence,
12 photographs and descriptions, you would say that some 400, 450, or
13 500 bodies were found with such ligatures. And as a forensic expert, I
14 can accept only that number of persons as being victims of executions.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that line 1, 107 has
16 erroneous numbers, it's between 475.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I apologise, 400, 450, to
18 500. This is what Dean Manning cited. I would even cite a larger number
19 because I did not check all the reports after 2000. So I draw the line
20 there. So as a forensics expert, I would stand by that number. As for
21 all the other numbers, those people who are victims of gun-shot wounds,
22 shrapnel, blast wounds, in those cases there is nothing that would
23 indicate executions at, as I keep repeating here, places of mass
24 execution. I simply cannot accept that term because this did not occur
25 in one place but there were several places and that number is incorrect.
1 In the same way that I proved that the number linked to Kravica is
2 incorrect and that would apply to all the other cases as well.
3 I said here -- just one second. Let me find the place where I
4 state that conclusion. Ah, yes. One more conclusion, if there is time,
5 based on the Janc report. The bodies where parts of bone or fragments of
6 bone were found which are connected by DNA to some other location, only
7 those bodies parts are connected to that particular location. Everything
8 else in that primary or secondary grave, irrespective of which,
9 especially if we are talking about secondary grave-sites, are not bodies
10 that were brought from the primary grave. There is no evidence of that,
11 not Lawrence or Clark can prove that. Meaning, in other words, only
12 those body parts which are connected to a primary or a secondary grave by
13 their DNA, they can be connected to that primary or secondary grave. All
14 the other bodies that were found there must be connected -- actually,
15 must be considered to be buried in that primary grave. This is not a
16 theoretical conclusion; this is a substantial conclusion, there is a
17 secondary grave. But it is a question whether an archaeologist can tell
18 when the secondary graveyards were created. Were they enriched
19 subsequently? He couldn't say that but he could not rule it out either,
20 that the secondary graves and the primary graves also had a large number
21 of decomposed bodies buried there later, bodies that were found in the
22 broader Srebrenica area.
23 Q. Thank you. You quoted somebody as saying "enriched" --
24 JUDGE KWON: Shall we stop here today?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I just wanted this in line 7
1 what was missing, the Professor didn't say that. This was said by
2 somebody else.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Richard Wright and Hamilton
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That the graves were enriched. It
6 is not in the transcript, but that means subsequent burial, bodies that
7 were buried subsequently.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Buried subsequently, that would be
9 the correct term. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KWON: No, it's there, I heard that, line 7 on this page.
11 Yes, Mr. Mitchell.
12 MR. MITCHELL: Mr. President, I just wanted to clarify if it's
13 the Professor 's evidence that Richard Wright and Dr. Lawrence said that
14 those graves were enriched? Is that what he's saying?
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is my diary at the time
17 when they testified, so I'm just going to refer you to the day and the
18 time of day.
19 THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]
20 MR. MITCHELL: We can leave it, Professor. I know what they said
21 on this point.
22 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
23 We'll continue tomorrow. As you are well aware, Dr. Dunjic,
24 please do not discuss with anybody else about your testimony.
25 The hearing is adjourned.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.50 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of
3 July, 2013, at 9.00 a.m.