1Tuesday, 28th September, 1999
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case IT-95-16-T, the
7 Prosecutor versus Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic,
8 Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, Dragan Papic, and
9 Vladimir Santic.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Would you
11 please make the solemn declaration?
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Before we start,
16 may I call upon the Prosecutor to try to be as brief as
17 possible with all these witnesses, because we intend to
18 finish with the evidence by next Thursday -- Thursday
19 of next week, I mean -- both with the rebuttal and with
20 the rejoinder witnesses. So that means that we have to
21 be as brief and as short as possible. Thank you.
22 MR. BLAXILL: Your point is well taken,
23 Mr. President. We will be as brief as possible.
24 I will also make sure I have one of the
25 headphones around my neck, as Mr. Tucker and I will
1both be speaking English, and therefore the risk is
2 going to go too quickly.
3 Just prior to commencing, I would clarify an
4 area where I believe there is a little confusion as to
5 the order of witnesses. This has been raised by
6 Defence colleagues today.
7 We have, this morning, Mr. Tucker, as you
8 know, an investigator, and I anticipate his evidence
9 certainly in chief to be very brief. Indeed, in view
10 of the ruling of yesterday, we will be saved about
11 25 minutes for the lack of a video that would no longer
12 be played. So I anticipate that, from my point of
13 view, I really think he might be concluded within the
15 The next witness we are calling is a witness
16 who has been served under Rule 94 bis as an expert
17 witness. His evidence will be somewhat longer, but I
18 am hopeful that I may conclude within not much more
19 than a couple of hours.
20 Now, that leaves one civilian witness who
21 will be examined by Mr. Terrier. Then that, in fact,
22 is the end of our witnesses for this week, because,
23 very unfortunately, it proved totally impossible to
24 have Mr. McLeod in The Hague before Monday of next
25 week. So in a sense, I think we might have plenty of
1time, but, obviously, not time to waste.
2 Very well. I'll commence the examination
3 then, Mr. President. Thank you, sir. Oh, my friend
4 has a comment.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic?
6 MR. PAVKOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I
7 don't know if my colleague the Prosecutor, since he now
8 announced that we are going to hear an expert witness
9 after the current witness, I don't know if he's
10 referring to the same person. If he is referring to
11 the same person that I'm thinking of, I got only this
12 morning -- and I wish to notify the Trial Chamber of
13 this -- a 37-page document -- only this morning it was
14 on my desk -- concerning that witness.
15 I don't know whether the contents of this
16 document differ in comparison to what we have already
17 received. If it is identical, then I don't know why we
18 received a new document. At any rate, I'd have to read
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
21 MR. BLAXILL: I can explain that position.
22 In fact, if anybody is at a disadvantage with that
23 document, it is currently ourselves, because it is in
24 the Serbo or Croatian language.
25 What has happened is that the expert witness,
1when he came yesterday and was spoken to, produced a
2 document saying that this was essentially an
3 improvement upon the statement he had given to our
4 investigation. So, in fact, he has prepared a kind of
5 report reflecting what was in that statement. He says
6 it has just been referenced and made a slightly more
7 professional exercise, as an expert witness, than the
8 original statement he gave.
9 I'm not personally in a position to know the
10 full contents because I cannot read the language, to my
11 discredit, but I felt it appropriate that immediately
12 we received that document -- and it is a document he
13 would like to use for cross-reference, as his kind of
14 notes in preparation for Court -- that I would serve it
15 immediately and we would have to await our
16 translation. But I thought it was appropriate, at
17 least, to give it to the Defence.
18 I shall be working from the file statement in
19 the actual presentation of the evidence. If anything
20 else should arise, then clearly I think we can deal
21 with it as it happens.
22 As I say, at the moment my friend has the
23 advantage. He can read it; I can't.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: On the other hand, Counsel
25 Pavkovic is right in saying that he needs time to read
1it. So that means that if we finish with the present
2 witness this morning, we can't start with the next
3 witness today.
4 I wonder whether you have the witness
5 number --
6 MR. BLAXILL: Yes.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: -- number 4 --
8 MR. BLAXILL: Yes.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: -- who previously was number
10 1, available today.
11 MR. BLAXILL: The person concerned is already
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
14 MR. BLAXILL: But there has been no
15 opportunity yet to speak to her, and it is appropriate,
16 obviously, that my learned friend has some time with
17 the witness prior to her giving evidence. So I'm just
18 hopeful that this does not raise a problem.
19 The document that was handed to us was not
20 invited. It was an exercise in goodwill by the expert
21 witness trying to do his job well. He gave it to us
22 yesterday. I thought at least the fairest and proper
23 thing to do would be to disclose immediately, even if I
24 don't refer to it directly myself in examination.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic?
1MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I'm actually
2 thankful for my colleague having done this immediately
3 and having given this to us, but you do have to
4 understand me. I indeed have to see whether the
5 contents are identical to those of the document that we
6 had received. Until then, until I've seen it, I cannot
7 even agree to having this document being taken as some
8 kind of a basis, a background material, whatever, for
9 questioning that expert witness. So I need time to
10 prepare myself.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
12 MR. BLAXILL: Perhaps, Mr. President, if I
13 get on with this witness, we may be able to create a
14 little time where my friends will be able to adjust
15 themselves to this development.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Let us start with
17 this witness and we will see later on. We will duly
18 take into account the concerns expressed by
19 Counsel Pavkovic, who is right, I think. He needs time
20 to read this document. Thank you, Counsel Pavkovic.
21 Mr. Blaxill, you may start.
22 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you, Mr. President.
23 WITNESS: HOWARD TUCKER
24 Examined by Mr. Blaxill:
25 Q. Would you please give the Court your full
2 A. My name is Howard Tucker, and I'm an
3 investigator with the International Criminal Tribunal
4 for the former Yugoslavia.
5 Q. I believe, Mr. Tucker, you have already given
6 evidence in this case, I believe on the 17th of October
7 of last year; is that correct?
8 A. That's correct, Your Honours, yes.
9 Q. Have you undertaken certain investigative
10 missions subsequent to that time and, particularly, a
11 mission on the 10th of December of 1998?
12 A. Yes, that's correct, Your Honours.
13 Q. Where did you go at that time?
14 A. I returned to the village of Ahmici in
15 Central Bosnia.
16 Q. What was the objective of your mission?
17 A. The objective of the mission was to return to
18 the village, accompanied by one of the witnesses who
19 has been identified by the protective number of
20 Witness R, and to conduct a reconstruction of her
21 recollections of the events that took place in the
22 village on the 16th of April, 1993.
23 Q. And whilst you were conducting that
24 particular exercise, did you carry out any other tasks,
25 such as taking any kind of measurements, or anything of
2 A. Yes, Your Honours. I was in possession of a
3 pair of military Zeiss range-finding binoculars, and
4 with the aid of this technical equipment, I took
5 certain measurements from certain locations within the
6 village that were identified to me by Witness R.
7 Q. And did you receive any instruction in the
8 use of those binoculars?
9 A. Yes, I received instruction from a member of
10 the military who was trained in the use of the
12 Q. And did you, upon your return, prepare any
13 kind of documentary record of the measurements and the
14 locations where you took those measurements?
15 A. Yes, Your Honours. When I returned to my
16 office, I prepared a schedule of measurements and
17 distances in relation to certain locations within the
18 village which are identified by the court map.
19 Q. I would like you to take a look at a
20 document, if you would, Mr. Tucker.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 384 from the
23 MR. BLAXILL:
24 Q. Mr. Tucker, do you recognise that document?
25 A. I do, Your Honours, yes.
1Q. I note at the very top it appears to be dated
2 the 7th of December, 1998. Can you explain that,
4 A. Yes. Prior to undertaking the mission, I
5 prepared a precis of the measurements I was going to
6 take and then completed the document when I returned
7 and had completed the mission.
8 Q. Now, I hope we perhaps do not need to make
9 reference at this point to a map of the area, but if
10 you feel the need to, please ask, and we'll supply one
11 for that use.
12 Can you advise, as regards entry number 1,
13 what or whose was House 50?
14 A. House 50, Your Honours, is the house in the
15 occupation of Witness Q.
16 Q. And House 51?
17 A. Is the house in the occupation of the witness
18 identified by the letter "S."
19 Q. And House B?
20 A. Is the house of Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic.
21 Q. And the other item there, up to the --
22 number 5 is the vegetable store; what and where was
24 A. That's the structure that's been identified
25 by several of the witnesses as being on the property of
1Witness Q and is situated some 50 metres,
2 approximately, from the house of Vlatko Kupreskic, in a
3 depression built into the side of a hill.
4 Q. And could you comment, please, on your
5 annotations at number 6 within that form?
6 A. Yes. At Item 6, we see that I've actually
7 noted something in italics. This is directly related
8 to the wishes of Witness R to proceed through some
9 undergrowth. Under taking advice from the security
10 forces who were accompanying us, they suggested that it
11 would be unsafe to do so because of the threat of
12 mines. Therefore we stayed on the perimeter of the
13 forest, of the wood, where I took what measurements
14 that I could at that time.
15 Q. And just to explain a little further, how in
16 fact do these binoculars that you were using -- how do
17 they operate?
18 A. The binoculars are constructed with modern
19 laser technology, and by the pressing of two buttons,
20 one on the right-hand and one on the left-hand side of
21 the casing of the binoculars, you can get accurate
22 measurements of, firstly, the distance in metres; and
23 secondly, the actual bearing from your location to the
24 object that you've made a fix upon. And the accuracy
25 of the range-finder binoculars is considered to be
1within 2 metres over a distance of 1.800 metres.
2 Q. And physically, how do you actually sort of
3 aim them? Is there some indicator that you have picked
4 your target point?
5 A. Your Honours, you operate them in exactly the
6 same way as you would a conventional pair of
7 binoculars, and when you have fixed on the position of
8 the object you wish to take a measurement and bearing
9 of, when you actually depress one of the buttons -- it
10 doesn't matter which one you operate first -- it
11 actually puts into operation the laser light, and that
12 actually pinpoints the fixed object you're looking at
13 and then records either the bearing or the distance,
14 depending on which button you depress first.
15 Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
16 Did you return on any subsequent mission to
17 that area in August of this year?
18 A. Yes, Your Honours, I returned on the 25th of
19 August of this year.
20 Q. And what were the objectives of that
21 particular mission?
22 A. On this occasion I returned with four
23 witnesses, including Witness R. The object of the
24 exercise was the same as in December of last year, and
25 that was to undertake a witness reconstruction with all
1four, and with the same objectives as that of December,
2 to be able to take some fixed positions, to take
3 certain measurements, and to retrace the steps that the
4 witnesses recounted that they took on the 16th of
5 April, 1993.
6 Q. What was the method that you used to take the
7 measurements on this occasion?
8 A. I used a pair of Leica range-finding
9 binoculars, which are the same specifications as the
10 Zeiss I used in December of last year. I used specific
11 poles to place at the points of recognition of each
12 witness. I actually took each witness in turn, and as
13 they identified certain locations, I marked that
14 position with one of these metal poles, continued
15 through the witness reconstruction until the conclusion
16 of that witness. I then returned the witness to a
17 secure vehicle, and that witness was then removed from
18 the scene. I then proceeded with the second witness,
19 and so forth, until the final -- fourth and final
21 Q. Did you subsequently prepare any form of
22 documentary record of the measurements that you took on
23 that mission?
24 A. Your Honours, I prepared a similar report to
25 that of December.
1Q. And in respect of how many of the witness
2 reconstructions did you record the actual measurements?
3 A. I recorded two, and that was in respect of
4 Witness R and Witness Q.
5 MR. BLAXILL: I would like, again, to show a
6 document to the witness, with the appropriate copies
7 for Their Honours and the Defence.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 385.
9 MR. BLAXILL:
10 Q. Mr. Tucker, do you recognise that particular
12 A. Yes, Your Honours. It's the document I
13 prepared upon the completion of the mission.
14 Q. I think you just mentioned, an answer ago, it
15 was in respect of Witness R and Witness Q. That would
16 appear to differ from the document. Can you explain
17 that, sir? It appears -- at the top I see "Witness Q,"
18 and below that "Witness II."
19 A. Yes, I'm sorry, it is. It's Witness Q,
20 Witness II, Your Honours. My apologies.
21 Q. Okay, Mr. Tucker, now, you say that -- is
22 that an accurate reflection of the measurements that
23 you took on the day, the 25th of August, 1999?
