1 Thursday, 23 September 2004
2 [Closed session]
12 Pages 5851 to 5920 – redacted – closed session.
4 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.
6 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE ORIE: If they're public, they can be admitted in a public
14 section as well. So we are now in open session again.
15 Madam Registrar, could you please give the title and the numbers
16 of the two intercepts.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit number P282: Transcript of
18 intercepted conversation between Momcilo Krajisnik and Mirko Krajisnik,
19 dated 15 June 1992. And P282.1, the English translation.
20 P283: Transcript of intercepted conversation between Momcilo
21 Krajisnik and Mirko Krajisnik, dated 22 June 1992. P283.1, English
23 P284, map of Sarajevo.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Since there are no objections, they're admitted into
25 evidence, not under seal, whereas the previous numbers are admitted under
2 Mr. Stewart, I think we have only one document which is both in
3 the original language and in translation, and the Chamber will wait to
4 receive the other documents unless you say we'll deal with the transcript
5 and the portions read, it's sufficiently clear, and we could do even
6 without --
7 MR. STEWART: Yes. I think we can already say that, Your Honour.
8 Those were very short passages, and it does appear that the
9 interpretation we had is, not surprisingly, more than adequate.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although -- yes. Only the officially
11 translated document there, there might be some questions especially in
12 the last lines as to whether the translation is correct or not, in
13 relation to the question I put to the Defence where it said --
14 MR. STEWART: Oh, that one, Your Honour. Yes. Yes, because we
15 didn't have -- I'm thinking of those passages that were in fact
16 interpreted orally this morning, where we wouldn't propose to have a
17 further translation done.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, I do understand that you're referring to
20 MR. STEWART: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So they'll not be tendered as documentary evidence
22 but just read into the transcript. And -- yes. And then, Madam
23 Registrar, we have one document, and that is?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D27, Momcilo Krajisnik in an
25 interview to Dnevnik of August 1993, and D27.1, the English translation.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No objection, therefore admitted into
3 Then I finally have one other question, but I urge the parties to
4 be very cautious because it was dealt with in closed session. We have
5 two documents in support of the reasons, I'll give in a minute, the
6 reasons why protective measures were asked by Witness 623. I think
7 marking for identification when we're in closed session would be a proper
8 way of dealing with that.
9 MR. HANNIS: I agree, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So we will wait until we are in closed session
11 sooner or later -- no. We can perhaps go into private session for a
13 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Since we are in open session now, Madam Registrar, a
23 decision has been taken in closed session last Monday, and that was a
24 decision on a motion for protective measures, and that decision should be
25 public, so its in the transcript of the 20th of September, 2004. One of
1 the legal officers gave me the pages, but I just lost them. It's the
2 part starting with the phrase "This is a decision on the Prosecution's
3 motion for protective measures for Witness 623. The motion was filed
4 confidentially on the 24th of August, 2004." That's the beginning of the
5 part that will be now to the public, and it ends with the line, "The
6 Prosecution motion is granted." It's a couple of pages further. So that
7 is now part of the public record of this these proceedings.
8 Mr. Hannis, is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
9 MR. HANNIS: We are, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And who is going to lead that witness?
11 MR. HANNIS: Mr. Margetts will be dealing with this witness for
12 the Prosecution, Your Honour, although this is a witness who is a 92 bis
13 witness here for cross-examination, and if I I'd like to be --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Mr. Margetts will be
16 dealing with this witness for the Prosecution, Your Honour, although this
17 is a witness who is here as a 92 bis witness called for cross-exam.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. HANNIS: And if I may, Your Honour, I request to be excused
20 at this time.
21 JUDGE ORIE: There are no protective measures, and it is Mr.
22 Begovic, if --
23 MR. MARGETTS: General Asim Dzambasovic, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think I got the wrong one on the list. Yes,
25 then. Madam Usher would you please escort the witness into the
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I have an objection I'd like to make
3 to one very substantial paragraph in his statement. It may be more
4 convenient if I make that objection the witness comes in.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's -- please tell us what your objection
7 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'm just wondering if Your Honour has the
8 relevant document.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't got it in front of me at this moment.
10 MR. STEWART: It's the statement of this witness stated or signed
11 on the 16th of October, 2002.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STEWART: Which I think must be coming up as one of the very
14 earliest items.
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's the long statement, yes. Thank you.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour is right. It's the very long one.
17 And my objection is to the penultimate paragraph. So that begins on
18 page 29.
