1 Thursday, 12 July 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
12 And meanwhile I'll deal with, to start with, two matters. The
13 first, scheduling.
14 Mr. Groome, you have made a suggestion by e-mail, that is, that
15 Mr. Harland returns before he finishes his examination -- concludes his
16 examination -- concludes now, in view of a possible re-call in the
17 future. The Chamber does not agree with you and the Chamber would like
18 to -- most likely will not be able to conclude Mr. Harland's testimony
19 today. It would be preferred by the Chamber then to finish it tomorrow
20 morning. We may even have some time between 9.00 and 10.30 before the
21 next witness arrives and that might be the time we need. And that brings
22 me to my -- of course we have to check, but we expect Mr. Harland to be
23 available until he concludes his testimony.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lukic, the Chamber has carefully
1 considered the way in which you conducted your cross-examination and the
2 Chamber has considered what was in dispute, what was most likely not in
3 dispute, that could be reasonably expected to be in dispute. The Chamber
4 has considered relevance. The Chamber has considered the way in which
5 you sometimes elicited opinion evidence without focusing on the facts
6 first. Taken all together, the Chamber considers that you have -- has
7 decided that you have today to conclude your cross-examination, so you
8 should finish your cross-examination today. That is our ruling.
9 I see Mr. Harland has arrived in the courtroom.
10 [The witness takes the stand]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Harland. Please be seated.
12 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you're still bound
14 by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your
16 WITNESS: DAVID HARLAND [Resumed]
17 JUDGE ORIE: And I'd further like to inform you that a suggestion
18 which was raised by Mr. Groome, that is, that you could conclude today
19 and then perhaps later return, that the Chamber does not agree with that
20 and that the Chamber would prefer you to conclude your examination, most
21 likely not today but then tomorrow morning most likely. We even had
22 considered to make an extended session today, but unfortunately due to
23 the agendas of the Judges that's not impossible. Just to let you know we
24 would like to accommodate you to returning to your place of origin today.
25 But I don't know what you have discussed with Mr. Groome in this respect
1 about availability.
2 Mr. Groome, I see you're on your feet.
3 MR. GROOME: I think the Chamber misapprehends my application.
4 Mr. Harland hasn't asked for anything. It was simply to ensure that
5 General Dannatt was able to commence his testimony tomorrow.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Apparently you are playing an unknown role in a
7 discussion about scheduling, but we expect that your examination and
8 re-examination can be concluded tomorrow morning.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Lukic, if you're ready please proceed.
11 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Harland.
15 A. Good morning.
16 Q. We can continue.
17 A. Sure.
18 Q. Can you open paragraph 102 in your statement.
19 MR. LUKIC: Can somebody provide the statement to Mr. Harland,
21 THE WITNESS: Sure.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. We're in April 1994 as we deal with paragraph 102 of your
24 statement, and you say the year before Gorazde, together with Srebrenica,
25 Zepa, and other areas, had been declared a safe area. By April the
1 attack was underway. UNPROFOR was intensely involved in related
2 cease-fire negotiations. You, yourself, mentioned the demilitarisation
3 agreement from the 8th of May, 1993, in relation to Srebrenica and Zepa.
4 Let me just ask you this: Yesterday you expressed some doubts in terms
5 of whether UNPROFOR was supposed to deal with disarmament or not. In
6 Article 3 of this agreement that was signed by General Ratko Mladic and
7 Sefer Halilovic, his counterpart, in Article 3 it says:
8 [In English] "Every military or paramilitary unit will have
9 either to withdraw from the demilitarised zone or submit over their
10 weapons, ammunitions, mines, explosives, and combat supplies in the
11 demilitarised zones and will be handed over to UNPROFOR."
12 [Interpretation] Article 5 says:
13 [In English] "Non-combatants who are in or who are willing to
14 enter the demilitarised zone except members of UNPROFOR are not permitted
15 to have in their possession any weapon, ammunition, or explosives.
16 Weapons, ammunition, and explosives in their possession shall be seized
17 by UNPROFOR."
18 [Interpretation] Can you tell me today how much was done on the
19 basis of this agreement?
20 A. I think there's a confusion. I think - I'm not sure 20 years
21 later - but I think you are quoting from the Srebrenica demilitarisation
23 Q. [In English] Yes.
24 A. But here we raised the subject of Gorazde. I think Gorazde was
25 not at that time covered by an agreement like that. So in Gorazde no
1 action, not even a protest, would take place by UNPROFOR.