24 A. Yes, Your Honours, it is.
25 Q. And could you just tell us: Marker 1 is
1referred to at the very first entry under "Witness Q."
2 Would you just explain precisely what that location
4 A. Marker 1 was actually placed by the Witness Q
5 at the location that he identified to me where
6 Witness R had been shot on the 16th of April, 1993, and
7 at that location where he turned around and saw the
8 accused Vlatko Kupreskic, with HVO soldiers, shooting
9 at his direction.
10 Q. And so from that point, Mr. Tucker, you took
11 a measurement towards a particular house, and I refer
12 you now to the sixth entry under "Witness Q." Would
13 you just confirm that measurement that you took?
14 A. Yes, I can. The overall measurement was
15 53 metres, Your Honours.
16 Q. And was the house that you refer to, quote,
17 the Kupreskic house, was that in your line of vision at
18 that time?
19 A. It was from the second location of the
20 measurement, Your Honours.
21 Q. During the course of this exercise,
22 Mr. Tucker, was any other location or object of
23 interest pointed out to you by Witness Q?
24 A. Yes, Your Honours. Prior to commencing the
25 reconstruction, Witness Q indicated to me that there
1may be items, personal items in the wooded area that he
2 would able to identify to me during the course of the
4 Q. So what action did you take after that place
5 had been identified to you?
6 A. When Witness Q identified the location to me,
7 I removed him from the area, returned to the scene, and
8 proceeded to exhume the artefacts from the ground.
9 Q. What precautions did you take in respect of
10 the preservation of those artefacts?
11 A. As each item was taken from the ground, I had
12 the items contemporaneously recorded by a colleague of
13 mine, Brid O'Toole, who was an investigator with the
14 ICTY at the Sarajevo field office.
15 Each item was placed individually into a
16 bag. Once all the items had been taken from the
17 ground, I returned the items to the Sarajevo field
18 office, where they were laid out in a security room to
19 dry, and they were subsequently removed by a forensic
20 scenes-of-crime examiner, taken to the mortuary
21 facilities at a location called Visoko, where the
22 articles were photographed, washed, rephotographed, and
23 catalogued, and returned to the Sarajevo field office
24 for safekeeping and to preserve the continuity and the
25 chain of custody of the artefacts.
1Q. After you had placed those into safe custody,
2 did you have any further dealings with those
4 A. Yes, Your Honours. On the 8th of September I
5 returned to the region. I took possession of the
6 artefacts and took them to another location where I met
7 two of the witnesses, Witness Q and Witness R, where I
8 showed each of the witnesses in turn the items.
9 Certain of the items were subsequently identified by
10 each witness in turn.
11 The items identified by the witnesses I
12 recorded, and then prepared a separate report in
13 relation to those articles and caused those identified
14 artefacts to be photographed and prepared them in
15 folders for the Court today.
16 MR. BLAXILL: I have a further document to
17 present, if you'd be so kind, Mr. Usher.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 386.
19 MR. BLAXILL:
20 Q. Mr. Tucker, do you recognise those
22 A. I do, Your Honour. They're reports I
23 prepared in respect of Witness R and Witness Q in
24 respect of their identification of the artefacts.
25 Q. Well, Your Honours, as we propose tendering
1all these documents, I'm clearly not going through item
2 by item in a list that everybody can read for
3 themselves -- it will save time -- but I will do so if
4 you wish.
5 Of the various items that you showed to
6 Witness by the name "R", or the pseudonym "R," how many
7 items were identified?
8 A. Your Honours, in respect to Witness R, she
9 identified 21 out of a possible 47 artefacts.
10 Q. And Witness Q?
11 A. Witness Q, Your Honours, identified 25 out of
12 47 items.
13 Q. And just generally speaking, what did they
14 identify them as? In other words, as whose property?
15 A. Generally the -- their family possessions.
16 Q. Did they say anything else about those family
17 possessions, as to the circumstances they parted
18 company with them?
19 A. They did not.
20 Q. Did you cause any photographic record to be
21 made in relation to the artefacts recovered?
22 A. Yes, Your Honour. All the artefacts were
23 photographed, as you're aware, as they were being taken
24 from the ground. They were then photographed when
25 they'd been taken back to the Sarajevo field office to
1dry, and they were again photographed by Mr. Govender,
2 who was the forensic scenes-of-crime examiner, who
3 photographed each item prior-washing and post-washing.
4 Q. And for the purposes of today's hearing, have
5 you prepared any form of album or collection of
6 photographs to assist the Chamber?
7 A. Yes, Your Honours. I prepared an album of
8 photographs purely based on the identification by the
9 witnesses, and the majority of the photographs
10 contained in that album are the articles as they are
11 after washing.
12 Q. Do you, in fact, possess, if Their Honours or
13 anyone wish to see them, do you possess any photographs
14 of pre-washed condition artefacts, if called upon?
15 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do.
16 Q. And as to the artefacts, where are they
18 A. They're currently in my possession -- or, at
19 least, when I say "in my possession," they're locked in
20 a secure office in my working area within this
22 Q. Then, Mr. Tucker, I would like you to have a
23 look at this photographic album.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The photograph album will be
25 Prosecution Exhibit 387.
2 Q. Do you recognise, Mr. Tucker, the
3 photographic album and the index thereto?
4 A. I do, Your Honours, yes.
5 Q. Is that the photographic album that we
6 referred to a moment ago?
7 A. It is, sirs, yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, with regards to those
9 artefacts, whereabouts in the ground did you find them
10 in relation, let us say, to the point you've mentioned
11 already of marker 1, which is the place where some --
12 allegedly people were shot, and perhaps also directly
13 in relation to the house of Mr. Kupreskic, which is
14 another focal point of the area.
15 A. The articles were actually located at a
16 position approximately 7 metres from the spot that
17 Witness Q identified to me as where he dragged his
18 daughter, the Witness R.
19 Q. And where is that in relation to what we've
20 heard referred to as the hill or the ridge opposite of
21 the house of Mr. Kupreskic, Vlatko?
22 A. It's actually on the top of the ridge,
23 slightly out of -- it's out of sight of the Vlatko
24 Kupreskic house.
25 Q. And are you able to or were you able to
1ascertain, in your investigation, who was carrying
2 those artefacts when those artefacts found their way
3 onto that hillside?
4 A. No, sir. Your Honours, it appears that there
5 were several family members involved in carrying these
6 items, and it's uncertain who was carrying what at that
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
9 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honours, I'm going to move
10 to a different subject, and that relates to dealings
11 with a witness, a witness who will be a protected
12 witness, and I think it would be appropriate to
13 request, Your Honours, to go into private session for
14 that purpose. We are going to have to discuss a name.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. All right.
16 [Private session]
13 page 12078 redacted – private session
13 page 12079 redacted – private session
6 [Open session]
7 MR. BLAXILL:
8 Q. If all is well, I'll repeat the question.
9 Yes, Mr. Tucker, the side of the hill facing the house
10 of Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic, do you recall or have your
11 investigations revealed essentially how steep that was,
12 and particularly in 1993?
13 A. Are you referring to the area where the
14 Witness R was shot at?
15 Q. I understand that to be the area referred to.
16 A. The actual height of the inclination I'm not
17 aware of. It's certainly not a gentle slope or gentle
18 climb, but I wouldn't describe it as being as severe as
19 the opposite side of the ridge.
20 Q. And the opposite side of the ridge, how does
21 that slope from the ridge?
22 A. The incline is quite considerably more than
23 that on the opposite side. That is the side that faces
24 the Vlatko Kupreskic house. And I must say the first
25 time that I actually went there was with Witness II,
1and the climb was quite a severe one, especially the
2 last 20 metres or so.
3 Q. There's just one other point. It goes back
4 to the beginning of your evidence. You identified
5 houses by the name of -- numbered 50 and 51.
6 There is something in the transcript -- I'm
7 sorry. If I can interrupt with this. There is
8 something in the transcript that appears a little
9 unclear. It says: "From the opposite side of that
10 ridge how does that slope ...", and it says, "The
11 incline is quite considerably more on the opposite
12 side. That is the side that faces Vlatko Kupreskic
13 house." Which is the steeper one? The side facing the
14 Kupreskic house or the other side?
15 A. The other side of the hill. The other side
16 of the --
17 Q. The other side is the steeper. Are you aware
18 of any change of the terrain between the ridge and the
19 house of Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic that occurred since
21 A. I've had several references made by the
22 witnesses, Your Honour, concerning the change of the
23 landscape in the area between the ridge I've just
24 described and the house of Vlatko Kupreskic, from an
25 area that stretches from the point identified by the
1witnesses that they entered, the area known as the
2 forest, stretching back as far as the vegetable store
3 and even down almost to the house identified as house
5 I've had it described to me as having several
6 hillocks that were in existence pre-1993, which have
7 since been completely removed, and the landscape, as
8 such, been backfilled in what has been described to me
9 as the valleys, which is the short, if you like, the
10 ravines in between these hillocks, and I think the
11 evidence of this earthwork is quite evident on the
12 video and film footage, and most certainly when you
13 attend to the village of Ahmici. The change of the
14 land is quite evident, quite visible.
15 Q. Just finally, Mr. Tucker, going back to where
16 we started, you mentioned houses 50 and 51, and gave us
17 some pseudonyms relevant thereto. Are you sure you're
18 correct as to those pseudonyms, as to which was which
20 A. I may well have got them reversed.
21 Q. Okay, sir, thank you. Now, is it correct
22 that in the course of your investigation in both August
23 of 1998 and -- sorry, December of 1998 and August of
24 1999, did you, in fact, cause videotapes to be prepared
25 and they were prepared?
1A. That's correct, Your Honours, yes.
2 Q. And, in fact, as a matter of information, was
3 the point of the -- where the property was found in the
4 earth, was that point, in fact, included in one of
5 those videos and identified in a video?
6 A. Identified in the video by the Witness Q.
7 That was conducted on the 25th of August this year,
8 Your Honours.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tucker. That concludes my
10 questioning. Thank you, sir.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic, who is
12 going to cross-examine this witness? Counsel Par?
13 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, my colleague
14 Par will cross-examine the witness, and he will be the
15 only one to do so.
16 MR. PAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
17 [Cross-examined by Mr. Par]
18 Q. Good morning, Mr. Tucker. Before I ask you
19 some questions related to these matters, I should like
20 to resolve the problem of the lay of the land around
21 Vlatko Kupreskic's house and the slopes and how steep
22 they are on both sides; and to do away with this, I
23 will give you the finding of a surveyor who testified
24 here as an expert witness and gave us his opinion.
25 In his report, he made a cross-section of
1that hillock and also attached a map. So would you
2 please be so kind and have a look at this, and simply
3 confirm or, again, deny that this map -- this
4 cross-section of the ground tallies with your
5 observations there?
6 MR. PAR: Usher, could you please place it on
7 the ELMO? This was admitted into evidence. I don't
8 have the number now, but when that expert witness Blaz
9 Kesic, land surveyor -- it was tendered on that
10 occasion and it is part of evidence.
11 Q. Can you find your ways around this? You can
12 see Vlatko Kupreskic's house to the left and then the
13 lines are showing the field of vision, and we have the
14 height. Heights are indicated on one of the sides.
15 Q. Would that agree with your observations made
16 on the ground? Is the sketch a true picture of those
17 heights, those slopes, inclinations?
18 A. Yes, I think it's -- it's certainly in
19 keeping with what I've testified.
20 Q. Thank you very much. Then we can move on.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. PAR: But before I ask my next question,
23 I should like to mention that it was only this morning
24 that the Defence received these photo documents and the
25 identification by Witness F. Formerly we had the
1identification of various objects made by Witness Q,
2 and we knew about that, but it was only this morning
3 that we received the identification of these objects,
4 and I'm afraid that this places us on a slightly
5 inequitable footing.
6 This is merely a remark; I do not wish to do
7 anything about it, but I merely wanted to say that the
8 Defence really tried very hard to disclose to the
9 Prosecution all the material that we had.
10 Q. However, Mr. Tucker, with regard to these
11 measurements, I should like to seek the confirmation of
12 some data; that is, measurements from the position
13 where Witness Q, according to him, turned and looked in
14 the direction of Vlatko Kupreskic's house and saw
15 soldiers and Vlatko Kupreskic. That is what he said.
16 Did I understand you properly when you said that you
17 measured the distance was 53 metres?
