1 Wednesday, 4
2 [Open Session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.22 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, ladies and
6 gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth, the interpreters. Good
7 morning to the staff of the registry, the counsel for the Prosecution, the
8 counsel for the Defence. Good morning, General Krstic.
9 We are resuming our hearing today, and I'm looking at the Defence
10 to learn from them who will be the witness for today. Mr. Visnjic.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
12 morning to my learned friends from the Prosecution.
13 Your Honours, the Defence plans two witnesses for today. The
14 first is our military expert, General Radinovic, who has already testified
15 here in court.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, be kind enough to
17 bring in the witness.
18 [The witness entered court]
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, General Radinovic.
20 Can you hear me?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We consider your testimony today
23 to be a continuation of the testimony you made last time, so I am
24 reminding you that you are testifying under oath, and having said that, I
25 invite you to sit down. Thank you very much for coming. You will now be
1 answering questions put to you by Mr. Visnjic.
2 Mr. Visnjic, your witness.
3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
4 WITNESS: RADOVAN RADINOVIC
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Examined by Mr. Visnjic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. General Radinovic, can you tell Their Honours whether the Defence
10 has asked you, after your testimony in the Defence case, in the break that
11 we had until the beginning of the Prosecution case to review some
12 allegedly intercepted conversations and to interpret their contents?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to show the
15 witness Prosecution Exhibit 884, and also to prepare ...
16 THE REGISTRAR: If you can give the registrar one second to locate
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, to save time, may I
19 give the witness my copy of this exhibit?
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Visnjic. I think that
21 is a good idea. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I don't think
22 that will be a problem.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. General, we have before us Prosecution Exhibit 884 which the
25 Prosecution contends is a conversation between Zivanovic, who is assumed
1 to be General Zivanovic, and a certain Bogicevic. This conversation took
2 place, according to what was stated, on the 15th of July, 1995, at 10.51
3 hours. As I do not have a copy with me now, would you be kind enough to
4 read through this conversation for the transcript.
5 A. The whole conversation?
6 Q. Yes, if possible, please.
7 A. X and Y are speaking. According to this document, X has been
8 identified as Bogicevic and Y as Zivanovic. "Good morning." Y replies,
9 "Good morning." "Is Zivanovic there?" "He is and who is asking for
11 X: Bogicevic from Belgrade.
12 Y: Just a moment.
13 Z: Hello?
14 X: Good morning...just a moment General, sir...someone for
16 B: Hello.
17 Z: Yes.
18 B: Hi Zile.
19 Z: Hi Bogi.
20 B: And good luck.
21 Or a pleasantry like that.
22 Z: Thank you.
23 B: Well I brought a truck...five tons of goods here in
25 And Ljubovija is on the right bank of the Drina on the Serbian side, a
1 town in Serbia.
2 Z: Yes. That's the same as if you were in Belgrade.
3 B: Well, what should we do now? That's what Triso told me.
4 Z: I beg your pardon?
5 B: Triso told me so.
6 Z: Triso doesn't know anything about borders, man. If that's
7 what he said, inform him and give it to him.
8 B: Are we going to bring anything?
9 That is quite unintelligible.
10 Z: Where?
11 B: Up there, at your place.
12 Z: I'm now in Belgrade. I liberated Srebrenica and now I
13 have got a new duty.
14 B: Yes, yes... Good.
15 Z: How are you doing?
16 B: Excellent. I'll come up there.
17 Z: I've nowhere else to go.
18 B: I'll come up there now to bring you some watermelons... so
19 you can refresh yourself.
20 Z: Okay. Okay.
21 B: Yes.
22 Z: How are my Serbian people?
23 B: Good.
24 And then a word that can't be read.
25 Z: Everything is okay... Say hello to the Serbs.
1 B: I will... Go on, talk to you later.
2 Z: Take care.
3 B: Goodbye.
4 And that is the end of the conversation.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, for a better
6 understanding, General Radinovic, on page 3, line 17 and 18, made a
7 comment as to where the town of Ljubovija is, and I want to make this
8 clear for the transcript. So page 3, lines 17 and 18, were General
9 Radinovic's comments.
10 Q. General, what is relevant in this conversation in relation to all
11 the events around Srebrenica and in relation to your previous testimony?
12 A. In the context of all the events that we are testifying about
13 here, and in the context of my previous testimony, there's only one
14 sentence that is relevant, and that is the 29th sentence, if I counted the
15 lines correctly, in which General Zivanovic says, and allow me to quote:
16 "I liberated Srebrenica and now I have got a new duty," or, "I've been
17 given a new duty."
18 Why do I think that this is important for the events we are
19 discussing? Because in the first part of this sentence, General Zivanovic
20 claims that he liberated Srebrenica, and in my judgement, thereby he
21 resolves all dilemmas as to who was in command of the forces engaged in
22 Krivaja 95, that is, in the operation for Srebrenica. He says he
23 liberated Srebrenica, and thereby he himself clearly states that he was in
25 And in the second part of the sentence, General Zivanovic declares
1 that, "Now I have been given a new assignment," "now." In the Serbian
2 language, the word "now" means just now, the time that immediately
3 precedes this conversation. Because there are other terms that have
4 similar meanings, which are synonymous, like "today" or "recently" or "a
5 short while ago." But when you say "now," that really means the time in
6 the immediate vicinity of this -- of the time of this conversation, and
7 that is this conversation between Bogicevic and Zivanovic, the 15th of
8 July, at 10.51 hours. So it means that he had only just been assigned a
9 new duty.
10 For me, who has been a witness in these proceedings, this
11 statement is vital because it removes all dilemmas as to who was, at least
12 up to the 15th of July, at 10.51, the commander of the Drina Corps.
13 Q. General Radinovic, where was General Zivanovic when he was
14 conducting this conversation, on the assumption that the conversation is
15 authentic, as well as its content?
16 A. From what is said in the conversation, one could infer that he was
17 in Belgrade, but that is not what the whole context tells us. This is
18 clearly not in Belgrade. If he was in Belgrade, he would not be using
19 this line, but another line, and Bogicevic, as a man who is doing
20 something for the needs of the Drina Corps, would not go all the way from
21 Belgrade to Bosnia-Herzegovina without informing himself as to the
22 whereabouts of General Zivanovic. Taking into consideration all the
23 events that preceded this time when this conversation is assumed to have
24 taken place, he is without doubt at the command post in Vlasenica.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, General.
1 Could I ask the usher to prepare for the witness Defence Exhibits
2 D167, D168 and Defence Exhibit D169, as well as OTP Exhibit 446.
3 Your Honours, this is a Defence exhibit, 167. It is a telephone
4 conversation which was identified during the testimony by Ms. Stefanie
5 Frease, Prosecution witness, and during the testimony a date was set, as
6 was the time when this intercepted conversation was allegedly conducted.
7 Q. General, I should take the liberty of reading out this
8 conversation. It is a conversation between Uran, a person "X," and
9 Colonel Cerovic.
10 U: Uran (Obrad).
11 X: Uran. All right... You are connected.
12 U: Hello.
13 C: Uran.
14 U: How are you, boss?
15 C: Well, okay. And how are you, Rade?
16 U: Not bad. Not bad. Listen, please.
17 C: Hello.
18 U: Listen.
19 C: Wait till I get to another phone. I can't hear a word you
20 are saying.
21 U: Go ahead.
22 C: I am listening.
23 U: Krstic in person ordered it and so did 01.
24 C: Yes.
25 U: This convoy bound for Kladanj ...
1 C: Yes?
2 U: (Interference).
3 C: All right.
4 U: (Interference) That no one has the right to do anything
6 C: All right.
7 U: And also literally that we are to behave in a civilised
8 fashion and that everyone is to behave like that so that
9 nothing of the kind of problem we had before happens.
10 C: All right.
11 U: Please call those public security stations, call the
12 commanders of the units who are there, call everybody who is
13 responsible for ensuring that everything runs smoothly and
15 C: All right.
16 U: That's it, boss.
17 C: When will they set out, Obrad?
18 U: I don't know. I can't tell you when they're leaving, but
19 take measures immediately.
20 C: Okay.
21 U: Take measures immediately. Call and be sure to know
22 exactly to which persons you transmitted it, the most
23 responsible ones, and following up implementation through
24 the officer on duty.
25 C: All right.
1 U: That's it, boss.
2 C: Cheers.
3 U: Sure. Good luck.
4 General, according to the contention of the Prosecution, this
5 conversation was conducted on the 25th of July, 1995. Within the context
6 of which events could we place this conversation?
7 A. As far as I understand it, the time when this conversation was
8 conducted should be set within the context of the events in Zepa, because
9 on the 25th the evacuation of civilians from Zepa started.
10 Q. General Radinovic, allow me to read out a second conversation now,
11 conducted, according to the Prosecution's submission, on the same day,
12 that is, the 25th of July, at 1319 hours. The participants in this
13 conversation are Colonel Cerovic and Djuric.
14 C: Milovan?
15 It is Defence Exhibit D168.
16 C: Milovan?
17 D: Djuric speaking.
18 C: Who?
19 D: Djuric.
20 C: Ilija?
21 D: Yes.
22 C: So you are in your area of responsibility.
23 D: Yes.
24 C: It must all be done without any stopping, without
25 searches, even at the cost of shooting those who would try
1 to threaten that convoy.
2 D: All right.
3 C: Now, be so kind as to call Markovic at the SUP and tell
4 him that this is an order of the state president, that
5 together with us, in their area of responsibility,
6 up there along their border with the people from Sokolac,
7 they too are to deliver this safely to the guys in
9 D: All right.
10 C: Do you understand?
11 D: (Inaudible).
12 C: Well, call me to say whether Markovic received the
13 message. Call the officer on duty here.
14 D: All right. I think that he is in the field, he has other
15 tasks, but I will convey it there and I will call.
16 C: Well, all right.
17 D: All right.
18 C: Cheerio.
19 General, taking into consideration that these two conversations
20 took place within a 20-minute time span on the same day, may I be free to
21 conclude that they refer to the same subject, that is, the transport of
22 the civilian population from Zepa?
23 A. Yes, that is how I understand it.
24 Q. In the previous conversation, the sentence that says, "Krstic
25 personally has ordered it and so has O1," General, who could Krstic be in
1 your opinion?
2 A. If we look at the header, at the beginning of the conversation who
3 the participants are, Uran and Zeric, Uran is the code-name for the
4 forward command post of the Drina Corps. And in brackets it says "Obrad,"
5 so I assume it was Obrad Vicic, Assistant Chief of Staff in the Drina
6 Corps who, by nature of things, should have been at the time at the
7 forward command post because this was taking place at the time of the Zepa
8 operation. So in view of that fact, there is no question that it could be
9 anyone else but General Krstic who was in command of the operative group
10 for Zepa at the time.
11 Q. And who is 01, General?
12 A. In marking persons by numbers in the chain of command in our army,
13 in my army, and a similar practice was applied by the VRS, 01 is the code
14 given to the Supreme Commander.
15 Q. And who was the Supreme Commander?
16 A. The Supreme Commander of the army of Republika Srpska was Radovan
18 Q. Does that fit into this second sentence from Exhibit 168 when
19 Cerovic says to a certain Djuric, "Convey to him that this is an order of
20 the president of the state"?
21 A. Yes, that fully fits into the contents of the conversation
22 conducted 20 minutes earlier. Cerovic is conveying the message given to
23 him by Uran, and that is General Krstic. He is conveying to the person
24 who is to execute the order, that is Djuric, and he is giving greater
25 emphasis to that order by saying that this is an order given by the
1 president of the state.
2 Q. General, in your testimony, a member of the investigating team of
3 the Prosecution -- I'm sorry, in her testimony, Ms. Stefanie Frease stated
4 that orders of this kind, such as were allegedly given by Krstic in this
5 conversation, were the consequence of the focussed attention of world
6 public opinion on the events in Zepa, or rather, the events in the
7 enclaves, and all this because the events in Srebrenica had already become
8 known to the International Community. Would you agree with that?
9 A. I do not agree that that prompted this order from Krstic, nor do I
10 consider it to be the main reason for this contact in this way.