2 Q. [Interpretation] In Srebrenica at the time?
3 A. Yes, in Srebrenica the presence of forces would be protested and
4 the Bosnians had given a small amount of weapons, about 300 I think,
5 which were generally very poor weapons and they had held onto the
6 majority of weapons and they kept them deployed on the confrontation
7 lines. But that was separate from different legal regime from Gorazde.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, since Gorazde had a different legal regime, as
9 you said, nevertheless, it still had been declared a safe area. Was it
10 believed that international instruments for safe areas were supposed to
11 be applied in relation to Gorazde as well as far as demilitarisation was
13 A. No. It was not -- it's not my recollection that the
14 Security Council required a demilitarisation of any of the safe areas.
15 The only reason the subject came up with Srebrenica and Zepa is because
16 there was -- independent of the Security Council Resolution, there was an
17 agreement between the parties, between Mladic and Halilovic witnessed by
18 Valgren, I think the same one that you quoted, sir.
19 Q. Thank you. Is it also correct that as far as the defence of
20 Gorazde was concerned in April of 1994, NATO air force was used against
21 Serb positions?
22 A. Yes, not very successfully.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Was there any dispute, Mr. Groome, about whether
24 NATO air force was used against Serb positions in that period of time?
25 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Who asked for the use of NATO air force?
4 A. There were two separate ways of using NATO air attacks by
5 UNPROFOR, the so-called close air support and the so-called air-strikes.
6 If I remember correctly, these very minor air attacks in 1994 were under
7 the close air support regime. So that would have meant that there was a
8 request from a unit, an UNPROFOR unit, under attack, which would have
9 sought authority from General Rose, who would have needed Mr. Akashi, the
10 SRSG, and then it would have been authorised. It was a simpler, shorter
11 mechanism for the close air support.
12 Q. Is it also correct that General Rose had asked on three other
13 occasions to have NATO air force used again, but that Mr. Akashi refused
15 A. General Rose was, in general, not in favour of the use of air
16 power against the Bosnian Serb forces, and he in fact raised the
17 possibility of the use of NATO air attacks against the other parties.
18 But it's possible that if there had been some particularly direct
19 incident where he needed to extract his forces that he might have
20 requested and it might have been rejected by Akashi. I have to say I
21 can't remember at this distance.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we have document 65 ter -- [In
23 English] It's actually 1D59.
24 Q. [Interpretation] This is your report dated the
25 16th of April, 1994; right?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We need page 2, paragraph 3 from the
3 top of that page.
4 Q. This is what it says:
5 "BH Commander Rose made three requests for close air support but
6 these were rejected by the special representative of the
7 Secretary-General, Akashi, who was in Pale at the time negotiating with
8 the Serb leadership when the big Serb advance or offensive occurred."
9 Do you remember now that this is what you had reported.
10 A. Yes, I was at this meeting. I believe that what happened is we
11 were coming up as a delegation together from Sarajevo when the
12 incident -- an incident took place in -- or near Gorazde, which in fact I
13 think involved some of General Rose's special forces, the so-called joint
14 commission officers, near Gorazde. He thought that air attacks might be
15 necessary, so he returned to Sarajevo and I continued with Akashi to
16 Pale. And I know that, in general, Mr. Akashi was reluctant to authorise
17 the air attacks, and in this particular case felt that a cease-fire was
18 within reach. Exactly what requests were made by whom, where, I don't
19 know. But I do recall I think that the result was a NATO airplane got
20 shot down.
21 Q. Your memory serves you well. Would you agree with me that
22 members of UNPROFOR provided information for NATO air-strikes, attacks?
23 A. Oh, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, there's no need to tell the witness that
25 what he said is correct or not; that is giving evidence rather than
1 asking questions. Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Did you think that because of providing
4 information for NATO air-strikes, members of UNPROFOR sided with one
5 side, thereby becoming a legitimate target themselves?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, that seems to ask for a legal
8 conclusion about the status of UNPROFOR that I'm not sure Mr. Harland is
9 qualified to make.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: The gentleman already explained that they were
12 concerned about it, had it in mind every time when they called for air
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, when they were concerned at the time, that is a
15 fact, you are concerned or you are not. You can tell someone whether you
16 are concerned or not. Whether now his opinion today is whether they --
17 from a legal point of view they were at risk by siding to become targets,
18 that is a legal opinion you are seeking. If you would like to know of
19 course you could ask the witness whether they considered at that time
20 whether this would result in being targeted. There are other ways of
21 finding the same information, but Mr. Groome is right, at this moment --
22 MR. LUKIC: I will --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- you are eliciting legal opinion. So please --
24 MR. LUKIC: I will withdraw that question.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- rephrase your question. Please proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thanks [Interpretation] Could we now have document
2 1D61 in e-court, please.