18 A. That's correct, Your Honours, yes.
19 Q. Right. Then let us move on to these personal
20 effects, to these objects. Could you perhaps be more
21 precise: Who was the first one to mention these
22 objects? You said Witness Q, but could you tell us,
23 what did he tell you, how did he find out about these
24 things, how did he describe it to you, what language
25 did he use, what words did he use?
1A. Your Honours, I was in the company of an
2 interpreter at all times with the witness, and the
3 witness explained to me that he believed that there
4 were family artefacts -- or I shouldn't say
5 "artefacts"; articles of clothing in the woods that we
6 were about to enter, and that he knew approximately the
7 location of where these articles should be, and that he
8 should be able to point them out to us if we entered
9 the wooded area.
10 Q. That is what I really would like to know.
11 Did he say that because he knew that those things were
12 left behind in '93, or did he see them in '99 and then
13 realise they belonged to such-and-such persons?
14 A. It's my understanding that he discovered them
15 in 1999, and he made his first identification to me on
16 the video footage. As soon as he identified the items,
17 I removed him from the scene and then began to excavate
18 the items from the ground.
19 Q. Yes, I could see that on the tape. And did
20 he dwell at length on how he found those articles? Why
21 was he walking around those woods? Was he looking for
22 them? Did he really give you a full account of how he
23 came to find them?
24 A. No, Your Honours, he didn't.
25 Q. And other witnesses, Witnesses R and S, did
1he ever mention those things, those personal effects,
2 or indicate that they knew about them?
3 A. No, they gave me no indication that they knew
4 where they were, Your Honours.
5 Q. Mr. Tucker, you went to that place to look
6 for those things with Witness Q, and as you were
7 passing through the wood, did you see other discarded
8 things, objects, around that place in the wood; that
9 is, some other articles apart from those which
10 Witness Q showed to you?
11 A. No, Your Honours. Had I seen any other
12 artefacts, then I would have recovered them.
13 Q. For instance, I saw -- and you may have; just
14 to remind you -- there was an old water boiler not far
15 from there, and then a car wreck, I think, was also
16 somewhere around. Would you remember artefacts like
18 A. I certainly remember the old water boiler,
19 Your Honours, because it caused a bit of concern for
20 the security forces at the time. I can't remember the
21 vehicle wreck.
22 Q. Right. I mentioned this because we heard
23 that it was a dump yard.
24 When showing you the place where all these
25 artefacts were, did Witness Q affirm that they had been
1lying there as of the 16th of April, '93, to the day
2 when you went to look for them?
3 A. I don't recall his exact words, but the
4 implication that I recall is certainly that they --
5 that they have laid there for the whole of the period
6 since April 1993.
7 Q. You mean you made that inference from what he
8 told you?
9 A. That's my recollection, sir, from the
10 conversation that we had in the woods at the time.
11 Q. I should particularly like to know if
12 Witness Q also mentioned that those artefacts could
13 have been moved about, because after all, six years
14 have elapsed. Did he ever mention the possibility of
15 their having been moved around, transferred from one
16 spot to another, or were they lying discarded there for
17 more than six years?
18 A. There was certainly no dialogue by Witness Q
19 about the property. As soon as the first items were
20 identified on the surface to me, I removed him from the
21 scene and continued to excavate the items. I probably
22 should say, from my own observation, that I think it's
23 unlikely that those objects had been moved, because
24 there were so many in one spot that had they been moved
25 or dumped or transferred, it's unlikely to have found
1so many family artefacts in one place.
2 Q. I don't know about that, but let me ask you
3 this: In the vicinity of the site -- that is, within a
4 10-metre radius or so -- did you notice any changes in
5 the area? I mean, the woods, did you see some tree
6 stumps? Did you see that the wood was felled and that
7 what is growing there now is not the same wood that
8 existed there in '93?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that they
11 felled the trees, that the logs were taken away from
12 that site? I am saying that as those logs were pulled
13 out and as the trees were felled, all these artefacts,
14 all these things may have been moved. So it is quite
15 possible that when the trees were felled and pulled
16 out, that those things could have been moved.
17 A. There are many possibilities, sir. I don't
18 think I am able to answer that particular question.
19 Q. Quite, quite. I quite get your point, and I
20 am not asking you to say yes or no; I am simply trying
21 to define all the possibilities, to say that it was
22 possible to move them.
23 I should also like to know if Witness Q
24 mentioned on that occasion that some other groups of
25 refugees used that same path, or did he say that those
1things there could only be the personal effects of
2 members of his family?
3 A. Are you referring, sir, to the refugees who
4 left the area with that particular family on the 16th?
5 Q. The 16th of April, I mean on the 16th of
6 April; that same day, but not the same group. We heard
7 testimonies here there was (redacted) group which
8 also went through there, and they also cut some
9 branches to make a stretcher for his wife and so on and
10 so forth. So other groups also used that path on the
11 16th of April. Did perhaps Witness Q indicate that
12 some of these things might belong to some other groups,
13 or to people in some other groups?
14 A. Your Honours, no. At all times the evidence
15 related by all the witnesses was specifically about
16 their own experiences on that day and relating purely
17 to -- I'll refer to their group, which includes the
18 refugees that they mentioned in their testimony, and
19 the route that they actually took on that day.
20 Q. That's all right. Very well.
21 Mr. Tucker, please, if you look at the place
22 where these things were found, did you notice any
23 traces of fire, some burned wood, or something like
24 that? Were there any signs of a fire there?
25 A. I didn't notice any signs of any fire in the
1wooded area at all.
2 Q. Could we please have a look at our photo
3 documents now, number 5. That is part of a bag, a
4 handbag, that was burned. You probably remember that,
5 don't you?
6 A. Yes, I do, sir.
7 Q. Right. A burned handbag. And then, under
8 number 8, there is also a burned woollen sock. So that
9 is now being contested. We see these two objects here
10 in the pictures, that they were partly burned.
11 Mr. Tucker, a few minutes ago you said in
12 your statement that all these objects were practically
13 in a single spot, all the objects that were retrieved;
14 that is Location B, if I'm not mistaken. So was there
15 anything on the ground that could explain how come some
16 things were burned -- we know that wool and handbags
17 would burn with great difficulty -- and other things
18 were not touched by fire? Is there any explanation for
19 that on the ground, that some of these objects were
20 partly burned and others were not?
21 A. Your Honours, I'm not convinced that any of
22 the items were burned at all. In particular, the bag,
23 5, is a plastic bag; and plastic, as you probably are
24 aware of yourself, sir, has different sort of methods
25 of disintegrating in the ground, and to me it appears
1to be an old plastic bag that is gradually
3 As regards item 8 --
4 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Tucker. I am not asserting
5 that it's burned; that's what your document says, under
6 number 8. I've got the report here saying, under
7 number 8 -- or 5; that's the document that I received
8 from the Prosecutor. Number 5, on the 25th of August,
9 1999, Location B, a bag, part of a bag that is burned.
10 Again, the 25th of September, 1998, a partly burned
11 woollen sock. That's the only thing I have, and it is
12 on that basis that I made this assertion. Can you say
13 that it's something different? Can you today say it's
14 something different, that it wasn't burned, that it was
15 a different kind of damage that was done to these
17 A. No, of course not, sir. I can't say that.
18 What I'm saying is that it's an observation, and an
19 observation only.
20 Q. If we look at this sock under number 8, we
21 will see -- perhaps we can see better in this
22 photograph that this is a substance that was burning.
23 Therefore my question is: How come -- of course I'm
24 not asking you to give answers to questions that you
25 cannot answer, but on the ground, is there any reason
1that would explain this, why this was burned, partly,
2 and whether other things that would burn more easily
3 were not burned at all? Is there anything on the
4 ground to suggest how come this happened?
5 A. There is nothing on the ground at all to
6 explain it, but there could be explanations. I think
7 in the testimony of several of the witnesses they
8 referred to being shot up with exploding bullets and
9 the like. It could have been caused by a fragment of
10 shrapnel or something similar.
11 Q. That's right. I allow that possibility.
12 However, then I would like to ask the following: Did
13 Witness Q mention what happened to his other belongings
14 that remained in his old house that was burned? Is it
15 possible that some of these objects are from that
16 burned house? Of course, I'm not asking you to answer
17 that question, but I'm just asking you whether
18 Witness Q mentioned that part of his belongings burned
19 down in his old house. Did Witness Q mention that?
20 A. Witness Q -- he had no reason to mention that
21 at the time of finding the artefacts.
22 Q. Perhaps he could have, in view of these
23 things that were burned, but all right, he didn't.
24 Let's move on further.
25 A. If I can interrupt you -- I'm sorry, sir --
1I'll make a point there. Witness Q wasn't aware --
2 Q. Yes, go ahead.
3 A. Witness Q wasn't aware of these items being
4 taken from the ground until he was shown them to
5 identify them on the 8th of September this year, so he
6 wouldn't have known of the appearance in the soil of
7 them being burned.
8 Q. Very well. Mr. Tucker, we can see that there
9 are quite a few woollen artefacts here; among other
10 things, this red sweater, number 3. We can see it
11 here, and it's very well-preserved. Furthermore, under
12 number 31, we also have a blue garment that is
13 impossible to identify. My question would be the
14 following: On that location where these artefacts
15 were, over there on the ground, were there any signs
16 showing why objects made of the same substance, under
17 the same conditions, would be damaged in such totally
18 different ways during the same period of time, when
19 nothing had happened to them, when they were not
20 removed? Is there any clue on the ground why something
21 would totally disintegrate, whereas a different object,
22 made of the same material, would remain practically
23 intact, if they were all there during those six years?
24 Is there any clue?
25 A. I have two answers for that question, sir.
1The first one is that we don't know that all the
2 material is made of the same and hasn't disintegrated
3 in the same way.
4 Secondly, I'm not a scientist and I'm not
5 able to give an answer to that question.
6 Q. One of the questions I wanted to put is
7 whether you wanted some expertise to be carried out by
8 chemistry experts or someone to see how old these
9 objects were, in order to determine how old these
10 objects were and under which conditions they
11 deteriorated, et cetera.
12 A. I personally feel that the identification of
13 the items by the family and the location and the
14 condition of the objects when they were retrieved from
15 the ground is sufficient. That's what I believed at
16 the time.
17 Q. I apologise if you think that I'm too
18 insistent with my questions, but I am a lawyer and I
19 have to go through all of this. So please bear with
21 Could you please have a look at photograph
22 number 4? It is called an unidentified electric wire.
23 That's what it's called in this list.
24 There is no doubt that this wire was part of
25 an electrical appliance, a hair-dryer or something to
1that effect; that is to say, nobody would carry around
2 only an electric wire. So, now, on the ground there is
3 only this electric wire. Where could this hair-dryer
4 have disappeared? A hair-dryer could not have
5 disintegrated, rotten away. Is there any clue as to
6 what had happened? Can you see anything there?
7 A. Nothing at all, sir, no.
8 Q. Let us conclude with this section, and now
9 let us move on to the identification of items; that is
10 to say, the 8th of September, 1999. Now, Witnesses R
11 and Q are identifying those artefacts that you referred
12 to today.
13 Please, were R and Q together at the time
14 when the identification was carried out or did they
15 each do this on their own, separately?
16 A. Both witnesses were together at the start of
17 the identification; that's correct, sir.
18 Q. We saw the things concerned and we saw what
19 they had to say about this. Please, among all these
20 things, was there a single item that was undeniably the
21 Pezer family's? Was there anything that had to belong
22 to the Pezer family and no other family, irrespective
23 of their statements and everything? Could you please
24 answer that and then we'll move on?
25 A. Certainly, sir. In respect of Witness R,
1there were two items in particular -- beg your pardon,
2 three items in particular that were undeniably
3 identified, in my opinion.
4 The first one was the red sweater that you've
5 shown before the -- Your Honours this morning.
6 The second item was item 9. It's
7 photograph 9 in the album. Exhibit number 9.
8 Each of these items are individually wrapped
9 in clear plastic bags, and this particular T-shirt was
10 folded in on itself so you couldn't see the logo on the
11 front. Before it was removed from the bag, she made a
12 comment that she thought it was a T-shirt with a round
13 neck, a white T-shirt with a picture on it. It was
14 black with numbers and letters, but I can't remember
15 what. And of course, I opened up the package and took
16 the shirt out, and then she made the identification.
17 And then the second item in particular, or
18 third item, I should say, was number 24, exhibit number
19 24. It was a similar situation. The photograph that
20 you see, the second photograph, they're both of the
21 same, pre and after watch. It shows clearly a pattern
22 on the design, and she said, "I think it's a piece of
23 my mother's clothes that I cut to make a headscarf."