11 Of course, in the media there were various reports about these
12 things. It had still not been established with certainty that this had
13 happened, and it is very difficult to make any conclusions as to whether
14 such information had reached the people who had participated in the Zepa
15 operation and particularly those in charge of that operation, whether such
16 news had reached them at all, particularly in view of the circumstances
17 under which they were conducting the operation, they had very little
18 contact with public opinion in general. I couldn't allege that they
19 hadn't heard anything, but certainly not to such an extent that they would
20 explain orders of this kind.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher to give the
22 witness OTP 446, please.
23 Your Honours, this is a conversation between a person named as
24 Krstic and a certain Sobot conducted, according to the submission of the
25 Prosecution, on the 12th of July, 1995, at 1305 hours. Mr. President, I
1 shall read this conversation out, too, in view of a minor discrepancy in
2 the translation, so I shall be free to ask the General to comment.
3 Q. So Krstic, Sobot:
4 K: How many buses have started out from down there?
5 S: 20.
6 K: Fine, 20.
7 S: And the others are on the way?
8 K: On the road, good.
9 S: ...
10 K: Put me back to the switchboard. Miss, put me through to
11 the Vlasenica Brigade.
12 C: Yes.
13 K: This is Krstic.
14 C: Can I help you, General?
15 K: Give me Kosrovic.
16 C: He's not here, he went somewhere.
17 K: Give me Savo, put me through to Savo.
18 S: How are you General? This is Savo.
19 K: Srpski, fuck it, how else.
20 S: Congratulations, fuck ...
21 K: Get in touch with these guys from the MUP, that means you,
22 your brigade and them.
23 S: I gave everything there is.
24 K: Wait, slow down, man, secure the road, from the crossroad
25 below, from where you are, 12 kilometres towards Drava and up
1 to the tunnel.
2 S: To the tunnel?
3 K: Of course.
4 S: Okay.
5 K: That's where they'll be disembarking.
6 S: Okay.
7 K: Take care nothing must happen to any of them.
8 S: Okay.
9 K: Is that clear?
10 S: Yes, sir.
11 K: Until further notice, secure that part of the road.
12 S: Okay.
13 K: That's it chief, bye.
14 S: Bye.
15 General, the sentence, "Take care that --" in the translation it
16 says, "Nothing must happen to them," Defence counsel says, "Not a hair
17 must be touched on their heads," if we translate it literally, "No one's
18 hair on his head may be touched." What kind of an order is that, General?
19 A. First of all, this is a saying, a metaphor. When you say, "Not a
20 hair must be hurt on his head," it's the highest degree -- the greatest
21 emphasis on the protection of the safety of the person to whom this
22 applies, because as we know, we lose hairs from our heads all the time.
23 So when you say this, when you use this expression, it is a strict
24 requirement and it means that absolutely the slightest thing may not
25 happen to that person.
1 So this applies to the people who will appear from Srebrenica on
2 the road, from Srebrenica to Kladanj at the spot where their
3 disembarkation is planned and their transfer to the territory under the
4 control of the Muslim authorities.
5 Q. General, if I say, "Nothing must happen to him," and then I say,
6 "Not a hair may be harmed on their heads," by saying that, am I making
7 this statement much stricter, giving it much greater emphasis? Am I
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. General, on the 12th of July, 1995, the International Community
11 was certainly not familiar with the events in Srebrenica as they occurred
13 A. No, they were not aware of them.
14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be given Defence
15 Exhibit 169 now, please.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the exhibit be placed on the ELMO, please.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. General, sir, these are portions of the conversation that we've
19 already discussed, the 12th of July conversation which quotes the alleged
20 statement made by General Krstic, and the conversations on the 25th of
21 July in which, once again, orders are being quoted that General Krstic
22 allegedly issued.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should just like to
24 draw the attention of the Trial Chamber to the sentence uttered on the
25 12th of July, that is to say, the translation is basically correct, but
1 translated literally this sentence reads, "Not a hair of their heads must
2 be harmed." That is the translation of it.
3 Q. Now we have the statement of General Krstic allegedly on the 12th
4 of July and on the 25th of July, his alleged sentences uttered on that
5 date. What does that indicate to you?
6 A. These conversations, when you link them up, and this document,
7 too, this indicates to me, this leads me to think that there was
8 continuity of a persistent expression of General Krstic's resolute stand
9 and proper conduct towards the civilian population. In the same way that
10 in combat documents he always strove to ensure that the civilian
11 population was not the target of attack, so also in these particular
12 documents, if these conversations are authentic, of course, General Krstic
13 once again is striving for and issuing orders to his subordinates that
14 civilian population cannot be the target of any kind of retaliation.
15 Q. General, sir, in Exhibit 167 there is a sentence which Uran says
16 to Cerovic, and it says, it reads, "We must behave in a civilised manner
17 and everybody must behave in that way so that nothing of the kind of
18 problem we had before happens." What does that mean, General, sir?
19 A. It means that Colonel Cerovic, and Colonel Cerovic is the
20 assistant for morale, legal issues, religious issues of the corps, that is
21 to say, Colonel Cerovic conveys -- is conveying an order which he himself
22 received. He is fully conscious of the fact that during the time that the
23 population left Srebrenica, they behaved in an uncivilised fashion, and he
24 draws attention to the fact that this should not happen again. And
25 luckily, it did not happen again to the civilians.
1 Q. Thank you, General, sir.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence has no
3 further questions. Just one more, actually, just one small question.
4 Q. General, sir, when we gave you these conversations for comment, to
5 hear your comments, you explained to us that you didn't like to comment on
6 intercepted conversations of this kind. Would you just repeat some of the
7 reasons you gave for this to us; why do you not like to comment?
8 A. In my examination-in-chief when I testified before this august
9 Tribunal, I put forward the reasons. I said why, in the preparation for
10 my expert finding, I did not use the intercepts and why I could not
11 consider them to be evidence and exhibits. And I wasn't happy that you
12 made me comment on the exhibits which I did not qualify as being exhibits
13 myself. I was not able to accept them as such, and thereby you made me
14 deviate from my stand of principle. But thank you for asking me that
15 question now to be able to explain myself and to justify myself for doing
16 so before this Tribunal and all the distinguished people here.
17 For me, an intercepted conversation of any kind is only an
18 intimation of, an announcement of a possible -- of possible evidence, and
19 this must only be a source for quest; that is to say, you will have to
20 enter into a quest for evidence which can bear out the hypothesis which
21 relates to the events that are being scrutinised.
22 For me to be able to consider an intercepted conversation instead
23 of just an illusion and intimation or a clue or hint, for me to be able to
24 accept that as a fact, as a confirmation of a fact, and thereby to
25 consider these intercepted conversations as evidence and as an exhibit, I
1 would have to conduct very many complicated actions and costly activities,
2 costly steps as foreplay, so to speak, which would raise the intercepted
3 conversations to the level of evidence and thereby, by the same token, the
4 level of an actual exhibit.
5 We would have to conduct -- have a register of all the intercepted
6 conversations. All the intercepted conversations would have had to be
7 classified in what we call statistic series, according to precisely
8 defined and criteria accepted by the experts themselves. After that,
9 experts for samples of this kind would compile a stratified sample in
10 order to determine the authenticity of the conversations intercepted, and
11 this procedure, as I say, is a highly complex one.
12 For all these conversations and the way they were taking them
13 down, you must have a phonetic record. We must be able to determine the
14 correspondence between what exists on the tape and what is written out as
15 a text, as a transcript. If we determine absolute authenticity of all the
16 conversations intercepted contained in the sample, then we can enter a new
17 phase, a new stage of interpretation on the part of experts of the
18 conversations, and then this will bring them closer to the level of
19 evidence and exhibit.
20 But if we ascertain that if in a sample only one -- even one
21 conversation is not authentic, then we must have to resort to the method
22 of complete induction, which means to encompass all the intercepted
23 conversations and to study each and every one to see if they are authentic
24 or not.
25 So as you can see, the procedure is highly complex, enormous in
1 scope and scale. It is a long-winded form of research requiring
2 multidisciplinary procedure. You would have to have experts of different
3 profiles called in, strategists, military experts, people -- experts in
4 informatics, linguists, stylists, and so on and so forth, people of --
5 experts of different profiles, profiles that I myself might not be aware
6 of. And this would be a very lengthy process.
7 So as I myself was not capable of undertaking an investigation of
8 that kind - I am not professionally trained for things of that kind,
9 neither did I have enough time. It would be very costly and
10 time-consuming - that is why I considered all the intercepts that I had at
11 my disposal to be -- I read them through, but I was not able to class them
12 as evidence and thereby exhibits. And it is a great pity that this was
13 not done in such a way. It could have been done, and it would be much
14 easier for us to be able to ascertain the truth had the whole process been
15 gone through, and that is why I say I did not like to comment on these
16 exhibits, because you're asking me to make an assertion. I have to draw
17 conclusions on the basis of these conversations. But I set my limits, and
18 I said that at the beginning of my testimony, that I was very unwilling to
19 make any observations or conclusions of that kind.
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, General, sir.
21 Your Honours, the Defence has no further questions.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
23 Mr. Visnjic.
24 General, how is your voice today? Is it better?
25 A. Mr. President, thank you for inquiring about my voice. In Serbian
1 we have a metaphor which says, "I've lost my good voice," meaning my
2 reputation or my throat. Now, I have said that I've lost my good voice
3 and it's up to you to interpret it. But anyway, thank you for asking.
4 Unfortunately, I can't say that my throat is in very good condition. I am
5 at the end of my tether, I might say, on the downhill in my life, but
6 we're doing what we can.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Would you like to
8 take a break, having said that, before we continue? Shall we take a break
9 before we come to your cross-examination, General Radinovic? Would you
10 like a break at this point?
11 A. I can answer. I can go on answering. If I need a break for my
12 throat, perhaps I'll ask for one. My Defence counsel asked to read the
13 conversations. I would prefer not to have to read conversations.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, General. Then we
15 shall continue.
16 Mr. Cayley, it is your witness now.
17 MR. CAYLEY: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. President, Your
19 General, I have to say that I didn't think that we would ever be
20 reunited in this lifetime, but fate has its way and here we are again, but
21 I think this will be a fairly short cross-examination.
22 If the witness could be given Prosecutor's Exhibit 884, please.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I hope you're happy to see me
24 again. I hope it's not the other way around. I'm happy to see you.
25 MR. CAYLEY: Of course, General. Of course I'm happy to see you.
1 Cross-examined by Mr. Cayley:
2 Q. Now, this, General, is the intercept of the 15th of July.
3 Your Honours, this is the intercept between Bogicevic and
4 Zivanovic of the 15th of July. And I wanted you to concentrate on one
5 particular sentence, first of all, and that is the sentence which you
6 alluded to last -- in your examination-in-chief, where Zivanovic states:
7 "I liberated Srebrenica and now I've got a new duty."
8 Now, General, you would agree with me that when Zivanovic was
9 stating that he had liberated Srebrenica, this was pure bravado on his
10 part, was it not?
11 A. Well, I can't agree with you there. It wasn't just bravado. And
12 all my research testifies to the fact that General Zivanovic was right.
13 He was actually saying that. And the whole concept -- when we speak of
14 Srebrenica, we also use a metaphoric expression and say "the liberation of
15 Srebrenica," but here I think he is expressing his position and saying
16 that he was commanding the Srebrenica operation.
17 Q. General, this Court has heard evidence from an officer who was
18 present at the forward headquarters at Pribicevac, from where the
19 Srebrenica operation was being conducted, and that is Witness DB. And let
20 me read to you his testimony, and this is on page 7221, and the question
21 from my learned friend, Mr. Harmon:
22 " Q. Did it appear to you that General Zivanovic had an important
23 role in commanding the operation against Srebrenica?
24 A. According to my recollection, he didn't interfere
25 significantly with the command of the operation, but that the operation
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 initially, up to the 9th, was under the command of General Krstic.
2 Q. So up to the 9th, General Zivanovic did not play an
3 important role in directing and commanding the attack?
4 A. No."
5 Now, General, you would agree with me that an officer, senior VR
6 officer, who was present at the forward headquarters would know far better
7 than you who was commanding the operation to take Srebrenica?
8 A. Well, no, he doesn't know better than me. I know better than
9 him. It was a protected witness, so I'm not sure who the witness was.