3 Q. As you can see, this was sent as an order of the president of
4 Republika Srpska, and it says in the first paragraph:
5 [In English] "... will be received, an order from the president
6 of Republika Srpska, highly confidential, number ...
7 April the 20th, 1994, the title -- content of which is as follows ..."
8 [Interpretation] And now we see that the president of the
9 republic is issuing an order:
10 [In English] "With reference to the complexity of the
11 military/political situation and the urgency of achieving certain
12 objectives and establishing an immediate influence" --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Can we move on to the --
14 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] "... of the front line.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- a little further down on the English version on
16 the second page, yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: My apologies to interrupt, Mr. Lukic --
19 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- but we didn't have the right page --
21 MR. LUKIC: We need the first page first.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We need the first page, but I think we asked for the
23 first page but a little bit further down.
24 MR. LUKIC: From number 1 [overlapping speakers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, then that was not visible on our screens a
1 second ago. Please proceed.
2 MR. LUKIC: And further, the president said:
3 "... I have decided that, until further notice, the decision on
4 the use of the Corps and other formations in combat can only be approved
5 after I gave my approval to it."
6 And then the paragraph number 2 on the second page:
7 "I hereby forbid all levels of command to change the approved
8 decisions on the use of units in combat activities without my approval."
9 And under number 4:
10 "I hereby forbid all levels of command to implement any
11 amendments that approved decisions and issued orders without my
13 Q. [Interpretation] When you were out in the field, did you see in
14 practice that President Karadzic had operative command over the units of
15 the Army of Republika Srpska?
16 A. Not really. When we were in the field, the subordinate military
17 officers would refer to the command of General Mladic. But when we were
18 in Pale -- I think this was written, actually, on the 20th of April when
19 we were also in Pale with Dr. Karadzic, I think our assessment was that
20 there might have been some difference of view between Dr. Karadzic and
21 General Mladic on this subject.
22 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to move on to paragraph 129. We need,
23 in e-court that is, 65 ter number 10030.
24 [Microphone not activated]
25 This is an agreement on the elimination of sniper shooters in the
1 Sarajevo area; right?
2 [In English] "Recognising that civilians from all communities as
3 well as UN personnel continue to be targets of sniper attacks in Sarajevo
5 [Interpretation] This agreement did not establish whose troops
6 were carrying out the attacks. The important thing was simply to stop
7 the sniping; right?
8 A. Correct.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Mr. Lukic, what was on our screen was the cover
10 page, not the agreement itself. You quoted from which --
11 MR. LUKIC: I don't know if we have the same -- now I --
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's a -- it is a -- what is now on our screen is
13 the cover page of a document which --
14 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I need the first.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- consists of four pages; and second page is a
16 message; third page -- I think that in this document only on page 4 we
17 find the agreement on elimination of sniping activities in Sarajevo
18 region. There we have it. You were quoting from there, Mr. Lukic?
19 MR. LUKIC: I'm quoting from the first page I have. It's
20 actually -- probably what we have on our screen is the cover page.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, what we have is the cover page of a four-page
22 document where on the fourth page, and perhaps we could look at it at
23 this very moment, that seems to be an agreement.
24 MR. LUKIC: Agreement.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And apparently this is -- was this uploaded by you
1 or was it uploaded by the Prosecution?
2 MR. LUKIC: Can we have the second page, please.
3 MR. GROOME: It is a Prosecution exhibit, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. GROOME: It's also an associated exhibit to the statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Second page on the top most immediate. Yes,
7 there we are.
8 Mr. Lukic, please proceed. Is this what you needed?
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we take a look at page 2,
11 JUDGE ORIE: We have page 2 on our screen in English.
12 MR. LUKIC: Then page 3.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then page 3. In English page 3 is paragraphs 4 and,
14 surprisingly 6 instead of 5. Is this what you -- Mr. Lukic --
15 MR. LUKIC: I will --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- I suggest that you find it in the next break --
17 MR. LUKIC: I will move on.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would now move to paragraph 135,
21 Q. We are in September 1994. Again, you say:
22 "Karadzic began the meeting with an angry statement about the
23 attack out of Sarajevo."
24 This attack by Muslim forces came after UNPROFOR made the Serbs
25 withdraw their weapons from the environs of Sarajevo; correct?
1 A. Yes. The Serbs hadn't withdrawn all of their weapons, but it was
2 certainly long after the April ultimatum where they cantoned most of
3 their weapons or moved them to other areas.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse me, Mr. Harland. I thought I heard you
5 say, and you are recorded as having said: The Serbs had not, "hadn't."
6 THE WITNESS: That's correct. They hadn't -- they had not
7 removed -- they had not removed all of their weapons from the total
8 exclusion zone.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: So you're not agreeing with the proposition put to
10 you? The proposition put to you is that the Serbs had indeed removed
11 their weapons.