24 Of course, she was unaware that that was a headscarf
25 before. She only saw it in its uncut condition. I say
1it was only three, but there was another item as well.
2 Q. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Very
3 well. My question was whether there was a single item
4 that could not have belonged to anyone else, and your
5 answer was that with a degree of liability, they
6 recognised some of their own items. However, let us
7 dwell on item 24. We're talking about a black
8 headscarf that is part of her mother's clothing.
9 However, I wanted to mention that particular
10 item, and to say that that could not have belonged to
11 her mother at all if it's a black headscarf, simply
12 because women in Bosnia who wear black headscarves are
13 only Serbo-Croat women. Muslim women never wear black
14 headscarves. I've lived there all my life. I know
15 that myself. Never, ever have I seen anything like
17 So that is precisely the item I wished to
18 contest, but that is --
19 MR. BLAXILL: Pardon to me for rising, but
20 with all due respect, Mr. Par is intending to give
21 evidence to contradict the witness. Cross-examination
22 is something different, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
24 MR. PAR: I am concluding my questioning with
25 this particular point.
1Q. I thank you, and I have no further
3 A. Your Honour, may I respond to that particular
4 point that the gentlemen made?
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
6 A. In actual fact, I didn't say that this -- I
7 said it was a headscarf. It was my assumption because
8 of the way it was found on the ground. What the
9 witness told me is that it was a piece of her mother's
10 clothing that she had cut to tie her own hair back; it
11 wasn't a headscarf that belonged to her deceased
12 mother, and that's what I said in evidence.
13 MR. PAR:
14 Q. Very well. Thank you. I was guided by what
15 the paper here said.
16 MR. PAR: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Counsel Par.
18 Mr. Blaxill?
19 MR. BLAXILL: Yes. As I understand, there's
20 no other cross-examination, Mr. President. I have a
21 couple of questions only. Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Tucker, when you commenced the
23 reconstruction exercise with Witness Q, what was your
24 main purpose?
25 A. The main purpose of the mission was to do a
1witness reconstruction, as I described earlier, to take
2 measurements at points specified by these witnesses
3 when they remembered them during the course of their
5 Q. And on the day when you prepared to do this
6 exercise with Witness Q, were you then aware of any
7 issue relating to property that might be in the ground?
8 A. Yes, Your Honours. That was the first time
9 that I was aware of there being any suggestion of any
10 property possibly belonging to any of the victims of
11 this particular day in the woods.
12 Q. And -- so following on, you commenced this
13 exercise, and you were going through the woodlands.
14 What, if any, other kinds of property did you see as
15 you went through the wooded land and the undergrowth?
16 Did you see any other household refuse or anything else
17 of that nature?
18 A. Nothing at all that would indicate it as
19 being a refuse tip of any description.
20 Q. Yes, that was my next question. Nothing
21 indicating a public tip or a regularly used tip of that
23 A. Absolutely not.
24 Q. Very well, sir. Thank you. You stated that
25 Witness Q and Witness R were both present at the
1commencement of the identification of the articles of
2 clothing and other artefacts?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Sir, did they remain together throughout that
5 exercise or was some or any portion of the
6 identification carried out with them separately?
7 A. The majority of the identification was
8 carried out separately, sir.
9 Q. When you recovered the goods in Bosnia and
10 they were tendered to Sarajevo field office, was any
11 record made to record them into the custody of your
12 colleagues in Sarajevo?
13 A. Yes. A chain-of-custody record was prepared
14 by my colleague Brid O'Toole in connection with the
16 Q. Are you aware of how many, if any, items
17 logged into the custody record were referred to as
18 having in any way been burned or fire-damaged or
19 anything of that nature?
20 A. I'm not, no, sir. I can't recall.
21 Q. Would you, in fact, recognise the custody
22 record if it was shown to you?
23 A. I would, sir, yes.
24 MR. BLAXILL: In that event, Your Honours, I
25 don't have all additional copies, at the present time,
1of this document. I would like to present it to the
2 witness and show it to Your Honours and to the
3 Defence. I will, obviously, have -- yes. Through the
4 coffee break we can make sure you have all the adequate
5 copies. Sorry, it's two sheets.
6 Q. Do you recognise that schedule and document,
8 A. Yes. That's a photocopy of the original. It
9 bears the signature of Brid O'Toole and Ronny Govender,
10 the forensic science examiner.
11 Q. From the nature of the items that are listed,
12 can you say whether or not that relates to the property
13 recovered by you in the location in Ahmici?
14 A. Yes, sir. I'm happy that they refer to the
15 articles that I mentioned in evidence.
16 Q. And just for a moment, Mr. Tucker, would you
17 place that on the ELMO, and we could just look at the
18 list of artefacts.
19 Mr. Tucker, can you say -- with a quick
20 glance through that list, can you identify or indicate
21 how many you see there as marked in any way
22 fire-damaged or burned?
23 A. Item 5, portion of carrier bag, burned; item
24 8, one woollen sock, portion burned. And that, I
25 believe, is it, sir.
1Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker. Just one
2 final thing to confirm. All the artefacts in question
3 are presently in the custody of yourself within this
4 building; is that right?
5 A. That's correct, Your Honours, yes.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tucker.
7 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honours, all I would wish
8 now to do is, firstly, I will obviously indicate to you
9 that if you wanted to see any or all of those
10 artefacts, I would happily arrange for them to be
11 produced in court for your convenience. For security
12 reasons, and unless necessary, we obviously try not to
13 disturb physical evidence any more than is necessary.
14 The second thing, Your Honours, is that I
15 would like to tender, please, the documentary evidence
16 I have submitted. Thus far, I think, the numbers would
17 be P384 through to P387, but with this latest addition,
18 I think it would take us to P388. If you would accept
19 those in evidence, subject to my friend's comments.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Any objection, Counsel Par?
21 MR. PAR: Your Honours, my objection is that
22 the identification of items recovered from Ahmici on
23 the 25th of August, 1999, that record be admitted into
24 evidence. I object to that. I believe that these are
25 registered comments of Witnesses Q and R, and the
1Defence was not in a position to cross-examine the
2 witnesses on these statements of theirs; that is to
3 say, to put further questions to them so that they
4 could give more detailed explanations as to how they
5 recognised the objects as belonging to themselves.
6 If this record were to be admitted into
7 evidence, then we would be taking these witness
8 statements for granted, without giving the Defence the
9 possibility to re-examine these witness.
10 So this was carried out in Zenica, and
11 Witness Q spoke about this and -- I have no further
12 objections as far as other evidence is concerned.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel Blaxill?
14 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honours, clearly in that
15 sense, the annotation of the comments of the witnesses
16 in identifying the property are a hearsay record by an
17 investigator. That is quite clear. We found that not
18 to be an objectionable course in view of the stance
19 taken by your Chamber and others with regard to hearsay
20 evidence. You will value its weight and give it due
21 weight, but at least make it admissible.
22 So on that basis, Your Honours, we have put
23 forward simply the fact that the investigator has
24 placed the items forward before the people, elicited
25 and recorded comments, and he has delivered that now
1essentially as a hearsay record.
2 I suppose if there is an objection to the
3 documentary record by the investigator coming before
4 you, then with your leave I could suggest that that is
5 an issue now in which I should re-examine and simply
6 have him deliver oral evidence as to what his
7 investigation in that respect revealed. I was hoping,
8 however, we would save time simply by the comments
9 being recorded and they can be read by Your Honours
10 rather than taking up hours in the courtroom. But I'm
11 happy to examine on that to make it quite clear,
12 accepting, of course, that is hearsay evidence. I
13 quite accept that.
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. We will admit this
15 document P386 as hearsay evidence, and, of course, it
16 is for us to decide what probative value it will be
18 MR. BLAXILL: Then I think that does conclude
19 business with this witness. I'd apply for his release,
20 if you will, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Tucker,
22 for giving evidence in court. You may now be released.
23 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, thank you.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Now, at this stage we
1normally take a break, but before that I would like to
2 ask Counsel Pavkovic whether he could probably, say, in
3 one hour, go through that document so that we could
4 resume our hearing in, say, one hour? Do you think one
5 hour would be sufficient for you to go through that
7 MR. PAVKOVIC: Well, I'm not too sure,
8 Mr. President, that that is sufficient time for me,
9 only to read through it. Of course, I would have to
10 compare it to the previous documents. But my other
11 colleagues are also telling me that they would like to
12 have information about the contents of this document,
13 if they would possibly want to examine it themselves.
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You know, our
15 problem is that we can't sit this afternoon because
16 Judge May is sitting in a different case.
17 I wonder whether we could then ask the
18 Prosecutor to call the -- maybe in one or two hours,
19 the other witness, number 1, the lady.
20 MR. BLAXILL: I think that gives us a serious
21 difficulty, Your Honours. The other alternative is
22 that, at this point, if we obviously would take the
23 break now, and if we then carried on and listened to
24 the evidence in chief of the expert witness, that might
25 well take us through most, if not all, of the rest of
1the morning. Clearly, my friends could then
2 re-evaluate their position with regard to
3 cross-examination if they feel that this has caused
4 them any difficulty. Equally, you might perhaps build
5 in just a little extra time for the morning break and
6 they could have a look through.
7 The witness advises me that this document
8 very much tracks the statement that has been already
9 submitted. It is just, he feels, a more professional
10 and polished version. As I say, I don't read the
11 language, so I can't give you any formal undertaking to
12 that end.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Thank you. I think
14 it's a very sensible suggestion.
15 Counsel Pavkovic, we could, this morning,
16 confine ourselves to examination-in-chief. So tomorrow
17 we would -- whether or not we finish by 1.15, tomorrow
18 we could start with the cross-examination. So you
19 would have the whole afternoon to go through the
20 document. All of you, I mean, all Defence counsel.
21 Does sound acceptable to you?
22 MR. PAVKOVIC: If I'm speaking in my own
23 name -- well, I think my colleagues share my view.
24 This seems to be a good proposal. However,
25 Mr. President, nevertheless, I would like to point out
1some very important matters related to the statement of
2 this witness. Of course, I won't do it now; I'll do it
3 after the break. But there are a few matters that I
4 wish to highlight because I wish to seek your
5 assistance with regard to these matters. I know that
6 our time is running out now, but perhaps when we resume
7 it would be a good idea for me to bring up those
8 questions then.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. So we'll take now
10 a 30-minute break. Then when we resume, you will make
11 your comments or objections, and then we will start
12 with the examination-in-chief of our next witness. All
13 right. So we'll break.
14 --- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 THE REGISTRAR: The latest Prosecution
18 Exhibit, the exhibit that is in fact the document
19 bearing the different names of the pieces of clothing
20 found by the investigator in Sarajevo, is Exhibit
21 Number 388.
22 MR. BLAXILL: Your Honours, if I may raise
23 just one thing briefly: When you ruled in respect of
24 videos that were offered both by the Prosecution and
25 the Defence and that they should not be played, you did
1make specific reference to a portion of a video that
2 had been put forward by the Prosecution relating only
3 to the area where the property was found and any work
4 undertaken there. I hadn't mentioned it previously.
5 It is my mistake. I would like to rectify that, with
6 your leave, and ask if we may formally tender that
7 video in respect of that portion only, as it has been
8 served on the Defence and on yourselves.
9 I obviously didn't play it in court, Your
10 Honours; I felt it might be just taking unnecessary
11 time. If you feel there's a problem, I would be happy
12 to recall Mr. Tucker appropriately, and we would play
13 that portion to the Court. If the situation is
14 acceptable without that, then, with my apology for not
15 dealing with it sooner, I would ask to tender that one
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Par? Any objection?
18 MR. PAR: If it is only a portion of the tape
19 recording how the investigator collected those things,
20 then we have no objections.
21 MR. BLAXILL: For that question, I ask for
22 nothing more than that.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Only that portion, only
24 where Mr. Tucker collected the items. So it is
25 admitted into evidence. Thank you, Counsel Par.
1And the number will be ... ?
2 THE REGISTRAR: This videotape will be
3 Prosecution Exhibit 389.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Now, let me first
5 of all ask the witness to make the solemn declaration.
6 Could you please make the solemn
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
9 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
11 WITNESS: ASIM DZAMBASOVIC
12 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
14 Counsel Pavkovic?
15 MR. PAVKOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Your Honours, I should like to draw your
17 attention to the following. On the 7th of September,
18 the Defence received from the Prosecution a document --
19 rather, a statement of the witness present here.