19 Your Honour, I won't read through the whole thing, but if I may
20 simply refer specifically to the first few lines. Does Your Honour see a
21 paragraph beginning "As to the 'Ram Plan'" --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't found it yet.
23 MR. STEWART: So sorry, Your Honour. It's page 29.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got it in front of me. Please proceed.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Stewart, please.
1 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. "As to the 'Ram Plan' or
2 the Brana Plan, the Muslim officers did not know about this plan until
3 after the war." So the Muslim officers includes them. "I read about
4 such plans in a book," which he mentions, and then he mentions other
5 books. "I only saw the JNA plans titled S1, S2, S2A. They followed the
6 structure of containment."
7 And then he continues another couple of lines down: "This Brana
8 or Ram Plan idea matches with a view for Greater Serbia. I have reached
9 this conclusion after studying the war plans, reading books and reports
10 of the war. I am among a group of 20 or 30 officers who have studied
11 this issue and the war. We reached the conclusion that this plan was the
12 basis for the first or initial deployment of the JNA in Croatia."
13 And I can short-circuit this for the moment, as part of my
14 initial submission and objection, because over the page and then about
15 four or five lines from the end of this long paragraph he says: "As to
16 the Drina River and the siege of Sarajevo, this would be the last step in
17 the frame. I do not believe that there are any military experts who can
18 dispute this plan. It was --" and so on. And, really, that last passage
19 I referred to points to the problem.
20 This paragraph is plainly in substance expert evidence. Now,
21 when a military officer comes along to give evidence as a factual
22 witness, of course his specific professional experience is in the nature
23 of expertise. Of course it is. He is expert to that extent. But that's
24 not technically expert evidence. It is coming along and describing how
25 your particular job is done, how your particular profession is exercised,
1 your particular technical knowledge, and that's factual evidence. This
2 is not. This, what he's talking about here, and the very fact that he,
3 in effect, challenges other military experts to dispute the plan
4 indicates just that. He is not presented to us as an expert witness. We
5 have not come or indeed taken the steps to consult and match him and
6 prepare for his cross-examination armed with expert witness guidance and
7 expert consultant guidance. And unless there are -- there may be --
8 there may be isolated factual points in here legitimately within the
9 realm of a factual witness, which the Prosecution so far as they're
10 relevant and probative, couldn't be prevented from adducing in the normal
11 way. But -- and if they wish to do that, then I suggest that they
12 indicate what those might be.
13 But otherwise, we ask for the whole of that paragraph to be
14 excised from the -- well, it's 92 bis evidence but excised from the
16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, Mr. Stewart's observations are
17 correct. This witness is called as a fact witness, not an expert
18 witness. He has previously appeared as an expert witness in this
19 Tribunal, but on this occasion that's not the case.
20 The paragraph in question, we concur that that is a paragraph
21 more suitable to an expert and we are happy to have it excised. The only
22 difficulty is that the order of Your Honours of 12 May 2004 in respect of
23 the admission of the 92 bis evidence in fact admits this statement,
24 including that paragraph, into the evidence. So that would need to be
25 dealt with.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You say if we would follow both the Defence, and at
2 this moment in this respect the Prosecution who shares the view of this
3 to be expert evidence, then we would then have to take a decision that
4 this part is not -- would not be admitted. Of course it's never too late
5 to do such a thing. Of course not the whole paragraph is expert. I
6 mean, the first line is that "Officers did not know about the plans until
7 after the war." That's of course factual.
8 Let's keep in mind at this moment that this, according to both
9 parties, is expert -- well, mainly expert evidence, although not all of
10 it, and we'll give a decision on that whether this is excluded from the
11 92 bis admission.
12 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And we are start on the basis of this understanding
14 and -- yes.
15 Then, Madam Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzambasovic, before giving evidence in this
19 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn
20 declaration that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
21 the truth. Text will be handed out to you now by Madam Usher. May I
22 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
24 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dzambasovic. Please be seated.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 WITNESS: ASIM DZAMBASOVIC
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'll first explain to you the procedure. Mr.
5 Dzambasovic, the Prosecution has submitted to this Chamber written
6 statements of interviews you gave before. The Defence has asked to put
7 questions in this respect to you, but we first start with a short summary
8 of what is in your statement so that the public will know what we're
9 talking about.
10 Mr. Margetts. Let me just see. Is there any -- there's no
11 reference to the last paragraph of this statement in the summary, is it?