10 And for these purposes it's not essential either, although it would be
11 important to see what rank he held during the Srebrenica operation. But I
12 can conclude that General Zivanovic was commanding the forces at Zepa, and
13 I do so on the basis of relevant facts.
14 The first fact is that he signed the combat order for active
15 operations of Krivaja 95, and you can take a look at the documents and
16 exhibits and you will find that that is so. Secondly, he himself in this
17 conversation says that he liberated Srebrenica. Thirdly, on the videotape
18 which was -- has become an exhibit here, Prosecution exhibit, General
19 Zivanovic can be seen, together with General Mladic, the Main Staff
20 commander; General Krstic as the Chief of Staff of the Drina Corps; and
21 another group of officers from the Drina Corps. He was seen on the 11th
22 of July, upon entrance into Srebrenica. So there is no reason for us to
23 say that somebody else was in command and that not the de facto Corps
24 Commander, if there are no indices of that kind, official or unofficial
25 documents to that effect.
1 The impression that might be gained by that particular officer who
2 testified before this Tribunal that up to the 9th General Zivanovic was
3 not the commander of the forces for Srebrenica, was probably based on the
4 fact that it is the right of the Corps Commander, according to his own
5 assessment of the situation, to be at different parts of the front and to
6 control different parts of the front. This is left to his discretion.
7 And the command post or points for command are organised and placed so
8 that you are able to command the whole area of responsibility. And the
9 Drina Corps commander had his forward command post, and the forward
10 command post is an ad hoc command post for a certain operation. Forward
11 command posts are not placed in this forward position for other bodies but
12 for himself. So it is his forward command post.
13 Q. General, stop, stop, stop. You're not answering the question, and
14 I'm not going to spend the next two hours with you not answering the
15 question. Would you agree with me that when General Zivanovic ceased to
16 be the commander of the Drina Corps is an absolutely critical aspect of
17 this case? Do you agree with that proposition?
18 A. I don't think I can share your opinion and say -- put it that
19 way. General Zivanovic received a decree on the 15th of July --
20 Q. General, that's not the question I asked you. The question I
21 asked you is this: Do you agree with me that in this case, the date upon
22 which General Zivanovic ceased to be the commander of the Drina Corps is
23 fundamental, it is a fundamental fact in this case? Do you agree with
24 that proposition?
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
1 A. I didn't understand the question.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I think the General is now being
3 asked to make legal interpretations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what
4 it seems to me to be.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] General Radinovic is an expert
6 witness, Mr. Visnjic, so he is able to give an opinion, and Mr. Cayley is
7 asking him a question. We will have the General's answer to that
8 question. Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Cayley.
10 MR. CAYLEY:
11 Q. General, is it or is it not an important part of this case the
12 date upon which General Zivanovic ceased to be the commander of the Drina
14 A. You mean this piece of paper or the whole case?
15 Q. Let me put it in a more straightforward fashion. I'm obviously
16 not being clear about this. Do you agree with me, the document aside,
17 generally speaking, do you agree with me that the date upon which General
18 Zivanovic ceased to be the commander of the Drina Corps is an important
19 fact in this entire case? Do you agree with that?
20 A. Yes, I agree.
21 Q. General, did you meet with General Zivanovic in February or March
22 of last year?
23 A. I can't remember the exact date, but yes, I did meet with him.
24 Q. Let me read to you a question put to you by Her Honour Judge Wald,
25 and your answer:
1 "JUDGE WALD: In your discussion with General Zivanovic, did you
2 ever ask him directly when he relinquished his command, on what date he
3 stopped being commander, leaving the document and the handover ceremony
5 A. Your Honour, no.
6 JUDGE WALD: You didn't -- in your conversation with him, you
7 didn't ask him, even though it was apparent in February or March, from the
8 early pre-trial documents of the Prosecution, that this was a critical
9 point for them? You didn't ask him when he stopped being commander?
10 A. I had no doubt in my mind that he was Drina Corps commander
11 during the Srebrenica operation, and I focused my attention on that
13 JUDGE WALD: All right. Just to tie this down: You and he
14 never discussed specifically when he said he stopped being commander.
15 That's what you just said; is that correct?
16 A. We did not discuss it."
17 And that is on page 8385 of the LiveNote transcript.
18 General, don't you agree with me that it is somewhat ridiculous
19 that you come here giving your opinions and interpretation on intercepts
20 when you had the opportunity to ask Zivanovic himself when he ceased to be
21 the commander of the Drina Corps?
22 A. Please don't use words of that kind. I have come here upon the
23 request of the Defence to comment on the intercepts. As I say, I did so
24 very unwillingly, for the reasons I put forward.
25 Q. General, answer my question. Would any normal expert have asked
1 General Zivanovic when he ceased to be the commander of the Drina Corps?
2 A. I had the document on the appointment of General Krstic and
3 General Zivanovic, with the 15th of July date, and I considered that that
4 is incontestable and that I would very easily be able to get to the
5 records and minutes of the handing over of duty and that this would be
6 very easy to ascertain when one relinquished his command to the other.
7 And the fact that I didn't ask at that particular point in time, it could
8 have been a methodological mistake, but at that moment I didn't think that
9 it was essential, important. I thought that we would see each other again
10 and be able to ascertain that question, and I thought the Prosecution had
11 the document anyway and that it would be very easy to ascertain.
12 Now, it turned out that the Prosecution did not have this
13 document, and unfortunately I did not get the document either, whereas I
14 thought that all the participants in this case had the document, that the
15 archives of the Drina Corps had it, that General Krstic and Zivanovic had
16 this document, and in the cadres' department. But unfortunately that
17 document doesn't seem to be anywhere. I haven't got it. So it was up to
18 us to speculate from the 15th onwards. But there is the decree by the
19 supreme commander saying that it could not have been before the 15th of
20 July. So for me that was an incontestable fact, something that I didn't
21 think I needed to go into and check out when I saw General Zivanovic.
22 Q. How long did you spend with General Zivanovic?
23 A. Is that important for these proceedings? If it is, I can tell you
24 that it was --
25 Q. General, I will decide what questions are important. Please just
1 answer questions directly that I put to you. It's for the President to
2 intervene if he feels that my questions are irrelevant, not for you. How
3 many hours did you spend with General Zivanovic?
4 A. I didn't count the hours, of course, but we spent a certain amount
5 of time before lunch and some time after lunch, which means, let's say,
6 one working day, but I can't tell you the exact number of hours. And
7 during that conversation of ours, I allowed General Zivanovic, gave him
8 the opportunity, to tell me about the operative situation with respect to
9 Srebrenica, which was the most important thing for me, and that is why
10 perhaps I omitted to go into some questions that are vital to this case.
11 But there you have it. It was an omission, and I suppose many omissions
12 are committed.
13 Q. So you spent an entire day with General Zivanovic, and during that
14 day you never asked him the date upon which he relinquished command of the
15 Drina Corps?
16 A. No, I did not ask him.
17 Q. It's a fact, isn't it, General, that he told you on that day that
18 he relinquished command of the Drina Corps on the 13th [Realtime
19 transcript read in error "15th"] of July? He told you, didn't he, on that
20 day, that that's the day he relinquished command?
21 A. No. No. He didn't. Not even on that day. No, he didn't tell me
22 about the 15th [as interpreted].
23 Q. Let's move on. I'm not going to re-cross-examine you on all of
24 the documents on this issue, because we'll be here for a week.
25 MR. CAYLEY: If Prosecutor's Exhibit 30 could be made available.
1 Mr. President, I don't know whether you wish to take a break at
2 this point, or I can continue. It's as you wish.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, we can actually have a
4 break at this point. We will have a 20-minute break now, not a half-hour
5 break, but a 20-minute break only.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
8 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, while the witness is being brought in,
9 there needs to be a correction to the transcript. At line 21, my question
10 is stated, "It's a fact, isn't it, General, that he told you on that day
11 that he relinquished command of the Drina Corps on the 15th of July." My
12 question continues, and the witness answers no. In fact, I asked the
13 witness, this is exactly what I said, "It's a fact, isn't it, General,
14 that he told you on that day that he relinquished command of the Drina
15 Corps on the 13th of July." The rest of it is correct, it's just the date
16 was incorrect, so I just correct that so the transcript is accurate.
17 JUDGE RIAD: I noted it down "13."
18 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Judge Riad.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I, too, heard the 13th in the
20 interpretation. What did the Defence hear, so that we can hear the other
21 party as well?
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if the answer was no,
23 then it's all the same to us. Yes, yes. The date was the 13th, actually,
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. The record
1 will be corrected. We have a lot of witnesses in the courtroom.
2 You may continue, Mr. Cayley.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. General, before you came here to give evidence today, knowing that
5 you would be speaking about the day on which Zivanovic relinquished
6 command, did you get in contact with Zivanovic to discuss the matter with
7 him before you testified?
8 A. You mean for the purposes of this testimony?
9 Q. Correct.
10 A. No.
11 Q. So knowing full well it was important in November of last year,
12 and knowing full well that it was important, absolutely critical in coming
13 back here to give rejoinder evidence, you never made any attempt to
14 contact General Zivanovic?
15 A. Yes, I did, but General Zivanovic is inaccessible.
16 Q. Where is General Zivanovic, General?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. Let's move on. Now, General, you said in your
19 examination-in-chief today that news of what had happened in the
20 Srebrenica enclave and the executions that had happened immediately after
21 the taking of the territory was not well known enough by the 25th of July
22 for those VRS individuals in Zepa to be aware of those facts. Do you
23 recall saying that?
24 A. That's not exactly what I said. I said that there were news about
25 it in the media; however, the question was whether the news could reach
1 the members of the VRS in Zepa, in particular, those who were conducting
2 the operation in view of the circumstances of the operation.
3 Q. General, I'm going to just refer briefly to Prosecutor's Exhibit
4 30. It's the report of the Secretary-General on the fall of Srebrenica.
5 It's in English, but I know from your evidence last year that you have
6 read this particular report, and let's see what His Excellency Kofi Annan
7 says about the status of news about Srebrenica.
8 MR. CAYLEY: And I'm going to quote, Mr. Usher, from paragraph
10 And I will read sections of it, Your Honours. I'm not going to
11 read all of it, but I would direct you to paragraph 388 onwards of that
12 report on page 84.
13 Paragraph 388 reads as follows:
14 "As of 17 July," and it's referring to 17 July 1995, "the BSA
15 continued to refuse --" Yes, that's fine, Mr. Usher "-- continued to
16 refuse to honour the agreements related to Srebrenica which Mladic had
17 entered into in Belgrade two days earlier. The special representative of
18 the Secretary-General reported to New York that day that the status and
19 location of unaccounted-for persons and possible detainees, especially
20 draft-age males, remains a large gap in our database. Unconfirmed reports
21 provide accounts of detention centres, execution-style murder, rapes of
22 young women, and other atrocities."
23 We'll move to paragraph 389:
24 "The same day, one of the DutchBat soldiers, during his brief
25 stay in Zagreb, upon return from Serb-held territory, was quoted as
1 telling a member of the press that hunting session is in full swing. It
2 is not only men supposedly belonging to the Bosnian government who are
3 targeted. Women, including pregnant ones ..." and he goes on. I won't
4 quote all of what is said.
5 On the sentence on the next page, this is continuing with 389 and
6 it's referring to the story of the DutchBat witness:
7 "The story was picked up by a number of wire services and
8 reproduced. At approximately the same time, survivors of executions had
9 also begun to recount their testimonies to the international and local
11 And then in paragraph 390, and this is the final part that I'll
13 "This prompted the secretariat to write to the special
14 representative the following day, 18 July 1995: 'You will no doubt have
15 read and heard the extensive reports of atrocities committed by the
16 Bosnian Serbs during their recent takeover of Srebrenica.'"
17 And I won't read on.
18 General, by the 18th of July, you heard Kofi Annan, you heard
19 about allegations of atrocities, the special representative of the
20 Secretary-General knew, and the airwaves were positively buzzing with
21 reports of what had happened in Srebrenica. Now, it's a fact, isn't it,
22 General, that by the 25th of July, the VRS in Zepa knew exactly what had
23 happened in Srebrenica? They've heard all of these reports, haven't they?
24 A. I'm not sure that all of them heard those reports; and then,
25 second, I am sure that many of them didn't know what had happened there.