20 Attached to this statement there were also some
21 addenda, called Annex 1, Annex B; and another document,
22 which is a copy of a combat order.
23 The introductory part of this material shows
24 that the expert witness gives his opinion on the basis
25 of his knowledge and documents and facts shown him.
1And if we look, Your Honours, at this document provided
2 by the expert witness, we see that in the first part,
3 he addresses the military doctrine principles of
4 command and leadership; that in the second part, the
5 expert witness was given a task of answering a
6 question: How did my defendant embrace those
7 principles of management and leadership? And for this
8 purpose, the witness analysed, as he says, six
9 documents. Then the expert witness was to answer
10 another question, on the basis of yet another four
11 documents: How, and in which assumed likely situation,
12 was my defendant on the day of the 16th of April?
13 It would be all right, except that six
14 documents, Your Honours, considered by the expert, of
15 those six documents, three have not been verified and
16 their authenticity has not been confirmed in this
17 Court. These are documents of the 30th of
18 January, '93, on the casualties. These are documents
19 which the defendant signed. Then the minutes of the
20 16th of September, '93, on a deployment for help; and
21 8th of April, '93, an order of the 8th of April, '93.
22 We have no problem with that, or at least not
23 too much of a problem for us. But the other three
24 documents which were also considered by the witness are
25 documents which were adopted by this Court on the 6th
1of October last year during the testimony of
2 Witness AA. This testimony was given in closed
3 session, so the three documents -- 250, 251, and 252 --
4 are documents which must remain confidential forever.
5 Let us move on. Of another four documents
6 which the witness also looked into, and which were to
7 serve as a basis for the conclusion on the hypothetical
8 role of Vlado Santic on the 16th of April, these are
9 documents which were admitted on the 14th of July this
10 year by this Court in a closed session. That is a
11 session closed for the public. Moreover, these
12 documents, in another case before this Tribunal, are
13 under seal.
14 Now, my question is: How could the
15 Prosecutor disclose these documents to a witness who is
16 testifying in public, show them to him, and ask him to
17 give his expert opinion on the basis of those
18 documents? Had the Prosecutor not shown this to the
19 witness, then his statement would not go beyond
20 military doctrine. What gives me concern is the
21 documents which were presented at the closed session,
22 with all the consequences deriving from that. When you
23 read these documents, you see that they create major
24 difficulties for the defence of Vladimir Santic, and
25 had the expert witness been deprived of this
1information, his finding would have been completely
3 So this is my first question, and I should
4 like to ask you kindly to answer this question. Thank
5 you very much.
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Comments from the
8 MR. BLAXILL: Yes, Mr. President, Your
9 Honours. I think there is one fundamental quantum
10 difference between the normal witnesses as to fact and
11 an expert witness.
12 It is not uncommon, where expert witnesses
13 are called upon, that they are in receipt of otherwise
14 confidential information. One could imagine an
15 equivalent position of a trial where, for instance,
16 some kind of medical expert is required -- a
17 psychiatrist, psychologist, whatever -- to comment on
18 matters. I have recent experience, as Your Honours
19 have, of matters relating to the human memory and the
20 effect of trauma and stress on a person.
21 Now, in order for the expert to be properly
22 briefed, there may have to be the disclosure of matters
23 that have been raised in closed session, private
24 session, documents that are otherwise private, and
25 documents which are otherwise perhaps not even in
1evidence, but are of importance to assist the expert in
2 the preparation of their expert testimony.
3 Now, obviously, in the course of examining
4 such an expert, we are mindful, we all have to be
5 mindful, of the fact that the protective measures for
6 witnesses are preserved, and obviously reference is
7 made accordingly to be careful in that respect. But of
8 course, the whole purpose of closed session and other
9 things is the protection of the identity and safety of
10 witnesses. It is not to exclude experts from access to
11 information, nor indeed to exclude the Defence, the
12 Prosecution, or the Chamber from valuable information.
13 Accordingly, as an expert witness is to be
14 briefed in that respect, I respectfully submit that it
15 is appropriate and proper, with due security, to do so,
16 and to that extent an expert witness becomes almost
17 part of the team, the Prosecution or the Defence. That
18 is perhaps equally evidenced by the fact that in
19 domestic courts, and, indeed, as experienced in the
20 Chambers of this Tribunal, often expert witnesses can
21 sit in and listen to the testimony of their colleagues
22 and of other expert witnesses for the other side, which
23 of course is contrary to the normal principles for fact
24 witnesses, for obvious reasons.
25 So I would suggest that in fact my friend's
1objections regarding these documents are in fact
2 ill-founded, on the basis that they are necessary for
3 this purpose.
4 JUDGE MAY: Well, I'm not sure that there is
5 not some point in this. These rules are insisted on by
6 the Prosecution in particular, that there should be no
7 leeway and there should be no way in which people can
8 find out. If you're going to show these documents to
9 somebody else, ought you not first of all to seek the
10 leave of the Trial Chamber before you do so?
11 Otherwise, presumably, it's open to any party to show
12 the documents, if you're right, Mr. Blaxill, to whoever
13 they might think might be an expert, without referring
14 to the Trial Chamber.
15 MR. BLAXILL: I appreciate your point, Your
16 Honour. The answer I would give to that is that I
17 think, firstly, we are of course mindful of being bound
18 by protective measures, and that it is therefore
19 important to try and ensure the confidentiality of such
20 material. And the second thing is that I do recall --
21 if I recall correctly, and I have no doubt Your Honours
22 will correct me if I'm wrong -- but that sometimes
23 matters are, in a sense, suppressed by the Chamber, but
24 one uses such terminology as "except as necessary in
25 the course of preparation of the Defence," or something
1of that nature, which I know to me is indicative, Your
2 Honour, that clearly there would be, obviously,
3 occasions envisaged where certain materials have to be
4 communicated in the course of preparation; presumably,
5 if that applies to the Defence, equally the preparation
6 of the Prosecution.
7 I think I cannot really answer you further
8 than that. As regards should it be a practice to apply
9 to the Trial Chamber for it, it's not something that we
10 have yet been aware should be the case; perhaps it is
11 something to address for the future. I would suggest,
12 though, Your Honour, that we do try, obviously, being
13 bound by such confidentiality as has been ordered by a
14 Chamber, we try to observe that within the confines of
15 preparing the case properly.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
17 Counsel Pavkovic, very briefly?
18 MR. PAVKOVIC: It is quite true that the
19 situation could have been prevented by seeking the
20 leave of the Chamber, or perhaps in another way, of
21 course, had the witness been shown these documents for
22 the first time here in a closed session, but that is
23 not true. He already was in possession of all the
24 information that he needs, so that his answers are
25 conditioned by some knowledge, by the knowledge of
1facts he shouldn't have had, and that will go to the
2 detriment of the accused Vladimir Santic. I think
3 there is room here for the application of Rule 89(B).
4 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
5 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, excuse me; I do
6 apologise. Not 89(B), but 89(D). 89(D).
7 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
8 JUDGE CASSESE: The Bench believes that the
9 Prosecution should have sought leave from the Chamber,
10 leave to show those confidential documents to the
11 witness, expert witness, so we will consider what
12 action should be taken with respect to this failure by
13 the Prosecution to get the authorisation of the Chamber
14 to go ahead.
15 On the other hand, we feel that in light of
16 Rule 89(B), I think 89(B) should be applied. We think
17 that this document should be used by the witness in the
18 examination-in-chief or cross-examination, and so we
19 will proceed on the basis that he is aware, and he may
20 be put questions with respect to those documents. So
21 we will go ahead; however, we reserve the right to
22 consider what action to take with respect to the
23 conduct of the Prosecution.
24 As I say, we feel that actually Rule 89(B)
25 should be applied, because we feel that we will apply
1rules of evidence which will best favour a fair
2 determination of the matter before our Chamber, and
3 which are consonant with the spirit of the statute and
4 the general principles of law. The search for truth is
5 the prevailing principle, and in light of this
6 principle, we think we can proceed along the lines
7 suggested by the Prosecution.
8 This is our ruling.
9 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Indeed, obviously, we shall be conscious of any issues
11 of protection in the course of this examination.
12 WITNESS: ASIM DZAMBASOVIC
13 Examined by Mr. Blaxill:
14 Q. Sir, would you please give the Chamber your
15 full name?
16 A. Your Honours, ladies and gentlemen, good
17 morning. My name is Asim Dzambasovic.
18 Q. Your date of birth, please, sir?
19 A. I was born on the 27th of June, 1949, in
21 Q. What is your present occupation, sir?
22 A. I'm presently with the Federal Ministry of
23 Defence, head of the political affairs department in
24 the sector for defence preparations at the Ministry of
1Q. And is that a military post, sir, and does it
2 carry a rank, or do you carry a rank, I should say?
3 A. It is a military rank. I am a Brigadier in
4 the army of the Federation.
5 Q. Have you been a career soldier for the
6 entirety of your working life?
7 A. When I came out of the secondary school, I
8 enrolled in the military academy. As of 1973 to this
9 day, I have been a professional military person.
10 Q. And when you commenced your military career,
11 in which armed force did you serve?
12 A. I enrolled in the military academy in 1969 in
13 Belgrade, and this is an academy for ground troops for
14 the army, in infantry details. I completed it in 1973,
15 and I was given the 1st Officer rank and I have been
16 with the army ever since.
17 Q. And during the earlier part of your military
18 career, have you had any particular speciality in which
19 you worked, such as infantry, artillery, or any
20 particular branch?
21 A. Infantry is my speciality and, therefore, I
22 discharged various duties in the Yugoslav People's
23 Army, from the lowest one -- that is, platoon commander
24 -- to the head of the brigade staff in 1992, when, for
25 reasons known to all, because of the military and
1political situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
2 Yugoslavia, I quit the Yugoslav People's Army and
3 joined the Territorial Defence of the Republic of
5 Q. Now, sir, if I can turn back to Yugoslav
6 national army. What was the basic strategic role
7 assigned to the Yugoslav national army?
8 A. The strategy of the armed forces, and then,
9 within the armed forces, the Yugoslav People's Army,
10 was the defence of the sovereignty and territorial
11 integrity of Yugoslavia; that is to say, it was based
12 on defence tactics and strategy. Or to put it more
13 aptly, outside the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia,
14 that is to say, never were any actions planned outside
15 the borders of the former Yugoslavia.
16 Q. And on what basis was the manpower of the JNA
17 organised? Did you have active and reserve and other
18 kinds of forces?
19 A. In the Yugoslav People's Army, in the armed
20 forces, we have to say, of the former Yugoslavia, there
21 was the Yugoslav People's Army, and it had manoeuvring
22 and active units, as we put it in professional terms.
23 Active units consisted of officers,
24 commissioned and noncommissioned; that is to say, these
25 were professionals. Also, soldiers who were doing
1their military service. Also, partly there were
2 civilians who were employed in accordance with the
3 regulations that were then in force. That was the
4 active component of the Yugoslav People's Army.
5 In the Yugoslav People's Army there were war
6 units too, and the war units were composed as follows:
7 of reserve soldiers, reserve officers, reserve
8 noncommissioned officers.
9 Perhaps it is important for you to note that
10 if we take into account, for example, any formation of
11 an active unit -- for example, a brigade -- the
12 organisation and formation of such an active unit, a
13 brigade, consisted of less people in terms of manpower
14 and technical weapons, et cetera, as compared to a war
15 unit of the same level. That is to say that the
16 Yugoslav People's Army covered for this when need be
17 and when orders were issued by persons in command.
18 Q. So what were the general obligations, to your
19 knowledge, of the citizens of the former Yugoslavia in
20 relation to these various manpower principles of the
21 JNA? What duties did the civilians have -- or
22 citizens, I'm sorry, have?
23 A. It is well-known that the former Yugoslavia
24 had a system of All People's Defence. The system of
25 All People's Defence and social self-defence, as it was
1called, included all the citizens of the former
2 Yugoslavia from the age of 18 up to the age of 60 in
3 the case of men, or the age of 55 in the case of women,
4 as regulated by basic legislation in this field.
5 The system of All People's Defence served the
6 purposes of the defence of the entire territory and
7 engaging all potentialities; that is to say, material
8 and human resources for defence purposes.
9 Now, how were these units recruited, manned,
10 and organised? We can analyse this in several ways and
11 try to explain it.