12 It's not reflected specifically.
13 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, that paragraph is not referred to in
14 the summary. Just one matter before we proceed with the summary.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honours' ruling of 12 May 2004 admitted the
17 13 June 2000 statement, the 16 October 2002 statement and referred to the
18 attachments to those statements, stating that the Prosecution can make
19 application at the end of the witness's evidence to have those
20 attachments that they wish to have admitted into evidence admitted.
21 We've provided a list of exhibits which has ten documents listed in it.
22 The last two documents are not technically attachments to the statements.
23 Both of these documents are quite voluminous, and there is extensive
24 reference in the statements to these documents. But within the bounds of
25 Your Honour's order of 12 May 2004, they technically could not being
1 characterised as attachments. So just at this stage I wanted to raise
2 the issue with Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When has the Defence been informed about
4 documents outside the scope of the attachments to be submitted?
5 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, the potential list of documents
6 including these documents was provided to the Defence, I believe, at the
7 end of last week. The final list of documents that being the ten that
8 you see today, was provided to the Defence yesterday. And if you see the
9 description of the documents that's in the list before you, it
10 specifically refers to the last two documents as documents referred to in
11 the statements and in the other -- and in respect of the other documents,
12 it specifically refers to them as attachments to the statements.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that it needs some close
14 reading to -- but -- Mr. Stewart, is there any response to this
16 MR. STEWART: Not really. I haven't had time to read them
17 anyway, Your Honour, so --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So a final decision, then. And would you
19 please indicate Mr. -- well, of course you're not going to examine the
20 witness, so therefore we'll first wait until Mr. Stewart has at least had
21 a glance on it and perhaps read it wholly, or Ms. Loukas, and then
22 further see whether he has any response to your observations then, and
23 then look at it ourselves as well so as to see whether or not this is
24 material that is admissible, yes are no.
25 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honours. Just one further matter on
1 that issue, and that is that there is extensive reference to these
2 documents in the statement, so the Prosecution does not see the need to
3 examine the witness any further in regard to these documents and wouldn't
4 be seeking leave to do so. Our application would be based on the
5 comments that are already contained in the evidence that has been
6 admitted pursuant to 92 bis (A).
7 JUDGE ORIE: You would then refrain from any direct knowledge of
8 these non-attachments.
9 MR. MARGETTS: Sorry, Your Honour?
10 JUDGE ORIE: You would then not need them? Is that the correct
12 MR. MARGETTS: No, sorry, Your Honour. All I was saying was
13 this: that these documents were not attached, and in terms of the basis
14 upon which we are seeking there are admission into evidence, that basis
15 is sufficiently established in the statements that have been made by the
16 witness so far.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, that's clear. That's the basis on which
18 you seek admission. But let's first see, perhaps tomorrow, what the
19 respond of the Defence is.
20 Yes. Then we now go to the summary.
21 MR. MARGETTS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts, yes.
23 MR. MARGETTS: The 92 bis summary of the witness Asim Dzambasovic
24 is as follows:
25 General Asim Dzambasovic is a retired General from the Army of
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina. He retired in the year 2000 after 30 years in
2 the military.
3 His evidence concerns the period from September 1990 to April
4 1992, when he was the chief of staff and deputy commander of the 216th
5 Mountain Brigade of the JNA. During this period, General Dzambasovic was
6 based at the command headquarters of the brigade in the municipality of
7 Han Pijesak in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 The commander of the 216th Brigade and General Dzambasovic's
9 superior was Dragomir Milosevic. Milosevic's superior and the commander
10 of the 4th corps of the JNA was the Serb General Vojislav Djurdjevac.
11 During 1991, there were two formal orders for mobilisation in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the first on 30 June 1991, and the second on 17
13 September 1991. The first mobilisation failed. Almost exclusively,
14 Serbs responded to the second mobilisation resulting in an ethnic
15 imbalance being created in the JNA.