1 Q. General, let's look at Prosecutor's Exhibit 883, which is a new
2 Prosecution exhibit.
3 General, this is directive, operational directive number 4 from
4 the Main Staff of the army of RS. It's dated the 19th of November of
5 1992. I am only interested in a direction given to the Drina Corps. You
6 will find that in your version on -- I think it's page 6. The number is
7 up in the top right-hand corner. The evidence number is 00876282.
8 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. Usher, it's on page 5 of the English version. I
9 think my learned friend, Mr. Visnjic, has a comment, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Visnjic. Let us hear
11 your comment.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is a document
13 the Defence has objected to, that the document be used as evidence during
14 the testimony of Mr. Rick Butler. After we made this objection to the use
15 of this document, the Prosecutor withdrew the document and no longer
16 wanted Mr. Butler to speak about it. This is an extensive document, both
17 in terms of its content and its length. And secondly, it does not refer
18 to the subject we are currently discussing and the subject which General
19 Radinovic testified about. It doesn't concern the facts alleged in the
20 indictment either. And my learned colleague is now trying to tender this
21 into evidence in this way. This document was issued in 1992, and as I
22 have already indicated, it's a very large, extensive document. It's also
23 a very complex document, in view of its contents. Therefore,
24 Mr. President, I don't know if my learned colleague wishes to question the
25 witness about this document. He can do so, but without explicit reference
1 to this document, to which we object.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley.
3 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I think there's two issues that my
4 learned friend has identified: First of all relevance, how is it relevant
5 to General Radinovic's testimony; and second, admissibility. I'm going to
6 have to consult with my colleagues on the point of admissibility. I'll
7 clarify that with Mr. McCloskey. But as to relevance, the only section of
8 this document to which I wish to refer is that which concerns orders given
9 to the Drina Corps in respect of operations against Zepa. Now, General
10 Radinovic himself has spoken specifically about events in Zepa, and I
11 believe that this particular document is relevant to that point. As to
12 admissibility, if you would give me a moment and I will just speak with
13 Mr. McCloskey. Thank you.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. CAYLEY: Excuse me, Mr. President. My apologies. My
16 understanding is that the Defence have had this document since February of
17 2001, and it was disclosed to them in accordance with agreements that were
18 made between the Defence and the Prosecution to have continuing disclosure
19 of relevant material, material relevant to this case. It was excluded
20 from Mr. Butler's -- or they made an objection to exclude it from
21 Mr. Butler's testimony, because when Mr. McCloskey had given a description
22 of Mr. Butler's evidence, the proposed evidence, this particular matter,
23 this document, the subject matter was inadvertently missed out from that
24 description. So the Defence essentially said: We were not on notice that
25 he was going to testify about this matter, so we therefore object to this
1 particular document.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, do you wish to
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Mr. President. The first
5 and foremost reason for our objection to this document is the fact that it
6 refers to the events which took place in 1992, the events which have never
7 been the subject of the discussions before this Chamber in this case.
8 Second, we're dealing here with the events which require a broader
9 approach and detailed analysis. In our previous objection, we explained
10 to the Court why we consider ourselves to be unprepared for the use of
11 this document. If the Prosecution wishes to use the documents from this
12 period of time, then the Defence must require additional time to prepare,
13 regardless of the fact to what extent the document needs to be used. So
14 we have to require additional time for preparation.
15 Third, I still do not see the link, even in the paragraph that
16 Mr. Cayley wishes to use, I don't see the link with the testimony of
17 General Radinovic, except if we're not talking about Zepa as a link, which
18 is used in both cases.
19 So I think that by using the documentation from some other period
20 of time, we will go far beyond the scope of this testimony, and we will
21 have to require additional time to prepare ourselves for the document.
22 The document has been disclosed to us, that is true, but some other
23 binders containing a large amount of documents have also been disclosed.
24 And in view of the subject of the testimony of General Radinovic, and also
25 in view of the subject which was raised by the Prosecution, we are -- this
1 actually refers to the testimony of Ms. Frease, and Ms. Frease didn't
2 mention at any point in time the year 1992 or the Zepa operation or the
3 operation in which the Drina Corps was involved.
4 We are dealing with the year 1995, and the role of the Drina Corps
5 in those events. If the Prosecutor wishes to extend the subject matter,
6 we do not have anything against it, it's just that we have to be given
7 additional time to prepare ourselves.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me consult with my
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, we will hear your
12 question, and then we will make a ruling whether or not we will hear the
14 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Q. General, do you have the page that I was speaking about in front
16 of you, which is ...
17 A. Yes, but it's a very poor copy. I can hardly see what it says.
18 Q. Let me read to you paragraph D.
19 MR. CAYLEY: And this, Mr. Usher, is on page 5 at the bottom so
20 the public can see it.
21 Q. I'll read it, and this is an order from General Mladic to the
22 Drina Corps: "From its present positions, its main forces shall
23 persistently defend --"
24 A. I'm sorry, I haven't heard that portion of the text. I cannot see
25 it on page 6 here.
1 MR. CAYLEY: Excuse me, Mr. President.
2 Q. General, you have it in front of you now. I'll read it. "The
3 Drina Corps: From its present positions, its main forces shall
4 persistently defend Visegrad, Zvornik, and the corridor, while the rest of
5 its forces in the wider Podrinje region shall exhaust the enemy, inflict
6 the heaviest possible losses on him and force him to leave the Birac,
7 Zepa, and Gorazde areas together with the Muslim population. First offer
8 the able-bodied and armed men to surrender, and if they refuse, destroy
9 them. After that, unblock and repair the Konjevic Polje-Zvornik road,
10 make it fit for traffic, and stand by for intensive combat against
11 infiltrated sabotage, terrorist, surprise, and ambush attacks and
12 paramilitary groups." And I won't read the remainder.
13 Now, General, this is an order from General Mladic from 1992, and
14 you would agree with me that his intention then was that the civilian
15 population should be forced to leave the Zepa area, was it not, from this
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Before we hear the response, let
18 me consult with my colleagues for the ruling.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber notes that even the
21 Defence has asked questions regarding this period of time. The Chamber
22 has also asked questions concerning the same time framework in order to
23 understand the situation in Srebrenica. The Chamber and the parties
24 considered some previous events in previous periods of time as well. So
25 there was a time which preceded the relevant times, and it is necessary
1 for us to hear the response in order to understand the overall question.
2 The Chamber has therefore decided to let General Radinovic answer
3 the question.
4 A. Would you please repeat the question?
5 MR. CAYLEY:
6 Q. Of course, General. Based on this document where General Mladic
7 states, essentially, "Force him," the enemy, "to leave the Birac, Zepa,
8 and Gorazde areas together with the Muslim population," General Mladic in
9 1992 intended that the Muslim population leave the Zepa area based on this
10 document, didn't he, General?
11 A. The population in general, regardless of their ethnicity, left the
12 territories which were under the control of the other party. It is a
13 normal consequence of a civil war. And this is what happened throughout
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina throughout that period of time.
15 Q. General, that's not the question, that is not the question I'm
16 asking you. If you can't answer the question, say, "I don't want to
17 answer the question; I don't understand the question."
18 Based on this order, would you agree with me that it was General
19 Mladic's intention that the Muslim population should leave Zepa?
20 A. The express character of this order of General Mladic was intended
21 for the enemy to leave the area, to force the enemy to leave the area.
22 The order concerns the enemy, not the population, but General Mladic knows
23 that the population would leave as well because that is what happened
24 throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
25 Q. So when General Mladic says, and I quote, "Force him to leave the
1 Birac, Zepa, and Gorazde areas together with the Muslim population," he
2 doesn't actually means what he said at all; he doesn't mean force him to
3 leave. Is that what you're saying to the Court?
4 A. No. I'm referring to what he explicitly requests, that is, to
5 force the enemy to leave the area, not the civilian population. And the
6 civilian population expresses -- the civilian population decides for
7 themselves whether to leave the area or not, because that is what happened
8 in Srebrenica as well.
9 Q. General, the order speaks for itself, so we can move on.
10 MR. CAYLEY: If I could have D167, please, Defence Exhibit 167,
11 Defence Exhibit 168, and Prosecutor's Exhibit 364, volume 2, the intercept
12 from the 25th of July of 1995.
13 Q. Now, General, this is the document that you've already referred
14 to, and the particular part that I am interested in is where Colonel
15 Cerovic states -- one question before this: Who was Colonel Cerovic?
16 A. Colonel Cerovic was the assistant commander for politics, morale
17 of the Drina Corps. He was the assistant commander to the Drina Corps
19 Q. Now, the paragraph that I'm interested in is halfway down, and in
20 your version -- you have a typed version, I think, and I will read it, and
21 hopefully you can catch up in the Serbian version where I am. It's about
22 halfway down. And Cerovic says "all right," and then after that Uran or
23 Obrad, Colonel Vicic, Chief of Operations in the Drina Corps, says, "And
24 also literally that we are to behave in civilised fashion and that
25 everybody is to behave like that so that nothing of the kind of problem we
1 had before happens." Do you see that section?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, General, you would agree with me that the problem that he is
4 talking about is the murder of -- or at least, the international press
5 finding out about the murder of thousands of Muslim men after the fall of
6 the Srebrenica enclave. That's the little problem that he's referring to,
7 isn't he, General?
8 A. No. No, that is not how I understand it. I'm not saying that
9 that didn't happen, what you're saying, because it has been established in
10 this case. It's just that this text and this message explicitly concerns
11 the behaviour of the -- towards the column of civilians so that the
12 problems which had taken place in Srebrenica would be avoided.
13 Q. Now, General, if Colonel Vicic is aware of problems of uncivilised
14 behaviour within the Drina Corps, and if Colonel Cerovic is aware of
15 uncivilised behaviour in the Drina Corps, it would be fair to say that
16 everybody else in the Drina Corps command was aware by the 25th of July of
17 uncivilised behaviour within the Drina Corps; would you agree with that?
18 A. Well, yes, I might agree with you that many of them knew.
19 MR. CAYLEY: Do we have Prosecutor's Exhibit 364? This is, Your
20 Honours, 364, volume 2, it's an intercept of the 25th of July. It's the
21 same date as these two conversations that Colonel Cerovic has, and I will
22 read most of it through, not all of it. And it is a conversation between
23 General Milan Gvero and a certain Subara whose location couldn't be
25 Q. First of all, General Radinovic, who is General Milan Gvero in
2 A. General Milan Gvero was the assistant commander of the Main Staff
3 for morale, politics, and religious affairs.
4 Q. So he was Cerovic's direct superior? He was doing the same job as
5 Colonel Cerovic but in the Main Staff?
6 A. Yes. He worked in the Main Staff in the same affairs as Colonel
7 Cerovic, but there is no direct chain of command link because he is
8 subordinated to his commander.
9 Q. But they were both morale, legal, and religious affairs officers?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, let me read this conversation, and as I say, I'm not going to
12 read all of it.
13 S: May God be with you, General, sir. How are you?
14 G: Oh, Subara, fine, how are you?
15 S: I'm calling to tell you to watch out what you're doing
16 over there with Zepa, not to let it be like Srebrenica,
17 because there is talk that they slaughtered and rampaged
19 G: They're lying, man, they're lying.
20 S: Well I know. But watch out. That's why it would be good,
21 there's this guy, Peter Arnett, he's there.
22 G: Subara, everything's been agreed, an agreement was signed
23 last night. We're going to allow everything. If they're
24 smart, the ICRC will control it and an UNPROFOR representative
25 will also be present.
1 S: It's good you've done that in Zepa.
2 G: But those of military age won't be able to go. They'll go
3 to reception centres and they'll be registered. We're doing
4 everything in compliance with international laws of war.
5 S: Great. That's good.
6 G: Okay. Thank you for the reminder, but that's how it's
7 being done.
8 S: Yes, that's smart, because they criticised us badly for
10 G: They're just making things up. What else can they do?
11 There's nothing else they can do but lie.
12 S: We also made a mistake by not bringing in journalists.
13 G: We didn't make a mistake. We didn't.
14 And I'm not going to read the rest. If Mr. Visnjic wishes to
15 refer to it in your re-examination, he can.
16 Now, General, the little problem that Colonel Cerovic is talking
17 about and the orders which General Krstic gave are a direct result of
18 this, aren't they? The VRS knew by the 25th of July that the world knew
19 what had happened in Srebrenica; isn't that right?