12 The core of the matter is as follows: In
13 active units, as I already pointed out, there were
14 professional commissioned and noncommissioned officers
15 and soldiers who were currently doing their military
17 In the system that prevailed then, all the
18 soldiers who would complete their military service,
19 upon completing their military service, would report to
20 the secretariat for defence in their own municipality,
21 in the territory where they lived, and then they would
22 be transferred to the status of reserve soldier or
23 reserve noncommissioned officer or reserve officer,
24 depending on whether that soldier, while doing his
25 military service, attended a course for noncommissioned
1officers or a school for reserve officers. This was
2 organised very well, at a very high level, in the
3 former Yugoslav People's Army.
4 So there was a base, so to speak, where
5 people would prepare themselves, while doing their
6 military service, for situations of crisis and even
8 Q. What would be the position under that system
9 regarding those who were not deemed fit for active
10 military service or perhaps too old for active military
12 A. The system of All People's Defence envisaged
13 for such matters as well; that is to say, these
14 specific cases. Therefore, such persons -- this was
15 not a rule, but as a principle these persons were
16 recorded and organised in civilian protection units.
17 This could have been a young man, aged 18, if according
18 to law he was not fit for military service; also,
19 persons over the age of 60.
20 Civilian defence, civilian protection, was a
21 very broad concept, and it included practically all
22 spheres of life and work of an organised people, of an
23 organised community, starting from those situations
24 that have to be resolved in a situation of crisis, like
25 earthquakes, floods, et cetera, all the way to those
1basic logistics matters; for example, preparing food,
2 giving first-aid, evacuation, et cetera. That is to
3 say that there was a very wide range for engaging
4 persons in civilian protection units.
5 All of this together comprised the system of
6 All People's Defence, and this was a specific concept
7 which was organised in the territory of the former
9 Q. Now, sir, very briefly, if you can,
10 Brigadier, will you just give us some idea of the
11 methods used to mobilise people in times of emergency
12 and how quickly that could be done?
13 A. Yes. In all units -- that is to say, of the
14 Yugoslav People's Army, of the Territorial Defence, and
15 of civilian protection -- there were certain plans for
16 mobilisation. These plans were mobilised when
17 necessary; that is to say, when there would be a
18 critical situation.
19 The competent authority in the municipality,
20 in the Republic, in the unit, that is to say, at all
21 three levels, was in charge of activating this system
22 of mobilisation and calling up the members of these
23 reserve units, the members of civilian protection
24 units, in one of the following ways: The system of the
25 call-up services, which operated very well. There were
1different ways of call-ups. People could be called up
2 directly, by way of a messenger, also through various
3 communications, or in any other way which yielded
4 certain results; that is to say, in order to achieve
5 the set objective in the best possible way.
6 Most often it was the messenger service that
7 was resorted to. That is to say that there were
8 messengers who, at a given point in time, when orders
9 were issued by the competent authorities, were
10 discharged to local communities, units, et cetera. And
11 according to a specific outline that existed in every
12 unit, they called up the reservists; that is to say the
13 members of the civilian defence in the case of civilian
14 defence units. Every individual knew where his
15 position was. Everybody was aware of his wartime
16 position. Everybody was aware of his place of
17 mobilisation; that is to say, where they were rounded
18 up and what duties they were to perform.
19 If we're talking about soldiers, soldiers
20 also had equipment issued to them. They did not have
21 weapons on them at the time; they only had equipment;
22 whereas the members of the civilian protection units
23 did not have any equipment either. For example, if
24 these were fire brigades or any other special units,
25 then they knew which equipment they were supposed to
1use and in which way.
2 Q. Now, sir, if we go one step further, what was
3 the basic unit structure of the Yugoslav national
4 army? Into what kind of size and nature of units was
5 it divided?
6 A. Very well. The units of the Yugoslav
7 People's Army were organised into arms and services.
8 It was prescribed by law exactly which arms and which
9 services; that is to say, the infantry, the artillery,
10 engineering units, et cetera. Then also the medical
11 corps, the veterinary corps, weather forecasting
12 service, et cetera. That is to say that the units of
13 the Yugoslav People's Army had their own arms and
15 The organisation and formation of the
16 Yugoslav People's Army, until 1988, was as follows: At
17 the level of every republic there were armies,
18 respectively, with their respective seats in the
19 capitals of these republics. For example, in Sarajevo
20 there was the seat of the 7th Army. Its seat was in
21 Sarajevo. The seat of the 5th Army was in Zagreb, et
23 The armies included lower-level units such as
24 divisions, brigades, battalions, companies, platoons,
25 down to that lowest level.
1Towards the end of 1998 and the beginning of
2 1999, a strategic reorganisation was carried out within
3 the Yugoslav People's Army. Then army commands within
4 republics were abolished and four military districts
5 were established. They included a somewhat broader
6 territory and involved a wider range of responsibility
7 than the commands of the armies.
8 There was the Belgrade, Zagreb, Skopje, and
9 Split military districts, respectively. That is to say
10 that these military districts transcended republican
11 boundaries, and in this way republican centres -- some
12 of them, rather -- lost the status they enjoyed
13 previously; that is to say, to have this high command.
14 A lower organisational level was that of
15 corps, and within a corps there were brigades, and then
16 further on, as in any army, battalions, companies,
17 platoons, and lower-level units. That was the general
18 organisation of the Yugoslav People's Army.
19 Q. Now, when we get to 1992 and we have the
20 split of the republics within the former Yugoslavia,
21 what would you offer by way of comment upon the
22 formation of their military organisations and any
23 relationship to former JNA principles and doctrine?
24 A. I'm sorry, I did not quite understand you.
25 Their principles; whose principles?
1Q. Well, let us say that we are aware of
2 different entities coming into being gradually: the
3 army of BiH; the VRS, being the Bosnian Serb; the HVO,
4 the Croatian -- Bosnian Croatian. What relationship or
5 features do you recall vis-a-vis the JNA principles and
7 A. Basically, the tactics, strategy, and
8 operations are not laws. They're not axioms that are
9 ever changed anywhere in the world in any army. These
10 principles are more or less similar or identical.
11 In the beginning of 1992, it was inevitable,
12 for various reasons that I don't want to go into now,
13 that republican armies were set up, starting from
14 Slovenia via Bosnia-Herzegovina and further on.
15 Basically, in essence, in principle, there
16 was no choice for any newly established army but to
17 take over the established principles of the former
18 Yugoslav People's Army; that is to say, in principle,
19 the tenets of organisation and mode of operation were
20 taken over. However, the distinctions were as
21 follows: These differences were primarily expressed in
22 the potentials of armaments, weapons, and military
23 technical facilities.
24 At that moment, the former Yugoslav People's
25 Army took over, in various ways, the larger part of the
1available weapons, armaments, and military technical
3 The Republic of Croatia was in a somewhat
4 more favourable possession. In its garrisons,
5 something remained. That was the agreement that was
6 made: some military equipment and weapons that
8 However, the most unfavourable situation was
9 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the case of the Croat and
10 Bosniak peoples. They had the least amount of these
11 armaments, weapons, and technical facilities, and that
12 is where the greatest difference was.
13 There were also differences that cropped up
14 later in terms of a language approach, so to speak.
15 So, for example, one term that would be used by the
16 Bosniaks would not be applied by the Croats, or the
17 same term would have a different meaning with the
18 Serbs. So these language problems had come to the
19 fore depending on the specific characteristics of the
20 people that was establishing that army.
21 I think you are aware of the fact that the
22 armies and defence systems that were set up at the time
23 in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
24 was established, the HVO was established, the army of
25 Republika Srpska was established. There was a specific
2 The army of Republika Srpska and the HVO, in
3 their system of defence and organisation, relied upon
4 the neighbouring states of Croatia and Yugoslavia,
5 respectively, which was only logical and realistic, and
6 they had a certain degree of cooperation where there
7 were adequate conditions in terms of military
8 assistance, logistics, training, education, et cetera.
9 Those were the elements that differed.
10 However, the basic principles and tenets of
11 organisation were almost identical.
12 Q. Brigadier, can you tell me, please,
13 therefore, what is the common chain of command for the
14 passage of an order that emanates from the top and
15 passes down, say, for a combat operation, through the
16 layers of command?
17 A. All the armies of the world, including these
18 armies of ours that were established, accepted the
19 principles of command as a specific system of managing
20 specific units such as military units. That meant that
21 the army, as a specific organisation, has a system of
22 management and command that differs from that that
23 exists in civilian bodies. That meant that the
24 principles of a single command and of subordination had
25 to be observed.
1From the top -- that is to say, from the top
2 command downwards, as far as orders are concerned, and
3 from the lowest command to the top command when
4 reporting is concerned -- that is to say that these two
5 principles had to be honoured if military organisation
6 were to be abided by, and they were, in principle,
7 accepted by all armies.
8 Or rather, this chain. Let me be clearer on
9 this. This chain would have to be as follows: The
10 commander of a corps could not issue an order to a
11 commander of a battalion, but he had to issue orders to
12 the commander of a brigade, and then he had to issue
13 orders to the commander of the battalion, et cetera, et
14 cetera. So everybody had to take care of a particular
15 level. And it also works the other way around. As far
16 as reporting is concerned, it had to go from a
17 lower-level unit towards a higher-level unit. And in
18 that respect it could not have happened that reporting
19 would go two or three steps higher up in the chain of
21 I already pointed out that strategy and
22 tactics are not mathematics and physics. There are
23 some special cases when it could have happened that a
24 report would be sent in a different way. However, in
25 that case, if I was in a position to send a report to
1my superior officer that was two or three steps above
2 me, I was duty-bound to inform my immediate superior
3 officer as well. At any rate, the principle of
4 subordination had to be respected and was respected.
5 Of course, I shall say what was truly
6 realistic in our practice. In the initial stage of the
7 war in particular -- I think that this was also
8 characteristic of the army of Republika Srpska, of the
9 BH army, and of the HVO -- there were some doubts in
10 the beginning. People were unsure, especially those
11 who were not professional soldiers, who until then were
12 not professionally engaged in such matters and who were
13 not professional soldiers or professional officers.
14 However, that was soon overcome, so that part fell into
15 place too.
16 Q. So, Brigadier, you say that an order would be
17 transmitted down through very defined levels of
18 command, but at what point in the chain does the
19 company commander fit in, in terms of the flow of the
21 A. I don't know if you're going to understand,
22 but any company commander -- any company commander; it
23 doesn't matter which company we're talking about --
24 always had to receive orders from his immediate
25 superior officer, and that is the commander of the
1battalion. Sometime it was called the commander of the
2 division, if it was an artillery unit or a rocket unit,
3 but at any rate it was that level. So that is to say a
4 company commander could receive orders from that level,
5 and that is logical and that is normal, from the
6 commander of the battalion. Always, and in all
7 situations, that is the way it is in principle, and
8 according to the tenets that were applied and according
9 to which we worked in practice.
10 Q. And about what size of unit was commanded by
11 a company commander?
12 A. In order to facilitate your understanding,
13 the units that were at company level had varying
14 numbers of persons involved. These were units that had
15 from 100 to 350 people, or -- I don't know; in some
16 cases, perhaps even more. However, these were
17 primarily units numbering 100 to 150 persons. That is
18 to say, this went for the artillery and the infantry.
19 But in specific units, such as rocket units, such as
20 some air force units, special units, these units
21 numbered fewer people.
22 However, the fact that they had less manpower
23 was made up for by the sophisticated equipment they
24 had. For example, a parachute company would be much
25 smaller than an infantry company; then a rocket company
1would be smaller than an infantry company; then also a
2 signals company. So that is to say that their
3 composition differed, but most often they had 100
4 soldiers, or even up to 300, depending on the arms or
5 services they belonged to.
6 Q. And within the company, what would be the
7 general structure of other smaller units that comprised
8 the company? What would they consist of?
9 A. Within companies there were platoons, and
10 there could also be two or three independent squads.
11 For example, if we are talking about an infantry
12 company, it would have a signals squad. It could have
13 a small independent squad for a very specific duty, and
14 usually there were three or four platoons or two or
15 three squads included. That is to say that such a
16 squad would have about 10 people, and platoons would
17 have 20, 25, 30 to 40 people; within that range. There
18 was no rule. All of this was prescribed by way of
19 formations, so it was known quite precisely, according
20 to this formation, how many people a specific platoon
21 should have -- infantry, artillery, rockets, signals,
22 et cetera. So all the elements were prescribed.
23 Q. Could you tell me if there was any
24 significance or significant difference that attached to
25 military police units?