16 In addition to the recruitment of Serb men to the units of the
17 JNA, the SDS party recruited men into volunteer units. Serb volunteer
18 units were located in Milici in Vlasenica municipality, in Borike and
19 Gucevo in Rogatica municipality and in Sokolac. In early 1992, these
20 Serb volunteer units were subordinated to the 216th Mountain Brigade.
21 The three battalions that constituted the 216th Mountain Brigade were
22 formed in Serb-dominated areas. The 1st Battalion was formed in the
23 village of Gucevo in Rogatica, the 2nd Battalion in Sokolac, and the 3rd
24 Battalion in Milici in Vlasenica.
25 By April 1992, the 216th Mountain Brigade was effectively a
1 Serbian brigade and the JNA had become a Serb army.
2 General Dzambasovic was excluded from the planning process in the
3 high level command of the brigade. He was bypassed by Serb officers, who
4 consulted directly with Colonel Milosevic. In early 1992, some of his
5 duties were transferred away from him to his Serb deputies, and at this
6 stage he was chief of staff on paper only, and did he not have real
8 From late 1991, weapons and ammunition were distributed from the
9 JNA store to Serbs. SDS leaders from the municipalities of Vlasenica,
10 Rogatica, Sokolac, Olovo and Kladanj had regular meetings with Colonel
11 Milosevic in Han Pijesak. General Dzambasovic saw Rajko Kusic from
12 Rogatica, Milan Tupajic from Sokolac, Rajko Dukic from Vlasenica and
13 Todorovic from Han Pijesak meeting with Milosevic.
14 General Dzambasovic raised these issues with Colonel Milosevic
15 and also with the corps commander, General Djurdjevac. He told them that
16 command and control was not being followed, that arms were being
17 distributed, arms were being stolen from JNA stores, there was inadequate
18 discipline, and he raised the issue of improper meetings taking place
19 with political leaders. No investigations nor any other action was taken
20 by either Milosevic or Djurdjevac to address these concerns.
21 In early March 1992, orders relating to combat readiness were
22 issued by the commander of the 2nd Military District General Milutin
23 Kukanjac to all units in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The orders were
24 expressed as preparations for defence. However, the military did not
25 have any information that an attack was imminent or even that any
1 attacking forces existed.
2 On 4 April, 1992, General Dzambasovic was shown a document
3 stating that all Serbs in the area of responsibility of the 216th
4 Mountain Brigade were to be mobilised on the orders of the SDS. At this
5 point, he realised there was no longer anyplace for him in the JNA. He
6 met with Colonel Milosevic, and Milosevic told him that he could no
7 longer guarantee his safety. He immediately left and made his way to
9 Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart. The Defence has asked the witness to
11 appear to be cross-examined. You may proceed.
12 MR. STEWART: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:
14 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, you have given a number of statements, and the
15 one I'm referring to at the moment for the record is the 13th of June,
17 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the statement that I had wasn't
18 actually paragraph numbered but I don't think it's going to create an
19 enormous problem. Looking at the English version, on page 4 of 8. I
20 don't believe at the moment it's essential for the witness to have the
21 statement. I'll put the points.
22 Q. Mr. Dzambasovic, you said that by early 1992, there having been a
23 mobilisation of a lot of Serb volunteers, these battalions, and they were
24 the battalions of your brigade, were almost exclusively Serb. When you
25 say "almost exclusively," can you give an idea of the relatively
1 proportions? How many non-Serbs, in percentage terms, were at that point
2 contained within those battalions?
3 A. Your Honours, I can speak about these questions. I don't know
4 how much detail you're interested in, but because I'm an eyewitness of
5 all these events, I can speak about these things in great detail or in
6 not such detail.
7 The ethnic structure of the brigade, which was valid and
8 according to which the brigade was replenished according to the rules of
9 the military mobilisation, under that structure --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me stop you. Try, to the best of your
11 ability, to focus and to concentrate on the specific question put to you.
12 If we need any further details, you can be sure that Mr. Stewart will ask
13 you about them.
14 So the question now only was: What was the percentage remaining
15 non-Serbs in this battalion? So if you know or if you say, "Well, I
16 wouldn't know but it's anything between 10 or 20," or "I know exactly,
17 it's 17.6," tell us that. I know that -- at least I have to assume that
18 you know far more than you'll be asked here, but we are under some time
19 restraints, and therefore we have to ask you what is most relevant for
20 the parties. So please concentrate on that, yes?
21 So the question was what percentage, if you know, of non-Serbs
22 were at that moment still in those battalions or that battalion.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour. It's the three battalions. The
24 1st Battalion of the brigade which you said moved to Rogatica, the 2nd
25 Battalion which had moved to Sokolac and the 3rd Battalion which moved to
1 Milici. That was your summary of those battalions.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those battalions, yes, there were
4 three battalions. They were combat units, the percentage of Serbs in
5 those battalions was over 90 per cent [as interpreted]. At the time when
6 the second mobilisation was carried out, this was from the 17th of
7 September, so up until the 17th of September that figure, that
8 percentage, was approximately the same,as relating to the Serbs and
9 according to the Bosnian Muslims. The total percentage in the brigade,
10 since the brigade is a part of all those units, in percentages there were
11 more Bosniaks in the brigade. It was 54 per cent. And the rest were
13 MR. STEWART:
14 Q. So in the --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. STEWART:
17 Q. So in -- by early 1992, which was the point in time that you were
18 talking about in your statement, as far as these three battalions were
19 concerned, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion -- first of all, overall in those
20 battalions can we be clear what you say was the percentage of non-Serbs?