20 A. They knew, more or less, but the point is whether the people in
21 Zepa could have known, in view of the situation. I never said that nobody
22 knew, but I'm sure that many did not know.
23 Q. General, the reason that orders were given to behave in a
24 civilised manner in Zepa were because everybody knew in the VRS that the
25 world knew that thousands of people had been murdered after the fall of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 Srebrenica; isn't that a fact?
2 A. You have Krstic's order of the 12th, when no one was killed, when
3 he requested that nobody should have a hair missing from his head, without
4 any pressure of public opinion.
5 Q. General, if we can --
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, excuse me for
7 interrupting you. You have already exceeded the time of the
8 examination-in-chief, so perhaps you could try and organise your questions
9 so as to try and complete your cross-examination soon.
10 MR. CAYLEY: I will, Mr. President. I will be finished within the
11 next 10 or 15 minutes.
12 Q. General, let's go to that particular exhibit, Prosecutor's Exhibit
13 446, which is the particular intercept that you're talking about, and this
14 is the exhibit between Krstic and Sobot. Now, first of all, General, you
15 would agree with me that General Krstic is giving orders over the radio?
16 Would you agree with that? Over the telephone, over the radio, he's
17 giving orders?
18 A. Orders are not given over the telephone; orders are given in a
19 certain format and in a certain procedure. It is messages that are sent
20 by telephone.
21 Q. Is he giving some form of instruction over the telephone?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, you'll see, halfway down, that General Krstic says, "Get in
24 touch with these guys from the MUP, Ministry of Interior. That means you,
25 your brigade, and them."
1 So I'm right in saying that this intercept indicates that General
2 Krstic is giving instructions not only to his own brigades but also to
3 members of the Ministry of the Interior?
4 A. No, he's not giving instructions to members of MUP, because if
5 they were direct instructions by Krstic, he would have called MUP
6 representatives to tell them. He gave instructions to his brigade
7 commander, a brigade commander of the Drina Corps, to get in touch with
8 MUP and to ensure regular conditions for the evacuation of civilians from
9 Srebrenica. So he's not addressing himself directly to them, but via his
10 brigade commander.
11 Q. So he's telling -- Krstic is telling his brigade to tell the MUP
12 to do something; isn't he, General?
13 A. To get in touch with them and to cooperate with respect to the
14 organisation of transport, and that means traffic control on the road from
15 Tisca to Kladanj.
16 Q. General, you'll also see in this intercept that Krstic asks for
17 Kosoric, Lieutenant Colonel Kosoric. Now, you will recall that it is the
18 Prosecutor's case that Lieutenant Colonel Kosoric led the first convoy out
19 of Srebrenica to Vlasenica, to the point of exchange, and you would agree
20 with me that this intercept in fact corroborates that view. Because this
21 intercept indicates that on the 12th of July, Kosoric moved from
22 Srebrenica to the Luka school area, to the tunnel where the Muslim
23 population crossed into Muslim-controlled area; would you agree with that?
24 A. No, I do not agree with you. I don't think that is the Kosoric
25 you are referring to, but rather a Kosoric who is chief of the
1 intelligence department in the command of the Drina Corps. This Kosoric
2 is the commander of the Vlasenica Brigade. So it wasn't this Kosoric who
3 led the convoy, but a Kosoric, an intelligence officer from the Drina
4 Corps. That is how I understood it, studying the documents and preparing
5 for this case and for my testimony here in this Honourable Trial Chamber.
6 Q. Now, General, finally what I wanted to ask you about is this: The
7 Defence provided to the Prosecution a very brief summary of what you were
8 to testify about today, and I will read that to you. Mr. Visnjic has that
9 in front of him, and it says this about your evidence:
10 "The witness shall, in the frame of the time that those
11 conversations were allegedly held," and this is referring to the
12 intercepts, "according to the statements of the OTP witnesses, put those
13 conversations in context." That's what I want to emphasise: "Put those
14 conversations in context with the events and with the position General
15 Krstic held."
16 Now, you stated to the Judges during your examination-in-chief
17 today that you had been reluctant to give evidence in respect of the
18 intercepts, and you gave a number of reasons why you were reluctant to
19 give evidence.
20 Now, when you testified last December, you also gave the Court a
21 number of reasons in your re-examination as to why you felt you couldn't
22 give evidence about the intercepts, and I want to read the third reason to
23 you, and this is what you said at page 8448:
24 "Third, it was impossible for me to follow the context in which
25 the conversations took place, and first of all I have in mind of the
1 operational context for me, to have a full knowledge of the situation and
2 thus to be able to possibly evaluate what was contained in those
4 Now, General, you will agree with me that based upon what you said
5 in December and based on the evidence that you have given today, you have
6 undergone an almost miraculous conversion as far as the intercepts are
7 concerned. Then you were unable to place any of them in context and today
8 you are.
9 A. You mean I have made a turnabout?
10 Q. Exactly.
11 A. Copernicus? With full responsibility for any inconsistency in my
12 methodology, I have come, upon instructions of the Defence counsel, to
13 comment on the intercepts, but under the proviso that I do not consider
14 intercepts to be evidence. That position applies to all intercepts,
15 including those I commented on today. How much probative value you will
16 give to this, it's not up to me to judge. I will comment on any other
17 intercepts that you may ask me to comment on, but under this reservation.
18 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, I have no further questions for the
19 witness. Thank you.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
21 Mr. Cayley.
22 Mr. Visnjic for any re-examination, please.
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have some additional
24 questions, Mr. President.
25 Re-examined by Mr. Visnjic:
1 Q. General Radinovic, am I wrong in saying that the conversations
2 given to you to explain today, that is, these three conversations, were
3 not shown to you before your testimony in this Court in December 2000?
4 A. Which conversations? I didn't understand.
5 Q. I'm referring to Uran, Cerovic, and Bogicevic, these three
7 A. You are right. They were not shown to me then.
8 Q. General, was the reason for it the fact that the Prosecution
9 disclosed some of those conversations only in January 2001 and that the
10 Uran/Cerovic intercept was in notebooks and it was not used by the
11 Prosecution in the Prosecution case?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could I now ask you to go back to Prosecution Exhibit 446, the
14 Krstic/Sobot conversation. I think it is in front of you. General
15 Radinovic, Kosoric, who is mentioned in this conversation, is his name
16 Mile, the commander of the Vlasenica Brigade in the relevant period?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. General Radinovic, this person called Savo, who is also mentioned
19 here and who General Krstic is asking for -- actually, could you tell us
20 who Savo is?
21 A. He's the assistant for logistics of the commander of the Vlasenica
23 Q. Is his name Sava Celikovic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is General Krstic apparently contacting the Vlasenica Brigade here
1 and, as the commander is absent, he's looking for the assistant for the
3 A. Yes. In this intercept he's asking for Kosoric, but he's told
4 he's not there, and then Savo replies, his assistant for logistics.
5 Q. General Radinovic, the Prosecutor has raised a question that you
6 did not testify about in the examination-in-chief, but I didn't want to
7 object for the umpteenth time, and that is the question of the
8 relationship between the MUP and the Drina Corps.
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness be shown, please,
10 Defence Exhibit D165.
11 Q. General Radinovic, will you please look at page 2 of this
13 A. Let me just see who is in the header.
14 Q. You have seen this document before, haven't you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When did you see it for the first time?
17 A. During the preparations for this testimony.
18 Q. Could you tell us how many days ago?
19 A. Shall we say three days ago.
20 Q. Could you tell Their Honours -- could you explain the content of
21 the second page of this document, without actually quoting from it, and
22 could you place it in the context of the relationship between the MUP and
23 the Drina Corps.
24 A. This document was transmitted on the 12th of July, 1995, and we
25 see the time indicated here, 2210, I think it is, if I see it well. It
1 says 2210 hours on page 2, and it was issued by Major General Zdravko
2 Tolimir, the assistant of the Chief of Staff of the Main Staff for
3 security and intelligence affairs.
4 And certain units and institutions are being informed by General
5 Tolimir about certain elements of the situation in Srebrenica. And on
6 page 2 he says that they, meaning the intelligence and security sector of
7 the Main Staff of the VRS, had informed organs of MUP, of Republika
8 Srpska, which is stationed in Konjevic Polje, with the illegal corridor
9 through which the Muslims of Srebrenica are breaking out - and this is
10 reference to the armed people, not the civilian population - considering
11 that they, that is, MUP organs, have the assignment to secure the
12 Bratunac-Konjevic Polje route.
13 I'm sorry that I didn't have this document much earlier when I was
14 preparing my expert report because then I would have been far more
15 convincing in my finding that the Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road was under
16 the control of the forces and chain of command that was outside the chain
17 of command of the Drina Corps. This is a very -- highly relevant fact,
18 and I'm sorry that it was only shortly prior to this testimony that I was
19 able to familiarise myself with this document.
20 Q. General Radinovic, who secured the Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road,
21 according to your finding?
22 A. According to my finding, the Konjevic Polje-Bratunac communication
23 was secured by a special brigade of the MUP of Republika Srpska.
24 Q. When we say "secured," does that mean on the dates --
25 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President I'm going to object.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Cayley.
2 MR. CAYLEY: I'm going to object to further questioning on this
3 unless I'm given opportunity to do re-cross-examination on the witness.
4 He's now speaking about matters which he did not address either in his
5 examination-in-chief or cross-examination, that is, the control of the
6 road between Bratunac and Konjevic Polje. I merely referred to an
7 instruction given to the MUP in an intercept, and now my learned friend is
8 essentially trying to get evidence in, in re-examination which he didn't
9 want to ask the General about in his examination-in-chief.
10 So if I'm given the opportunity to re-cross on this point, that is
11 fine; otherwise, I would request that the Court directs Mr. Visnjic to
12 concentrate purely on the issue that I raised in my cross-examination and
13 not to expand it out by virtue of this document.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic?
15 Mr. Visnjic, let me remind you anyway that on page 45, line 23 of
16 the LiveNote, you yourself admitted that this question of the relationship
17 between the MUP and the Drina Corps was raised for the first time by
18 Mr. Cayley, so in a sense, he should have had additional questions. But
19 the Chamber feels that you should be able to continue with your questions,
20 but if there are things going outside re-examination, it would be fair for
21 Mr. Cayley to have the opportunity to cross-examine, in a certain sense.
22 What is your opinion?
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, as far as we have
24 been able to understand, Mr. Cayley opened the door to this issue. I do
25 not wish to expand. If we're talking about the Bratunac-Konjevic Polje
1 road, I can withdraw my question about it - we don't want to keep the
2 witness any longer - because this could open up a series of issues that
3 the witness has already testified about.
4 So let me focus on this relationship without actually mentioning
5 the Konjevic Polje-Bratunac road, so I can withdraw my last question. But
6 I do wish to point out that it was the Prosecutor who opened this issue
7 and that we did not object, so in a sense, he's responsible for raising
8 the issue.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That is true, Mr. Visnjic. We
10 agree, but we're applying the principle here of giving equal treatment to
11 the parties and the equality of arms of the parties. It is true that
12 Mr. Cayley opened the door so you have the right to enter that door, but
13 it is also true that after that, Mr. Cayley has the right to put
14 additional questions.
15 So the Chamber is saying, you can continue with your questions,
16 because it is in the interests of justice that you be able to ask all your
17 questions, but giving the chance to Mr. Cayley to respond. So you may
18 choose: Either you continue with your questions and Mr. Cayley will be
19 able to comment, or you don't have any more questions and then Mr. Cayley
20 will not have the right to come back to it, either.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm afraid that we
22 are a little short of time, so I think we'll stop there. I shall just ask
23 General Radinovic a very general question raised by Mr. Cayley.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please proceed, then. That is
25 up to you. It's your choice.
1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Radinovic, is there a written document whereby the Drina Corps
3 is issuing orders to the MUP? Have you seen any such document?
4 A. No, I have not seen any such document.
5 Q. General Radinovic, my learned friend Mr. Cayley asked you about
6 your conversations with General Zivanovic. How many conversations were
8 A. One.
9 Q. You said that you discussed operational issues linked to Krivaja
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you cover all the issues? Did you have an exhaustive
13 discussion on that particular issue?