1A. There is no significant difference in terms
2 of organisation and formation, but there was a
3 significant difference, of course, in terms of
4 armament, equipment, and training. Special units,
5 which include, of course, the military police, in
6 practice, always had better equipment, more up-to-date
7 weaponry, and also they had chosen soldiers, because
8 the members of these special units, after all,
9 according to certain characteristics and according to
10 certain principles, did differ from rank-and-file
11 soldiers. So not anybody, so to speak, could have been
12 in these special units. They had to meet certain
13 criteria, such as a level of training and schooling,
14 physical fitness, swiftness, and intellectual
15 capacities. And all special units, including the
16 military police, had special training for the purposes
17 they were intended for. The fact that other units did
18 not have this was only normal, taking into account the
19 entire organisation.
20 Q. So would the presence of something like an
21 antiterrorist platoon be something that would cause you
22 any surprise, or would cause you no surprise, when
23 looking at a military police unit or company?
24 A. There did not exist a strict rule whether it
25 could exist. And it would be only natural, and I
1believe professional soldiers, if there are some of
2 them here, will know that any unit for a specific task
3 may be attached to a large number of other units, and
4 it is only natural that within a special unit, such as
5 the military police, there is also one such unit. As
6 for the tasks of the military police as prescribed by
7 the former Yugoslav People's Army, and in the new army
8 set up, this was at the level of a doctrine. They also
9 had antiterrorist platoons and their criminal
10 department, their traffic units, and that is all the
11 units charged with special tasks.
12 Q. Now, just to confirm your contact with or
13 knowledge of the HVO, did you at any time have any
14 dealings with or in parallel to the HVO in, say, 1992?
15 A. I did have an opportunity, but especially in
16 the early days of the war. In April '92, my first duty
17 was to organise the Territorial Defence in the area of
18 Konjic. That was the first time that I came across men
19 and units of the HVO, and we co-operated very
20 successfully, both in Konjic -- and in Konjic at that
21 time, we set up the joint TO command. Rather, the
22 commander specifically was a Bosniak, and the head of
23 the staff was a Croat. The first missions in that area
24 at that time, April and May, they carried out jointly.
25 And I believe that at that time, in that area,
1specifically, where I was there at the time, our
2 co-operation was quite commendable.
3 When I returned from Konjic, I came to
4 Visoko, and from there to various other towns in
5 Central Bosnia, where I was engaged in the organisation
6 and betterment of the territorial organisation. Those
7 towns included Travnik, Novi Travnik, and Kakanj. And,
8 say, in Travnik, I already came across a problem. In a
9 restaurant called Plave Vode, I had a meeting with
10 Mr. Kordic, and there, based on the -- he refused to
11 set up the joint command modelled on what we had done in
12 Konjic. But then, at that time, we neither had any
13 problem of talking openly; they simply did not accept
14 this concept, the joint command. So we proceeded to do
15 as we had planned to by ourselves.
16 Q. But as a result, Brigadier, were you able to
17 observe the kind of command structure adopted by the
18 HVO as much as the command structure adopted by the
19 Territorial Defence?
20 A. Yes. Since I was basically involved in
21 planning, in the operative administration, I knew about
22 that both from reports, from conversations and meetings
23 with our colleagues in the HVO, which we held both
24 in '92 and even during the conflict, during the
25 negotiations, and after that. So I do know that, and I
1do not think there was anything peculiar particularly
2 to it. I have this information, I am quite familiar
3 with it, and I do not think there is any particularly
4 special specific.
5 Q. If I may now, Brigadier, return to the role
6 of a company commander. What are the basic duties of a
7 company commander in terms of running the company,
8 administratively, or in disciplinary terms?
9 A. The duties, that is -- and I have now to link
10 it with the former Yugoslav People's Army. At any
11 level, whether it be a platoon, a company, a battery,
12 or whatever, there were certain rules applicable to it,
13 and those were combat rules. There were corps combat
14 rules, division combat rules, brigade combat rules,
15 company combat rules, squad combat rules, down to the
16 squad. Each of these sets of rules defined --
17 stipulated clearly the rights and duties of the
18 commander of the given unit, and this was very specific
19 and very precisely set.
20 Those principles were accepted because no
21 military organisation can function without that. It
22 would be an illusion, and I do not think that there
23 have been -- the changes in the chain of command have
24 changed over time only with regard to the means and
25 resources, but basically it has always been the same
1since time immemorial, so that there were the duties of
2 the platoon commander or company commander.
3 Now, which were the duties of a company
4 commander? He had his duties prescribed for peacetime,
5 and he also had his duties spelled out for wartime, so
6 there was a distinction between those two sets of
8 As for the peacetime duties, it was the
9 organisation of life and work, organisation of
10 training, improving military preparedness and
11 everything that has to do with the life and work of a
12 unit. His special duties were spelled out for critical
13 situations, for cases of crisis and wartime.
14 The most important duty in wartime was that
15 every commander, including the company commander, needs
16 to maintain the necessary level of combat preparedness,
17 or rather preparedness for the execution of whatever
18 tasks which lies ahead; it doesn't matter which task.
19 His basic, his chief duty was to sustain such a level
20 of combat preparedness which would ensure that the task
21 which he will be issued, he can carry out
23 Now, if you want me to tell you what a
24 company commander does after he has been issued his
25 task, I will do that, if you want me -- I do not know
1whether you want me to go into all this detail.
2 Q. Well, I would like you to say that when, let
3 us say, a form of combat operation is ordered, what
4 kind of order does the company commander receive, and
5 what actions does he take in respect of that order?
6 A. The process in this annex which you mentioned
7 in the beginning, I explained it because I wanted you
8 to understand it quite clearly, and there I listed all
9 the details. They are as follows: After he has been
10 given a task -- and I am referring to a commander at
11 the level of the company, a company commander, shall I
12 say, and that officer, so he can receive those orders
13 from the battalion commander directly if the situation
14 warrants it. If it is permitted by the place, by the
15 time, and the combat situation, then the battalion
16 commander can summon him and give him that task, or it
17 can be served on him by a courier or a messenger or an
18 authorised person. As an exception, his task can be
19 issued him by communicating equipment, or by cable, but
20 that is avoided. Yet tasks are issued when combat is
21 under way, and then cable telegrams may be used. But
22 that is in use very seldom.
23 Now, after receiving his orders, a company
24 commander then, having learned what his mission is from
25 the battalion commander -- or in whatever way; it
1doesn't really matter -- then he studies this mission.
2 So it is followed by, shall I say, intellectual
3 process, and the commander studies, therefore, this
4 task and the order to see what it is that the battalion
5 commander wants of him. Having finished that, he makes
6 an assessment of the situation and then notifies his
7 subordinates about the task. His subordinates are
8 platoon commanders and perhaps some squad commanders.
9 Now, how does the company commander go about
10 informing his subordinates? There is a subordinate, an
11 inferior technical unit to a company, so it would be
12 best if the platoon commanders were issued their orders
13 on the ground, in the field. Why? Because they are
14 small units, and in practice, usually in a particular
15 area, in a particular zone, specific tasks are then
16 given them, because the platoons are the end executors
17 of a given task. So it would be logical for the
18 company commander to summon his platoon commanders, to
19 take them to a point, to an observation point, which is
20 most suited to his explaining the task to his
21 subordinates and to then issue them individual orders,
22 if the situation permits that.
23 If the situation permits that, then he may
24 issue the orders to a platoon commander at one point,
25 to another one at a different point, and to a third one
1again at a third point. So if the situation permits
2 it, then he moves from the position of one platoon to
3 the position of the other platoon, and we call it the
4 command or reconnaissance on the ground, and there he
5 issues specific orders to his men, to his
7 Now, in the course of this process, when he
8 issues his orders, it is very important to define
9 questions as to the -- what is the purpose, what is the
10 objective of an activity or a campaign or the mission
11 that is to follow; which is the specific task; how the
12 coordinated action should be organised with the units
13 which are either on the right or the left flank or
14 ahead or in the rear; how to organise communication
15 along two lines, both vertically up the chain of
16 command -- that is, to the superiors -- and how to
17 organise communication horizontally, with units of the
18 same rank.
19 So they define the logistics and the manner
20 in which the logistics will be ensured, and to all
21 intents and purposes all those questions which need to
22 be resolved so as to carry out the mission with as few
23 casualties as possible and with as much success as
24 possible. That would be, briefly, the description of
25 how the company commanders behave after they were
2 After a company commander has done this,
3 regular platoon commanders now have the orders, and
4 after that, after he had prepared this and issued his
5 orders, he also needs from time to time to control how
6 his orders are carried out; he is bound, that is, to
7 supervise how his orders are carried out. And that can
8 be done in different ways.
9 MR. BLAXILL: That might be a convenient
10 point at which to break if you wanted to take another
11 break this morning, Your Honours. I think I am well
12 over 50 per cent through. If that's any indication, we
13 are looking at another hour today. I would, at the
14 latest, I think, be finishing within the first 20 to 30
15 minutes tomorrow, if not finishing the examination this
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Since we have to stop
18 at 1.15, we thought we could go on until --
19 MR. BLAXILL: I'm entirely in Your Honours'
20 hands, yes.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: -- 1.15.
22 MR. BLAXILL:
23 Q. Brigadier --
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry. Counsel Radovic?
25 MR. RADOVIC: Excuse me, Mr. President, for
1cutting in like this, but when you solved this problem
2 with my learned friend as regards this witness, then
3 Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac and I will have to ask you
4 something, but I shall do that after the status of this
5 witness is solved.
6 But I can do so now, since you have given me
7 the floor. We should like to seek your permission to
8 speak to the Prosecutor's witness after the Prosecutor
9 -- of course, if the witness agrees to do that. My
10 learned friend from the Prosecution knows the witness
11 we have in mind, and we should like to seek your leave
12 for that.
13 There is no mention of that story about
14 pressure being brought to a witness -- no, no, no, I'm
15 referring to a female witness. It is a protected
16 witness. I do not want to mention her name.
17 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, I have one short
18 observation to make on what Mr. Radovic has just
19 asked. As you well know, Your Honours, this witness,
20 whose name I will not mention, of course, since he has
21 benefited from protection measures, and he will come
22 before you under protective measures, this witness then
23 has been asked once before to come before you by
24 Defence counsel. This witness has not agreed to come
25 for the Defence.
1This witness gave a statement last June, and
2 this statement, of course, has been handed over to the
3 Defence, for motives we have already explained to the
4 Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber is well aware of
5 these motives. I think the witness will tell you
6 during her testimony here that she has been under a lot
7 of pressure and threats. She will come to The Hague --
8 I guess she will be testifying tomorrow as a witness,
9 and I think that in order for this witness to remain as
10 serene and calm as possible, in order for her to give
11 as precise a testimony as possible, I don't think it is
12 advisable for her to have to meet some Defence
14 I'm not saying that Mrs. Slokovic-Glumac or
15 Mr. Radovic are wanting to exercise any threat or
16 pressure on the witness; I'm just trying to preserve
17 this witness from any kind of unpleasant situation. I
18 want her to be as clear and precise as possible when
19 she comes to testify before you. I am, again, not
20 criticising the actions of Defence counsel, but I'm not
21 sure that it would be advisable to allow Mr. Radovic to
22 have any contact with the witness.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
24 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, excuse
25 me; may I have just a moment?
1With reference to what the Prosecutor has
2 just said, it is not true that we ever asked this
3 witness to be a witness for the Defence. We wanted her
4 to be called to testify as a Court witness. So we
5 never had any contacts with her, and therefore she
6 never refused the contact. But now we have asked the
7 Trial Chamber, if possible, to be able, in the presence
8 of the Prosecutor, to have a preliminary conversation,
9 interview with the witness, only as regards some of the
10 circumstances dealing with her statement which I
11 believe go in our favour. Their interview would be
12 welcome to us, because that would facilitate our
13 cross-examination and examination the next day.
14 We therefore agree that it be done in the
15 presence of the Prosecutor, in the presence of a person
16 who will come from the Witnesses and Victim Protection
17 Unit. That is, we do not object to that, but we should
18 only like to have an additional meeting with her as
19 regards a part of her statement that she made to the
20 Prosecutor. We are not asking for plenty of time; we
21 are only asking for half an hour, and of course, only
22 if the witness agrees to that.