21 Can I do it that way round and ask you what you consider to be the
22 percentage of non-Serbs, please.
23 A. At the beginning of 1992, the percentage was perhaps 1 to 2 per
24 cent of non-Serbs, primarily thanking -- because of the officers who were
25 in those units who were not Serbs. I include myself amongst those
2 Q. And was that for all practical purposes, was that percentage even
3 across those three battalions or was there any significant difference
4 between one and another?
5 A. The differences were very slight, practically immaterial. So I
6 think the situation was more or less the same. In all the three
7 battalions, the ethnic structure was mono-ethnic in the battalion.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, I'm sorry to rise to my feet at the
9 time, but in the answer to the initial question, there was a percentage
10 quoted, and that percentage I heard as 98 per cent but seems to have been
11 recorded in the transcript as 90 per cent.
12 JUDGE ORIE: What I heard, as a matter of fact, is that it was
13 more than 90 per cent, but if the witness said -- let's verify it.
14 MR. STEWART: We say we distinctly heard -- memories play tricks
15 but we thought we heard "over 90 per cent" as what the witness said
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a full hundred per cent makes Serbs and
18 non-Serbs, so the 1 or 2 per cent goes a bit in the direction of 98, so
19 perhaps you could clarify that.
20 We understood your testimony to be, and I'm not sure about the
21 moment in time, but to be that over 90 per cent were Serbs in these three
22 battalions, where others understood it to be more than 98 per cent. What
23 in you first answer about percentages, what did you say?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I said over 90 per cent,
25 thinking that it is practically impossible to say 100 per cent. But
1 mostly it was probably between -- I cannot give you an exact figure, but
2 it's perhaps over 98 per cent, even.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, the logic and the arithmetic of
5 the witness and me were entirely consistent. In fact, the reason I asked
6 him to turn it the other way round and give the non-Serb percentage was
7 precisely because over 90 per cent wasn't specific enough for the
8 purpose. So we've got there eventually. We've actually got to where we
9 were to start with as it happens, but never mind.
10 Q. Witness, thank you.
11 A. You're welcome.
12 Q. In the Han Pijesak, if I've got that right, barracks, you said
13 there was a big warehouse that contained all the weapons and ammunition
14 for the Territorial Defence units in the surrounding area. Then you said
15 from the beginning of 1992 until April, that must have April 1992 when
16 you left, the old system for accounting for the inflow and outflow of
17 weapons and ammunition was totally ignored.
18 Now, I just want to clarify with you. Are you saying that there
19 was, in fact, no -- no proper control any more?
20 A. That is correct. In our barracks, there were warehouses which
21 were guarded by the JNA about ten -- and they were the weapons of some
22 ten municipalities from that area of Eastern Bosnia. The attitude
23 towards the weapons and guarding them was very strict as far as the JNA
24 was concerned when that was -- when they were there. Then, in that
25 period, all the standards and norms vis-a-vis guarding the weapons ceased
1 to be applied. The warehouses were broken into, equipment and weapons
2 were stolen, and the authorised bodies did nothing to prevent that. That
3 was the essence. Weapons were being trucked away without any kind of
5 Up until that time, no one -- no one could even bring in a
6 bullet, not even a man could enter the barracks without monitoring. But
7 after that, trailer trucks without any proper papers would arrive at the
8 barracks, without anything. Equipment was being driven away. Nobody
9 knew where it was being taken, what was the reason for that. There were
10 no documents. That was the problem.
11 I informed my superior command about these events, but nobody did
12 anything to prevent this.
13 Q. So, Mr. Dzambasovic, you've described elsewhere in your
14 statements how, when the system had been operating properly as you
15 indicated a moment ago, even a single round of ammunition had to be and
16 was properly accounted for. That was the position, wasn't it? Now, the
17 -- and you're nodding.
18 The situation we got into, then, by early 1992, can you confirm
19 it included these elements: First of all, you say it included the
20 movement of weapons in and out of the weapons warehouse without them then
21 being properly logged and accounted for and presumably without the proper
22 paperwork being done; is that correct?