14 A. No, of course we didn't exhaust the issue. General Zivanovic
15 spoke in principled terms, though I knew what the operation was, its
16 scope, the forces participating, but I wanted to hear it from the man who
17 was on the spot and who I assumed knew the most about it.
18 And we ended our conversation regarding the concept, the
19 effectives -- the main objectives, and axes, all the things that come
20 under a description of an operation. I was particularly interested in the
21 immediate cause, the operational cause for the operation because I
22 couldn't put my finger on it. I couldn't find the directive, the document
23 from which it would be possible to see that clearly, and I asked General
24 Zivanovic for us to consider that particular problem at another meeting.
25 And he promised that he would familiarise me with the main operational
1 causes for that operation, that is, the Skakavac or grasshopper operation
2 which was lead by the chief of staff of the Main Staff of the army of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, General Hadzihuseinovic. Unfortunately, from that day
4 to the present I was never able to get in touch with him again for us to
5 complete that discussion. Why? I do not have an answer to that question.
6 Q. So after your first meeting, the agreement between you was that
7 you would get together once again when General Zivanovic would show you or
8 hand over to you certain documents, but since that first meeting you were
9 not able to get in touch with him; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, quite correct.
11 Q. Thank you. One further question in that connection. General
12 Radinovic, at the time you were in touch with General Zivanovic, had the
13 trial already started of this case?
14 A. I'm afraid I cannot give you a precise answer, but I personally
15 was just embarking upon preparations. I don't know whether the trial had
16 actually begun in the sense of pre-trial hearings. I think you did have
17 some contacts because I already had received documents from the
19 Q. Thank you. For how long did you testify in the courtroom
20 regarding the operational circumstances connected to the Krivaja 95
22 A. I'm not quite sure, but I think it must have been three or four
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have one further
1 topic to address and it has to do with the exhibit used by the
2 Prosecution, directive number 4, and I would like to appeal to Your
3 Honours to allow the Defence the right, after having studied this
4 document, to perhaps call back General Radinovic to examine him regarding
5 some of the elements because we were really caught by surprise with this
6 document. Otherwise, we have no further questions for this witness.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But Mr. Visnjic, when do you
8 think you could call back General Radinovic to address this topic?
9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that's a rather
10 difficult question, but I think by the end of the day we'll be able to
11 decide whether we need to call him back or not, and then perhaps we could
12 notify Your Honours about that tomorrow. It's a rather broad and
13 complicated topic over which I should like to consult the General.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But the Prosecutor used only one
15 paragraph of that document, I think.
16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That is true, Mr. President, but the
17 question was a rather broad one, so I have to be cautious.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Cayley, do you have a
19 response to this?
20 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, I do, Mr. President. I think, to be frank and
21 fair, the question was a very simple one, a very precise one, and a very
22 straightforward one. It was simply whether or not General Mladic had
23 ordered that the civilian population be forced out of Zepa. Those are the
24 words that I quoted, and I asked the General as an expert whether he
25 thought that General Mladic actually meant that. You heard his response.
1 So it's not a broad area at all, it's a very simple question about
2 interpretation of a document.
3 Secondly, the Defence cannot claim that they have been taken by
4 surprise. They've had this document since the 13th of February of 2001.
5 They themselves raised the issue of Zepa, and by utilising certain
6 documents, sought to assert that that particular operation had been
7 conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law.
8 You've heard the examination-in-chief; you've heard the
9 cross-examination. That document was simply put to the witness, to the
10 Trial Chamber, to assert the position that as early as 1992, it had been
11 decided that the population had to leave that area. Its relevance to
12 anything -- any other part of that document and its relevance to this
13 case, the Prosecution is not particularly concerned with.
14 So I believe it's actually a very straightforward matter that the
15 Defence can deal with now, and there's no need to call this witness back
16 in a day, in a week, in a month. It can be dealt with now.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, would you like to
19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I would, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Then quickly, please; otherwise,
21 we'll be in a vicious circle.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] First, Mr. President, the use of
23 these intercepts was resorted to when the Prosecution witnesses identified
24 them with respect to date.
25 Second, it was not the intention of the Defence to show how the
1 Zepa operation took place but only to have General Krstic's personal
2 position stated, expressed through the order.
3 Third, if it is such a small -- a simple question, Zepa 92, and if
4 the Prosecution indeed just wants to have the opinion as to what
5 Mr. Mladic wanted, General Mladic wanted, Mr. Cayley said that it does
6 refer to the general context and the intentions of the army of Republika
7 Srpska as a whole to evacuate the Zepa population, which I consider to be
8 a very broad context for the events. And it is in that sense that I
9 should like to express all my reservations towards the intention of the
10 Prosecution to introduce this document as evidence in this case.
11 So it was not our intention to prove the general Zepa
12 context. It is our intention -- and you can clearly see from that that it
13 is a personal order and the personal position taken by General Krstic
14 towards certain events, regardless of what those events were.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] One moment, please. The Judges
16 will confer.
17 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber is going to make a
19 compromise in the interests of the parties, that is, that it will give
20 Mr. Visnjic the opportunity of calling back the witness at the end of
21 today's day, by close of business today, not tomorrow, but to state this
22 today, in order to ask questions. If you do have questions, Mr. Visnjic,
23 on this issue, you can ask the General at the end of today's day. That is
24 the ruling of the Chamber. We must profit with the General's presence
1 I think that this would be a good moment to take a break. No?
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We still have the Judges'
4 question, and Judge Wald rightfully reminded me of that. So shall we go
5 ahead with the Judges' questions now before we adjourn for lunch.
6 Judge Fouad Riad has the floor.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE RIAD: General Radinovic, welcome back. I would like to
9 have the benefit of your expertise to clarify a few things in my mind.
10 I'll start with the last thing you were talking about, which is the order
11 of General Mladic of 1992. I'm not interested in the order, which
12 apparently is still under discussion; I'm interested in your answer. You
13 said that it was -- when the order concerned, of course, the fact that the
14 Muslim population should also be forced to leave Zepa with the fighters,
15 you said, "The population had to decide for itself whether to leave or
16 not, and that's what happened also in Srebrenica."
17 Now, when you say the population had to decide for itself, don't
18 you, as not only academician, as also a man of the ground, know
19 that -- don't you agree that the population can be forced, indirectly, by
20 some kind of terror, by the way of knowing what might happen to them if
21 they stay, even if you don't tell them to leave? What do you think?
22 A. Yes, I allow for that possibility, that the decision can be
23 motivated by fear, and in civil wars that is a normal occurrence. That is
24 what happens. The population looks for protection from its own army and
25 its own authorities. As soon as the army of another entity takes control,
1 the population leaves. Of course, it is out of fear. They feel happier
2 with their own people. And that was a natural consequence of the war in
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. This happened.
4 JUDGE RIAD: I'm not speaking of happiness. The fact that just a
5 few houses would be burnt and a few shots gone in, don't you think - not
6 even in former Yugoslavia; in history - if just terror has been expanded
7 and the knowledge that that would happen to them, isn't that an indirect
8 way of forcing them to leave, and that that's what happens usually, as you
9 said, in civil wars?
10 A. In civil wars, yes, that is what happened. That's what happened
11 in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.
12 JUDGE RIAD: The second thing concerns the announcement of General
13 Zivanovic that he liberated Srebrenica and he is now doing other things,
14 he is now called to do other things. Also -- I won't discuss the fact
15 that it's a bravado or not, because of course it's a question of context.
16 It might be a bravado if he wanted to challenge the people who discarded
17 him and there might have been a conflict which you could tell us about.
18 But I'm also interested in your answer. You said, "There is no reason for
19 us to say that somebody else was in command and not the de facto Corps
20 Commander." Now, here it's a question of presumption. What is more
21 evident: that the official commander is the man who is in power or that
22 the de facto commander, whom -- I mean, you said your research indicated.
23 Did your research indicate who was the de facto commander?
24 A. Yes. The de facto commander in this case, de jure and de facto,
25 is the commander of the Drina Corps, and the commander of the Drina Corps
1 was General Zivanovic. And all those who took part in commanding and
2 supervising the Krivaja 95 operation from the forward command post are his
3 commanding organs, organs for command, including General Krstic, who was
4 his Chief of Staff. So they were all working within his command.
5 JUDGE RIAD: You said he was the commander, the de facto and de
6 jure, both?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RIAD: But in your answer you said, "There is no reason to
9 consider that somebody else than the de facto Corps Commander." You
10 insisted that he was de facto. Did your research lead you that he was de
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Until what date?
14 A. During the Krivaja 95 operation, throughout the duration of the
15 Krivaja 95 operation. And I talked about him as the de facto commander of
16 the Drina Corps that day, and he showed me a map and explained his
17 decision, the combat positions, and both -- and the formations and the
18 structure of forces. He spoke to me about all that with a map in front of
19 him, as the commander who commanded the forces and who knew the
20 situation. Otherwise I wouldn't have talked to him, had he not declared
21 himself personally as being the commander. And from what he told me about
22 the operation, I was quite convinced that he was in command of the forces,
23 because he spoke about it in a highly competent and professional manner.
24 JUDGE RIAD: So he was your only source of information about that?
25 A. No. All the officers of the VRS and the Drina Corps that I talked
1 to about Srebrenica, all, to a man, were convinced that General Zivanovic
2 was the commander of the Drina Corps during the Srebrenica operation.
3 JUDGE RIAD: And you had any documents or just verbal
5 A. I have a document. He signed the order for Srebrenica, the order
6 for combat operations for Krivaja 95. The Corps Commander signed that.
7 And there are a series of other communications that he entered into up
8 until the 11th of July, including the entrance into Srebrenica with the
9 commander of the Main Staff and part of his command, on the videotape that
10 we have as a document, as an exhibit in this case.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you, General. Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Fouad
14 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
15 JUDGE WALD: Thank you. General Radinovic, as to the Prosecutor's
16 Exhibit 446, which was the July 12th intercept, do you have that
17 available? We've been talking about it. It's the "don't harm a hair on
18 their heads" intercept. And again, reiterating that, it occurred, the
19 intercept, on July 12th. Is it your reading of that intercept that the
20 admonition, "Don't let anything happen to them" or "Don't let a hair on
21 their head be hurt," applies to the people who were evacuated on the buses
22 from Potocari to Kladanj? Is that your interpretation of that intercept?
23 A. Yes, and that can be seen from the whole context, not only from
24 that sentence, but from the whole document.
25 JUDGE WALD: Right. I agree with you, but I wanted to get your
1 interpretation of the 12th. The reason I asked that question is because
2 later on, when we got to intercept -- to 167, and this is the one that
3 you've been questioned about several times in which Uran says to Cerovic:
4 "We are to behave in a civilised fashion so that nothing of the kind of
5 problem we had before happens." And you were asked, I think by both
6 Defence and Prosecution, what you thought that referred to about the
7 uncivilised fashion or the kind of problem that you had had before. And I
8 was a little puzzled by your answer as it came through on the translation
9 on the screen, and that's why I want to make sure that I have it
10 straight. Because you were asked what might be the reference point for
11 the so-called uncivilised -- treating somebody in an uncivilised fashion,
12 and you were asked what it referred to, and you said it was the column of
13 civilians. That's the way it came through on my transcript. And that
14 confused me in the sense of: Are you saying that the uncivilised fashion
15 to which Uran is referring in the intercept is to the treatment of the
16 people in the column, not the people in the buses? Can you straighten
17 that out for me?
18 A. Yes. I was thinking of the people in the transport column, not
19 the people that were going on foot in a column after the Drina Corps.
20 JUDGE WALD: Well, I appreciate your clearing that up, because the
21 word "column" has been used consistently in these proceedings, primarily
22 to refer to the column of men that were following with parts of the Muslim
23 army through there.
24 So that would it be fair, then, to say that both 446 and 167,
25 which we've just discussed, when they contain admonitions, one by General
1 Krstic, but this one by Uran, that they were referring to behaving in a
2 civilised fashion toward the people that were going to be bussed out of,
3 first, Srebrenica; later on, Zepa? To the people that had, in effect, put
4 themselves in the hands of the authorities and said, "We're going to be
5 part of the evacuation"?