23 So we should like the Court to notify the
24 witness about this, and only if she is willing to do
25 so, and we are quite ready to conduct this conversation
1with her in the presence of various people from this
2 Court. Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
4 Now, we deny the motion, the oral motion made
5 by Counsel Radovic and supported by Counsel
6 Slokovic-Glumac, in the light of the reasons set out by
7 the Prosecutor. Of course, Defence counsel will be
8 able, it goes without saying, to cross-examine the
9 witness tomorrow when she comes.
10 So we can now move on, and Mr. Blaxill, you
11 may resume your examination-in-chief.
12 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you, Mr. President, Your
14 Q. Brigadier, if we may move on, sir: Once the
15 company commander has received his orders and has
16 issued his instructions to his platoon commanders and
17 subordinates, what is the role of the company commander
18 when his men go into action, into active combat?
19 A. The duty of all commanders in combat, after
20 the combat has started, then they must constantly
21 monitor the combat operations from the command post or
22 a detached command post, and for larger units there can
23 be a certain compound with facilities, with shelters
24 and the like, or four smaller units. Those may be some
25 observation points equipped, or perhaps vehicles, so
1they may command on the move. There may be a command
2 combat vehicle.
3 So there are different ways in which a
4 commander, once the combat operations have started,
5 will monitor these combat operations. And specifically
6 when it comes to the company commander, the company
7 commander needs to do -- needs to monitor it from the
8 combat deployment of his company; that is, somewhere
9 within the middle, between the first and the second
10 line, in an attack some 3 to 500 metres from the squads
11 in the first line. That is the principle.
12 So a company commander, though, follows the
13 evolution of combat operations, receives reports, and
14 on the basis of these reports and on the basis of his
15 own --
16 MR. BLAXILL: My learned friend has --
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic?
18 MR. PAVKOVIC: I apologise, Your Honours, but
19 I had to interrupt this. But now I should like to take
20 you back to what I said before, that the opinion -- or
21 rather, that the documents which the witness had before
22 him are affecting his thoughts. If you're following
23 carefully what the witness is saying, he is talking
24 about combat operations, and the offensive ones to
25 begin with, because he's assuming that the documents
1shown him were orders for attack, and now he's
2 hypothesising individual situations as being that the
3 command -- the company commander is there, and there
4 when -- during an attack.
5 But if he had not those documents before him,
6 then he wouldn't be hypothesising those platoon
7 offensive situations and placing a platoon or company
8 commanders in this or that situation.
9 If you really could see these documents which
10 the witness saw, I assure you that these documents were
11 the basis. He constantly talks about offensive combat
12 operations, and yet combat operations may also be
13 defensive. But he assumed that the documents, which he
14 analysed from the point of view of the defence, and
15 that they include offensive activities.
16 So that was my warning, and I can recognise
17 that in what the witness is saying now. I really
18 apologise for interrupting, but I assure you that my
19 assumption is quite correct, because this witness does
20 not refer at all to defence operations. He constantly
21 speaks about offensive operations.
22 MR. BLAXILL: If I may reply. If that is the
23 way it is reading, obviously that's one thing, but as I
24 recall my questions so far, I mentioned the word
25 "combat operations." To my mind, that doesn't fall on
1either side of the coin. It is defensive, offensive,
2 whatever. It simply is combat operations. I had hoped
3 I'd refined my questioning to general principles, but
4 at the same time, I'm trying to get at quickly to the
5 nub of the issue so that I don't take enormous amounts
6 of Your Honours' time on generalisations. I think
7 these -- I think it is irrelevant and inappropriate,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: I agree. So you may
11 MR. PAVKOVIC: I apologise, but I have to
12 clarify something. The principal forms of combat
13 operations are the offensive and the defence. So these
14 are two basic types of the combat, but I can talk about
15 combat when encircled, I can talk about ambush, I can
16 talk about anything, but that is a form of combat
17 operation, and all the activities that I mentioned,
18 whether they be reconnaissance, ambush, attack,
19 defence? All superiors called "commanders" are the
20 same; that is, they must monitor the situation. It
21 does not really matter where they are. That is true,
22 absolutely true. They must monitor the situation.
23 They must receive reports. They must effect the
24 operation, and it doesn't matter what it is:
25 reconnaissance, attack, defence, whatever.
1So basically, it is all the same. It does
2 not really matter whether it is defence, or attack,
3 ambush, breakthrough from encirclement or whatever,
4 reconnaissance or whatever -- there is quite a range of
5 these operations -- but commanders' duties are always
6 the same, except -- except, and that is the only
7 difference -- his position, his actual location may
8 vary depending on whether it's an attack or defence or
9 ambush or reconnaissance, so on and so forth, and that
10 can be the only difference. And all other of his
11 duties are absolutely identical.
12 MR. BLAXILL:
13 Q. So, Brigadier, you've mentioned, I believe,
14 that the company commander would have to -- would
15 probably be in the field or near the field of
16 operations by his troops, whether this be defensive or
17 offensive; is that correct?
18 A. [No audible response]
19 Q. And again applying general principles, what
20 would a company commander be expected to do whilst his
21 people were performing the operation, as the thing is
23 A. So once again, irrespective of the combat
24 operation, respective of the name it carries, a company
25 commander follows the situation from his observation
1point or from his command post, either in situ or on
2 the move. He receives the reports from his
3 subordinates and, on the basis of those, assesses the
4 situation, issues additional orders to his
5 subordinates, depending on the evolution of the
6 situation on the ground, and within this -- with the
7 time set by the orders, sets -- with set intervals,
8 sends reports to his superior; that is, the battalion
9 commander. If necessary, he may do that at regular
10 intervals, or perhaps more often, if the situation
11 would warrant something like that.
12 So it's up to him to carefully observe how
13 things are going, to amend his former orders and
14 decisions, fill them in with the new information, and
15 report to their superiors. Those are the duties of any
16 commander. It does not really matter what the rank of
17 the unit is.
18 Q. Would you expect a company commander to leave
19 the area of operations at any time or would a company
20 commander ever leave the area of operations?
21 A. A company commander -- a company commander is
22 not a good company commander, or any commander who
23 leaves the area where combat operations are conducted
24 is not a good commander, and he, therefore, is
25 subjected to sanctions unless the reason is justified.
1But I cannot go into that.
2 Some of his reasons for leaving the area may
3 be of a private, of a grave -- of a very grave nature;
4 for instance, if in his family some family situation --
5 grave family situation has evolved. In that case, he
6 must seek permission from his superior to leave. It
7 can happen in practice and even in times of war and
8 even in the worst situations. But fact of the matter
9 is, if he has left -- if he leaves on his own, then he
10 has to account for that. But now you always seek leave
11 from the Chamber and that is the correct procedure. So
12 he is bound to seek leave from his superior.
13 If he's given that leave, then his superior
14 will say, "Yes. You are free to go, and Mr. So-and-so,
15 called so-and-so, occupying the rank of, will then --
16 will be substituting, will be taking your place."
17 Q. Now, Brigadier, moving on from that general
18 role of the company commander, what do you recall to be
19 the duties of the military police when it came to a
20 time of war as opposed to their duties in a time of
22 A. Also in this supplementary paper that I
23 provided, I referred to the rules of the military
24 police of the former JNA and the rules for the military
25 police in the BH army, and I mentioned what the
1peacetime duties were, what the duties were in cases of
2 imminent danger of war, and what the wartime duties
3 are, and all of that has been spelled out very
5 The military police carries out military
6 police work in peacetime, in a word, and they vary:
7 providing safety and security for movement, providing
8 for order and discipline, taking action related to
9 ascertaining responsibility of soldiers and officers,
10 and also training for military police purposes as
11 prescribed by the regulations concerned.
12 Military police units belong to the military
13 police itself, to anti-sabotage units, police units,
14 and then traffic units, and sometimes there were some
15 other specialities. Also, there was the crime
16 prevention service, and also sometimes perhaps some
17 reconnaissance units with special tasks. Also,
18 divers. It depends on where the actual unit is and
19 what the higher unit above that military police unit
21 During the war -- I'm talking about the army
22 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the HVO, and the army of
23 Republika Srpska -- the military police was used
24 wherever necessary. In most cases it was used for
25 combat operations, regardless of which army we're
1talking about, because there were no other forces that
2 were available for carrying out these tasks, although
3 in peacetime they did also provide for the security of
4 the command headquarters, of movement, and they manned
5 checkpoints. That's what the military police did as
6 well. In the initial stages of the war a bit more, but
7 then they became even more capable of carrying out
8 their tasks.
9 As I said at the beginning, this was in the
10 BH army as well. Later on, these units got the most
11 responsible tasks to carry out, because they had the
12 equipment and the trained people to do that kind of
14 Now, if you want me to list all these duties,
15 I can. I can read it out from the paper I prepared,
16 but I don't think it's necessary for me to list each
17 and every one of them.
18 Perhaps it is important to mention here that
19 in practice, there was perhaps a deviation in the case
20 of the military police. Indeed, military police units
21 were used literally for each and every task, although
22 that was not envisaged in the basic principles that the
23 military police be engaged in each and every task, but
24 in practice that's the way it was in every one of these
25 three armies.
1Q. Could you just indicate to me, please, what
2 tasks those would have been in a combat context, be it
3 a defensive situation or otherwise?
4 A. I'm going to give you a practical example.
5 This was a concrete bit of experience we had. The
6 units of the military police, in this war of ours that
7 went on in Bosnia from 1992 onwards, all three
8 armies -- I'm not only talking about the military
9 police. These commanders know very well there were
10 other units that were called special units and military
11 police units. They differed. But they were not very
12 fond of carrying out defence assignments. They kept
13 saying, "We are not linesmen," as they call
14 themselves. "We don't really like doing that kind of
15 thing." That's how it was in practice. However, "We
16 would like to carry out offensive tasks. That's what
17 we are good at. Don't make us hold defence lines. We
18 are special units, and we haven't got the time or
19 conditions to dwell on such matters of lesser
20 importance." That's the way it was in the BH army, in
21 the army of Republika Srpska, and in the HVO.
22 We can see from the reports that can be seen
23 now, most citations during the war were received by
24 these units. This can be seen in practice from
25 reports, and this was also publicised in the media.
1Also, when the anniversaries of these units were
2 commemorated, it was usually the military police and
3 reconnaissance units that were highly commended, that
4 received citations. That's what it was like in
5 practice, although they did carry out defence tasks too
6 when it was absolutely necessary and when there was no
7 other way out, but this was very seldom.
8 Q. Now, in the course of your preparation for --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 MR. BLAXILL: I'm sorry.
11 Q. In the course of your preparation for today,
12 did you look at a number of documents that were shown
13 to you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you have in your possession a copy of the
16 statement which you gave and copies of the documents
17 attached to it?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. I would like, at this stage, if I may, to
20 draw your attention to documents that start with one
21 marked AD8.
22 MR. BLAXILL: At this stage these are
23 non-contentious, Your Honours, because they are
24 exhibits in the trial. They've been admitted in
1JUDGE CASSESE: We're wondering whether we
2 should move into a closed session if these are
3 documents which were discussed in closed session.
4 MR. BLAXILL: I don't know that any of these
5 orders actually -- we don't believe they were, because
6 they, I think, have been discussed in open court,
7 these. They refer to nobody in there who's a witness
8 in the case or anything of that nature, that's for
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Counsel Pavkovic?
11 MR. PAVKOVIC: These documents -- thank you,
12 Mr. President. These documents that the Prosecutor is
13 looking at now were admitted as Defence exhibits during
14 the closed sessions, during the testimony of one of the
15 accused here. This was on the 14th of July this year.
16 This was in closed session. And the Defence counsel
17 for this person, this accused person, were here, and
18 that is when these documents were admitted.
19 That is what I had cautioned against, that
20 these documents were secret documents as well, and that
21 they should not have been revealed to the witness. I
22 don't see what the point of this manoeuvring is right
24 JUDGE CASSESE: We have already ruled on that
25 particular point. The question now is whether these
1documents were discussed in open or closed session.
2 MR. BLAXILL: It's my understanding that, in
3 fact, there has been some sensitivity as to portions of
4 the document in relation to another trial, I think to
5 do with the references or something in that document.
6 I don't want to say more.
7 That being said, I don't know if out of an
8 abundance of caution we could just at least treat this
9 as perhaps a private session, and then we can't
10 possibly make a mistake.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Let's move into a private
12 session, yes.
13 MR. BLAXILL: Thank you.
14 [Private session]
13 pages 12160-12175 redacted private session
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
18 1.15 p.m. to be reconvened on Wednesday,
19 the 29th day of September, 1999 at
20 9.00 a.m.