23 A. Not only the paperwork, but there was real chaos. I can spend
24 half a day giving you details about how when the vehicles came who
25 accompanied the vehicles. I could give the names of those people.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 The authorities from the superior command who had the technical means and
2 equipment to prove this, and you as lawyers know what all of that
3 implies, none of them wanted to implement this. They pretended as if
4 nothing had happened, which was absurd. It would be absurd in an earlier
5 period. It is something that should not have been allowed to happen. If
6 something like that were allowed to happen, I would have been replaced,
7 the commander, the person in charge of guarding the warehouse.
8 At the time, all of this was left aside and for us professional
9 officers, the chaos that ensued was a very big surprise.
10 Q. Well, Witness, half a day's description will be beyond any legal,
11 military, or any other duty, so I won't press you for that. But it is
12 correct, then, in a nutshell the chaos which you say prevailed, did
13 include movement of weapons in and out without any proper logging and
14 accounting, and without any proper paperwork. It included that as an
15 element; is that correct?
16 A. Yes, that is correct. This was done illegally and secretly and
17 in all possible illegal ways. Even fuel canisters were used to carry
19 I found on a couple of occasions a soldier putting bullet by
20 bullet, filling bullet by bullet, fuel canisters so that you would not be
21 able to tell that they were using them to carry ammunition. All of these
22 things were done by members of the Serb ethnic group.
23 Q. And a second element you mentioned, break-ins. Was there a
24 breakdown then of just basic security of the premises?
25 A. No. There was security personnel, but those "security" officers
1 did not see or did not want to see that weapons were being stolen, taken
2 away, removed from that location.
3 I confirmed it in the following way: People were assigned to
4 security who colluded in these activities. For example, a warehouse
5 would be robbed in the course of the night. A tonne of equipment and
6 materiel would be carried out and the soldiers there on guard duty would
7 not see that. That is an absurd thing to say, that they would claim that
8 they see anything. The security organs who were supposed to take
9 measures, in whose jurisdiction it was, went on about their job as if
10 nothing like that happened. So this was something that was just kept
11 quiet about.
12 But at meetings which I attended every day, things were said to
13 the effect that we have to security the warehouses. We just find those
14 responsible for removing and stealing the weapons. The perpetrators must
15 be published. But none of that was actually implemented in practice.
16 Q. The system that you describe, Mr. Dzambasovic, that -- would you
17 agree, it clearly also opened up considerable scope for financial
18 corruption as well, opportunities to sell weapons?
19 A. There were possibilities of all sorts to do that, financial
20 possibilities and other types of possibilities for things like that.
21 Q. The warehouse of the Han Pijesak barracks was in a sort of valley
22 surrounded by woods, so it was a very favourable location for those who
23 were doing things like that. And these acts to take away the weapons
24 were something that was done on the basis of agreement with the
25 leadership in Han Pijesak and the surrounding settlements.
1 I went to several places where I heard something like this. I
2 happened to be in a restaurant on a couple of occasions, and I heard them
3 talking about how they were going to take out weapons from the barracks,
4 not being aware of the fact that I was an officer, a Bosniak, a Muslim.
5 So they said that without being cautious.
6 Actually, what I even said at meetings was -- and when people
7 reported back to us, those who were responsible for that, these people
8 would tell us what the problem was, but nothing was done to actually
9 resolve these problems.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour I can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart --
12 MR. STEWART: -- see the clock. Well, I can't miss it from where
13 I stand.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dzambasovic, we have to stop for the day. We'll
15 resume tomorrow morning in Courtroom I, so not this same courtroom, at
16 9.00. I instruct you not to speak with anyone about your testimony once
17 you've started. You should refrain from speaking to anyone, whether
18 Prosecution, Defence, or any other person to speak about your testimony.
19 I would first ask Madam Usher to escort the witness out of the courtroom.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand, and thank you
21 very much for that caution.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, could you give us any impression of the
24 time you need for cross-examination.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I'm really pretty confident that I
1 would finish my --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone.
4 MR. STEWART: Thank you for reminding me. Your Honour, I'm
5 pretty confident that I would be finished before the first break
7 JUDGE ORIE: Before the first break.
8 MR. STEWART: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Because I noted that the witness has a lot to tell
11 MR. STEWART: Well, I'm sure that we're going to work together,
12 Your Honour, with respect to make sure he tells us the essentials but not
13 the utterly non-essential.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I'd rather leave it primarily in your hands, but if
15 you need any assistance, I'll certainly be glad to help.
16 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honours. It's helpful to know
17 where the task lies first in this structure.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00,
19 Courtroom I.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.40 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Friday, the 23rd day of
22 September, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.