6 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Now, the second question is a little broader,
8 but I'm very interested, as both a military person and a professor, in
9 your answer. You gave us extensive discussion of why you were
10 uncomfortable in having to give interpretations of intercepts. I'm just
11 wondering what critical difference you see between the kind of intercepts
12 that we have had in this case and other kinds of evidence which occur in
13 all kinds of cases. For instance, people have to give, and especially in
14 this Tribunal, although I'm not too used to it in my own country,
15 hearsay. You know, a witness gets on and says, "I overheard a
16 conversation between X and Y, and I heard X say -- but I couldn't hear the
17 answer. I could only hear what X said," and that sort of hearsay. Or
18 notes; people scribble down notes of conversations and later on the notes
19 are put in evidence. Why do you think it's so intrinsically less reliable
20 to be considering intercepts than those other kinds of incomplete and not
21 perfectly attenuated, perfectly calibrated evidence that all of us get
22 every day in other kinds of court proceedings? You don't -- if you have a
23 brief answer, that's fine, but I was just interested in your observation.
24 A. I'll answer that briefly. I belong to a profession which uses the
25 method of inter-subjective examination of all evidence and facts upon
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
13 and English transcripts.
1 which it relies. That is to say, I acknowledge something as being
2 evidence which is -- and fact, only that which can be borne out by
3 everybody who I ask about that, to tell me whether the fact is authentic
4 or whether it has been falsified, anything that I can cross-check. And
5 until I am convinced myself as to the truth of a fact, I cannot attach
6 great probative value to it. So that is why I am always doubting, I'm a
7 doubting Thomas with respect to intercepts, until research, previous
8 research has been done to discard any doubt, to leave no space for doubt
9 as to the authenticity of what I have before me, until I have
10 cross-checked it. And that is my attitude towards everything else,
11 towards all other evidence as well.
12 JUDGE WALD: Okay, thank you. Now, I have a question about
13 intercept 884. This is the one -- the first intercept that dealt with
14 Bogicevic and Zivanovic.
15 You told us an interesting basis for your interpretation of that
16 intercept, namely, that the word "now" in your language, the word "now"
17 has a much more particularised meaning than -- certainly than it has in
18 our language, and that your interpretation of "now" in this context means
19 just at this minute, but not before now -- or not before the particular
20 time at which the speaker is speaking. Is that right?
21 A. Yes, immediately before the time the speaker is speaking.
22 JUDGE WALD: Right, right. I understood that part. Now, the part
23 that I need to ask you about is, does that same word "now" mean this
24 moment that I'm in right now as opposed to in the future, say, something a
25 week from now?
1 I mean, does it have that same instantaneous snapshot type of
2 reference that you told us it had in that it didn't encompass anything in
3 the past; until that moment? Does it have that same notion that it
4 doesn't encompass something that will happen in the future but only
5 something that is happening right at that moment?
6 A. The word "now" in the Serbian language really means a very limited
7 time. Now, if I am -- I'm saying this, when I am saying it, it is at the
8 time that I'm saying it. If I say, "It's arrived now," it means it's
9 arrived precisely at this particular precise moment.
10 JUDGE WALD: Fine, you've answered that part of my question, so
11 let me just give you the follow-up as it might apply to 884, and
12 Zivanovic -- I don't have the intercept, can I --
13 A. I'm not hearing you. I'm not getting the interpretation now.
14 JUDGE WALD: I say that your answer might apply to the intercept
15 that I talked to, to 884. When General Zivanovic says in that intercept,
16 "I have a new duty now," does that, in your view, mean that his new duty,
17 whatever it is, is right now at the time; he has that duty right then and
18 there at the time he is speaking? Not a duty which he may have to take up
19 a week from now or two weeks from now, but he has that duty right at that
21 A. He is talking about the duty which he has just received and which
22 he is to take over.
23 JUDGE WALD: Right away, now. He says, "I have a new duty now,"
24 so if "now" has that instantaneous meaning that you just told us, then he
25 has that duty to take up right then and there?
1 A. He has got a new duty, but new duties are assigned on the basis of
2 a document, which means he has got a document for that duty which he is
3 taking on. He says, "I have been given a new duty."
4 JUDGE WALD: I think -- I don't have it in front of us, but at
5 least as it was spoken or as my notes suggest, it was, "I have a new duty
6 now." All right, I understand your interpretation, but I wanted to make
7 sure how your reading of the word "now" would apply to both sides of that
9 My final question to you is, I just wanted to go back and clear up
10 when I asked you the prior question when you said a column of civilians,
11 you meant a column of transport of the civilians. Do you know from your
12 research whether or not the VRS, any of the people that you talked to in
13 the VRS, considered the actual column that was moving through the woods as
14 military or civilian in part?
15 A. Everybody I talked to considered that column to be a military
17 JUDGE WALD: All right. Thank you.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Wald.
19 General Radinovic, when you say that as regards the intercepted
20 conversations you are a doubting Thomas, do you also consider yourself to
21 be a doubting Thomas when it comes to your attitude as a researcher? When
22 you start researching an issue, do you still consider yourself to be a
23 doubting Thomas in the sense that it is your approach, methodological
24 approach to the issue?
25 A. Well, I abide by the principle of the so-called methodological
1 doubt which means that I don't take anything at face value, but that I
2 have to check things first.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I understand you correctly,
4 General, you told us that the intercepted conversations can only be used
5 as a hint, an indication, which may point to a corroboration of evidence.
6 Do I understand you correctly?
7 A. Yes, it has to be corroborated.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have you done that? In respect
9 of an intercepted conversation, have you tried to corroborate that hint,
10 as you say it, as an exercise?
11 A. Mr. President, I was not in a position to do that because I did
12 not have the tapes, and without comparing each and every transcript with
13 the tape recording, I don't think it would be possible to establish the
14 correspondence between the two.
15 And second, which is perhaps even more important, I'm not an
16 expert for such type of analysis. I do not have adequate knowledge which
17 would enable me to verify the authenticity of the transcripts, that is,
18 the correspondence of the transcripts and the tape-recordings. It is a
19 preliminary procedure that has to be applied.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, General. Another
21 question as regards the document of handover of duty between General
22 Zivanovic and General Krstic, could they, too, be subject of this attitude
23 of yours, the attitude of a doubting Thomas, as you said?
24 A. No, they could not, because the handover document is signed by
25 both individuals concerned, and the superior officer is the one who
1 guarantees the fact that the document has been signed. It can be
2 established very simply. You don't need to have any special expertise,
3 any special expert opinion of that to be able to establish that.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. When did you first
5 meet with General Zivanovic? When was the first time in your life that
6 you met General Zivanovic?
7 A. I couldn't answer your question. I have been a university
8 professor for quite some time, so he may have been one of the students,
9 one of the listeners of these lectures. But I -- all I can tell you is
10 that I did not meet him personally before I started preparing myself for
11 this testimony. So the encounter that I told you about here as part of my
12 testimony was actually the first encounter of myself and General
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So that was the first time you
15 met General Zivanovic?
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have one other question for
18 you, General. How many hours did you spend with General Zivanovic?
19 A. I think that the counsel for the Defence -- of the Prosecution
20 asked me about that, and I said that I spent some time with him before the
21 lunch and then after the lunch as well, couple of hours in the morning and
22 couple of hours in the evening.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I know that somebody asked
24 that question, but my question is more specific. Do you remember when you
25 arrived and when you left? Do you remember the time of the day?
1 A. Well, it could have been at about 10.00 in the morning and then
2 until 4 p.m. after lunch, including the lunch break, which must have been
3 half an hour or one hour; but I couldn't be more specific than that, but
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did you have lunch together or
7 A. Yes, we had lunch together.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, General
9 Radinovic. We still don't know whether you will be coming back or not
10 this afternoon, but if you're not coming back, let me thank you once again
11 for having testified here, but as I said, it's possible that you will come
12 back once again this afternoon.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me ask the usher to
15 accompany you out of the courtroom.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will have our 50-minute break
18 at this point.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.35 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 1.29 p.m.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence would
23 like to tender Exhibits 167A and B, 168A and B, and 169. As regards the
24 first Exhibit, 169, the Defence wishes to note for the Chamber that the
25 document was produced by the Defence, but since the Prosecution has agreed
1 with the method of collation of documents, with a view of comparing
2 various statements and then considering them as one single document, we
3 have availed ourselves of that possibility as well and come up with the
4 Exhibit 169, which we would also like to tender into evidence.
5 As regards 884, that is, the intercepted conversation between
6 General Zivanovic and Bogicevic, we have reviewed the transcript. We did
7 not object to the request of the Prosecution that the document be made
8 part of the record previously as an exhibit, so I just wanted to inform
9 the Chamber of that stand of the Defence.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Cayley.
11 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President. We have no objections to
12 any of the Defence Exhibits 167, 168, and 169, and we would merely apply
13 for admission into evidence of Prosecution's Exhibit 883, that being the
14 document about which there was some discussion this morning, the directive
15 for operations number 4. It was the document that I quoted from. I
16 anticipate that my learned friend will have some comments to make about
17 this particular matter, and I will respond to what he has to say about the
18 admission of this document.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Visnjic, let us hear you on
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the Defence objects
22 to the admission of this document into evidence in this case for the
23 following reasons. There's quite a few of them, actually. First of all,
24 so far the Prosecutor has not disclosed to the Defence any proof as to the
25 authenticity of this document, nor were we able to ascertain the
1 authenticity of this document from simply reviewing it.
2 As regards the second part, I'm not quite clear whether the
3 Prosecutor wishes to admit the document -- to have the document admitted
4 in its entirety or only a portion of it.
5 Thirdly, the Defence believes that this document falls out of the
6 framework of the Prosecution's rebuttal and the Defence's rejoinder in
7 this case.
8 Fourth, should this document be established as an authentic
9 document, we would need a far greater amount of time than the time that we
10 have been given in between breaks in order to be able to analyse it and to
11 discuss it with the authors of the document since the person who seems to
12 have compiled the document is an accessible individual, both to the
13 Defence and to the Prosecution. As regards the context of the document,
14 that will be also problematic.
15 Mr. President, it is our opinion that the Prosecution is trying at
16 the end of the case to introduce this by the back door, a subject which so
17 far has not been discussed before this Chamber; that is, the issue as to
18 whether the events from 1992 are connected with the events that took place
19 in 1995. When I'm saying this, I'm referring mainly to the genocide
20 charge. I must add that it is the position of the Defence that this
21 should have been made part of the Prosecution case in-chief and should not
22 be brought up in this phase.
23 Furthermore, had the Prosecutor on his witness list had an
24 individual who would have spoken about the events that took place from
25 1992 up until 1995 in order to establish that link, that would have been
1 different. The Prosecutor has certainly had an opportunity to call that
2 evidence and to present the document, but that possibility has been
3 foregone by the Prosecution for the reasons unbeknownst to us.
4 I see a minor mistake here in the transcript. I said that the
5 Prosecutor "did" have an opportunity to call this witness and to use this
6 evidence, so the witness was already on the list of the Prosecutor in
7 their case in-chief.
8 Also, I wish to point out that the indictment does not include the
9 period of time prior to 1995. We also used certain evidence of that kind,
10 but with the intention of linking them up with the 1995 context.
11 Mr. President, the time between 1992 and 1995 was a long one, and I think
12 it is quite inadmissible for the Prosecutor to try to use this document at
13 this stage of the proceedings.
14 And finally, the Prosecution case was long enough, and it is my
15 assumption that all these documents, including the directive number 4,
16 were accessible to the Prosecutor during their case in-chief. As to the
17 fact that they failed to present it or to extend or amend the indictment,
18 unfortunately, that cannot go to the disadvantage of the Defence and our
20 What we want to say, Mr. President, Your Honours, is that the
21 question which Mr. Cayley asked of General Radinovic may perhaps be linked
22 in a way with the events that took place in Zepa. However, if we should
23 start discussing previous events, then, at any rate, we would need a large
24 amount of time in order to prepare ourselves for a subject which has now
25 been opened by the Prosecutor.
1 So I believe that in this way, the Prosecution is simply trying to
2 ambush the Defence, in particular, in view of the fact that we have
3 already objected to this type of evidence and this type of document in the
4 past. And let me say once again, I think that the Prosecutor had ample
5 opportunity during his case in-chief to bring up this issue, and it is not
6 our fault that he has failed to do so.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I will give the floor to
8 Mr. Cayley to reply. Mr. Cayley.
9 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. I will use
10 the order that Mr. Visnjic gave, essentially, his points, I'll use them as
11 subheadings and try to respond in the same order.
12 The first point that my learned friend made was that there has
13 been no foundation as to authenticity in respect of this particular
14 document, and in the break I acquainted myself with the history of this
15 particular document, and I can give you that now; it's brief.
16 This particular document was part of the Krajina Corps collection
17 which is a document that was seized by the Office of the Prosecutor. It
18 was a set of documents that was seized by the Office of the Prosecutor in
19 1998. As you can imagine, we have hundreds of thousands of documents, and
20 the decision on whether to translate any particular document from a
21 collection is made by generally a very brief review of the entire set of
22 documents, and then documents are chosen from that set.
23 This particular document was not translated until December of the
24 year 2000, and when its relevance to this case became apparent in January
25 of 2000 [sic], it was disclosed to the Defence and I addressed that with
1 you before the break. They received that document with two others in
2 February of this year. So they have had that document now for over a
3 month, and it's not a particularly lengthy document; it's about eight
5 So it can be said to be authentic as far as it is part of a larger
6 collection that was seized by the Office of the Prosecutor from a VRS, a
7 Bosnian-Serb army corps. As to the continuity of evidence in respect of
8 it being handed from an investigator on to the Evidence Unit, that, of
9 course, also exists, but I would feel that that probably is not an issue
10 that is in question here.
11 As to whether or not the document should be admitted in its
12 entirety, which was the second point raised by my learned friend, I think
13 it should be, because I think most documents of this type need to be read
14 and seen in their entirety to see what the actual purpose of the document
15 is. For example, this particular section is contained within an operative
16 part of the document. It's a dispositive part of the document. And if
17 only this particular section were admitted, that would not be clear from
18 the document. It's a military order. So I would submit that it should be
19 admitted in its entirety.
20 Now, my learned friend has said in his third point that this
21 particular matter is out of the framework of the Prosecution rebuttal and
22 the Defence rejoinder, and I would say to the Court that the Defence
23 themselves opened up the opportunity to put this document before a
24 witness. The document -- the witness, General Radinovic, was making a
25 number of assertions about compliance with international humanitarian law
1 during the operation in Srebrenica and attributing that compliance to
2 General Krstic. What the Prosecution sought to do through this document
3 is to indicate that as long ago as 1992, the intention had been of the
4 Main Staff, of the VRS, to remove the population from Zepa. Now, that
5 intention may have changed. That particular operation may have been
6 carried out in a more humane manner in 1995. I don't comment on that.
7 But nevertheless, the Court should be aware of what the original intent
9 That brings me on to the next point that my learned friend made
10 about the context. It is important that the Court knows about what
11 happened early on in 1992, and indeed, contrary to what my learned friend
12 is saying, this has been addressed throughout. I recall during my
13 cross-examination of General Radinovic, indeed in his own report he went
14 back far, far, far behind 1991. I think he went back almost to the last
15 century in some of his discussions. I certainly addressed events, early
16 events of this war. I addressed the period of 1991 with him. I recall
17 that myself in my cross-examination of early -- the early development of
18 the war in Eastern Bosnia. So I think that point is erroneous and I think
19 it is relevant to what the Court is addressing.
20 Again, in saying it should have been part of the case in chief, I
21 would repeat what I've already said. We are simply responding to what a
22 Defence witness is stating in rejoinder about the manner in which a
23 particular operation was conducted, the Zepa operation, and we are
24 responding by placing a document which indicates the actual context in
25 1992 in which it was anticipated that operation would take place.
1 I think I've addressed all of the points made, apart from the
2 point that -- I think the 11th point that my learned friend made, which he
3 said that we were essentially trying to ambush him, and I think that that
4 is a misdescription of this particular event. The Defence have had this
5 document for a month, as I've said, and I won't labour the point. They
6 gave the Prosecution the opportunity to use this document in respect of
7 one of their witnesses, and I believe it is a document which is of
8 assistance to the Court and should be admitted into evidence.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I don't think that there has
11 been anything new, Mr. Visnjic, from Mr. Cayley. Do you wish to add
12 something to what he has just argued?
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Mr. President. I'll be
14 very brief.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please try to be very
16 brief, because we are wasting our hearing time, witness time.
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
18 The Prosecutor has told us that it received the document in 1998.
19 I can understand the claim that it is an important document. It is a
20 directive. It was signed by General Mladic and issued by the Main Staff
21 of the army. I cannot accept the explanation that this document had to
22 wait a very long time to be translated. It is true that it is not a very
23 long document, but it is a complex document, because it addresses the
24 overall situation in the territory of Republika Srpska in terms of
25 military strategy in 1992.
1 Thirdly, just in passing, General Krstic was not a member of the
2 Main Staff, so I don't know how this document can be applied to him.
3 However, if that document is indeed as important as Mr. Cayley is claiming
4 it to be, that it is on the basis of this document that the intentions
5 regarding 1995 could be established, then that document should have been
6 part of the case in chief.
7 Once again, Mr. President, the subject of Zepa was not opened up
8 by the Defence with these intercepts. It was the Prosecutor who used
9 intercepted conversations in their case regarding Zepa, and Mr. Cayley
10 used the intercept between Gvero and a certain Subara during his
11 examination. It is not a new subject for them. They addressed the issue
12 during their case in chief.
13 That's all, Mr. President. Thank you.
14 And just by way of illustration, if the Prosecutor needed three
15 years, from 1998 until 2001, to reach the conclusion that this subject can
16 be used in that case, then I just wonder how much time we would need in
17 order to be able to address this issue properly.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
19 Mr. Visnjic. I will consult with my colleagues. I don't know whether
20 they have any questions. No.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber believes that the
23 document has certain aspects which are identical to the documents that we
24 are currently analysing in order to decide whether they will be admitted
25 or not, so the Chamber will postpone the assessment of this document for
1 some time later, together with the remaining documents. And the Chamber
2 will make its ruling later on, because we have heard the arguments today
3 and we will issue our decision together with all other pending documents.
4 Thank you.
5 Mr. Visnjic, however, there seems to be something that needs to be
6 clarified here. Does this mean, Mr. Visnjic, that you are not going to
7 recall Mr. Radinovic in order to reopen the issue, or do you still intend
8 to call him back? Because both are possible. You can object to the
9 admission of the document, but you can still, if you wish to do so, use
10 the document to re-examine the witness on the basis of the questions that
11 have been asked of him by the Prosecutor. This will not affect the
12 decision of the Chamber.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have decided not
14 to call the witness back for the reasons that I have just argued.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Visnjic. So
16 you're now going to call another witness. I think you have a witness
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] You're quite right, Mr. President.
19 I would like to ask a very brief private session at this point, please.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Let us move into private
21 session for a few moments.
22 [Private session]
13 Page 9402 redacted – private session
23 [Open session]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We are in public session.
25 For the benefit of the public, the Chamber wishes to notify the
1 public gallery that there has been an application for protective measures
2 by the Defence to which the Prosecution has no objections. In view of the
3 need to protect the interests of the justice [as interpreted], the Chamber
4 has decided to grant the application of the Defence and the testimony of
5 our next witness will be heard in totally closed session, that is,
6 completely closed session. The blinds will be lowered down and the
7 witness will be brought in.
8 I should like the technical booth to make sure that appropriate
9 measures are taken in order to have the protective measures applied.
10 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, Mr. McCloskey will be taking this
11 witness, so if I can excuse myself from the courtroom now after the
12 departure of Dr. Radinovic and the fact that he's no longer going to be
13 coming back, we hope.
14 [Closed session]
13 Pages 9405-9423 redacted – closed session
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that in order to
10 facilitate the discussion, we have to take into account the fact that this
11 proposal which I have given in closed session should be treated as a
12 public proposal. Do you agree with that?
13 MR. HARMON: I do, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic?
15 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So the record is therefore
17 automatically corrected. Whatever proposal has been given in response to
18 the Prosecution application, it was given in public session.
19 The Prosecutor has requested the reopening of the case in order to
20 have these reports submitted and admitted into evidence. The Defence
21 initially objected to the admission of the reports in question; however,
22 the Chamber believes that a solution could be found, a solution which
23 would enable us to respect, globally speaking, the calendar and the
24 schedule which has been in place for a very long time.
25 We can proceed in the following manner: The expert reports
1 submitted by the Prosecutor will be admitted into evidence as exhibits.
2 The Defence will be allowed to submit as exhibits a report which will
3 constitute a response to the said reports, by the 20th of April, at
4 latest. It is clear, of course, that that report in response
5 cannot -- can only address the issues brought up in the initial four
6 reports and that it should be relatively brief, the report submitted in
8 Both the Prosecution and the Defence are not allowed to submit to
9 the Chamber any requests concerning the admission of exhibits except in
10 exceptional circumstances, which is self-implied, and the parties will
11 submit their final briefs to the Chamber by Friday, the 27th of April,
13 The closing arguments will be held between the 1st and the 4th of
14 May, 2001. Let me also remind you in that respect that each party will
15 have two days, maximum, for their closing arguments, and also that the
16 Defence must be prepared to argue immediately after the closing argument
17 of the Prosecution, and that the Prosecution cannot offer any arguments in
18 response to the closing argument of the Defence.
19 I should like to hear the position of the parties about this
20 proposed schedule, and we should perhaps start with Mr. Harmon, because he
21 has submitted this application, and I should like to hear his opinion of
22 this proposal which we now make in response to his application.
23 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, the reason I was hesitating is because
24 in listening to the decision of the Trial Chamber, there was mention of
25 four reports, four expert reports, and in our submission that we filed in
1 our application for admission of this new evidence, dated the 15th of
2 March, we submitted four reports, as well as a summary investigative
3 report prepared by Mr. Manning. So in order to clarify the record, is the
4 Court admitting the four expert reports that have been identified, those
5 being the reports of Mr. Baryabar, Peccerelli, Wright, and Clark, and
6 excluding the report that was also submitted, which is the summary of
7 those that was prepared by Mr. Manning?
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] First of all, it was simply a
9 proposal, a suggestion by the Chamber, Mr. Harmon. We have to hear the
10 response of the parties. If you agree with this proposal, it will be easy
11 to change the conditional way of speaking which we used into an
12 affirmative one. And you're quite right, the summary of Mr. Manning
13 should be included as what we did with the reports because it functions as
14 a guide through the overall text, and it has to be considered as part of
15 the four reports. So with this remark, you can perhaps now tell us if you
16 agree or not.
17 MR. HARMON: Yes, Mr. President. We agree with the proposal Your
18 Honour has made.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Harmon.
20 Mr. Petrusic?
21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] We have no objections,
22 Mr. President, to your proposal.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So without wasting any more
24 time, we can change the conditional tense which was used in our proposal
25 into an affirmative tense. So this was, then, the decision of the Chamber
1 in response to the request of the Prosecution.
2 We have two more issues that I would like to address before we
3 adjourn for the day. The first one has to do with something that
4 Mr. Harmon mentioned concerning a number of documents. I don't know
5 whether there have been any exchanges between the parties concerning this
6 issue, but the Chamber has to make a ruling very soon, the day after --
7 the day after tomorrow, because we will soon finish the Defence rejoinder,
8 and the issue has to be resolved.
9 I should now like to hear the parties on this issue, and what can
10 be done in respect of these documents; that is, can there be any exchanges
11 between the parties which can help the Chamber in reaching its decision.
12 And the second issue that I would like to bring up is the question of
13 documents -- now, I'm in a quandary to a certain extent. I don't know
14 whether I can deal with this within the framework of the rejoinder because
15 the issue was actually brought up ex parte and is a confidential one, and
16 we should move into private session for a few moments for that purpose.
17 Let us move into private session briefly, please.
18 [Private session]
13 Page 9428 redacted – private session
13 Page 9429 redacted – private session
13 Page 9430 redacted – private session
13 Page 9431 redacted – private session
3 [Open session]
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So there are no other questions
5 to be addressed today. I propose that we adjourn for the day, if the
6 parties don't have anything else to bring up. We will come back tomorrow
7 at 9.20 to continue with our work.
8 Mr. Visnjic, any questions? No.
9 So we will see each other tomorrow at 9.20 again.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.29 p.m., to
11 be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of
12 April, 2001, at 9.20 a.m.