12 THE WITNESS: I was agreeing with the proposition that it took
13 place after the requirement that they do so, but I was objecting, as a
14 matter of fact, as to whether they had fully done so. But the question
15 was really about timing, right, and I agreed that it was after the April
16 ultimatum and agreement, when, in theory, the sides were meant to have
17 removed their heavy weapons or put them in collection points.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I'm losing you. Because now you're putting
19 your timing based on agreement; he's putting the timing based on actual
20 activity on the ground. Did you -- did the attack place after the Serbs
21 had already removed their weapons? That's the question put to you.
22 THE WITNESS: And my difficulty is that they partially removed
23 their weapons in April and this event took place after that partial
24 relocation of weapons.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. This partial removal, was it largely removed? You say it was not
4 fully. Do you have any information whether it was 10 per cent removed,
5 50 per cent removed, or more?
6 A. As I remember, the Serb and Bosnian sides were different because
7 the Serb side, their heavy weapons were then in three categories. There
8 were the category of weapons that were removed from the Sarajevo
9 20-kilometre zone in full compliance; there were the weapons that were
10 placed into collection points within the 20-kilometre exclusion zone in
11 compliance; and the weapons that were not in compliance that were left in
12 combat positions within them. And if I remember correctly, the UNMO
13 assessment of the time was that the majority of the heavy weapons were in
14 the first two categories, so the -- they had more than 50 per cent
16 Q. Thank you. Did that weaken Serb positions?
17 A. Well, yes, I believe it probably did.
18 Q. At that time was the Muslim side asked to commit to anything or
19 was it the case, as it usually was, that they were not required to do
20 anything when that agreement was made?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, "as it usually was" is comment and
22 testimony rather than question.
23 Could you answer the question, Mr. Harland?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, there were obligations that fell to the
25 Bosnian side. They didn't have the option of removing weapons from the
1 20-kilometre zone because they couldn't get heavy weapons out of the
2 city, but they were obliged also to put their weapons, heavy weapons, in
3 a cantonment area and they -- like the Serbs, they partially complied.
4 And I -- as with the Serb weapons collections points, I visited them.
5 The main one was in Tito Barracks, I think.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In your view what was the purpose of weapon collection? Could it
8 have been cessation of hostilities?
9 A. It was part of a plan -- actually, I think a flawed plan, but an
10 UNPROFOR plan of General Rose to try to bring about an end to the war by
11 first almost imposing a cease-fire, and then using that cease-fire to
12 allow for peace talks to take place. So, yes, it was part of a strategy,
13 a campaign plan, but -- and ultimately unsuccessful [Realtime transcript
14 read in error "successful"] one.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I ask you for a clarification. You said
17 "ultimately unsuccessful" or "successful"?
18 THE WITNESS: Ultimately unsuccessful. I think that the view of
19 many was that a sequenced approach, first a cease-fire then talks, would
20 never produce a result because it would leave the Serbs controlling all
21 of the land.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. It was only for the record
23 because it was recorded incorrectly. Thank you.
24 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to move to paragraph 146.
1 Q. We're in October 1994. You say UNPROFOR had made plans to supply
2 enclaves by force. What did that entail, briefly, if you can?
3 A. The plan was first to seek the agreement of the Serbs to allow
4 humanitarian aid through. If that did not succeed, to escalate one step
5 which would be to force road convoys through or to drop humanitarian
6 assistance from the air. And in a final stage, if those measures did not
7 succeed, to use a major package of force, including helicopters, to
8 attempt to resupply the three isolated eastern enclaves.
9 Q. Although Gorazde, too, had been proclaimed a protected area, do
10 you know that in the area surrounding Gorazde in the attacks launched by
11 the fighters of the BH army, 60 villages were destroyed, Serb villages?
12 A. I know that there was fighting in the vicinity of Gorazde at
13 various points, but how many villages and at which points I can no longer
14 precisely recall.
15 Q. At the time did you deal with that? Did you write that in any of
16 your reports?
17 A. I can't recall.
18 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 147, the next one, you again emphasise
19 that there were restrictions on access to the enclaves for the UNPROFOR,
20 and you say it was the policy of the Serbian military and political
21 leadership. However, at the time, this same time, October 1994, NATO
22 regularly struck Serb positions, both around Sarajevo and in other parts
23 of Bosnia, such as Bihac and Gorazde. First of all, is this true? Do
24 you remember?
25 A. "Regularly" is a big word. Maybe -- but on less than -- between
1 maybe five and ten occasions there were air attacks.
2 Q. Do you believe today that those air-strikes, among other things,
3 made the movement of convoys impossible? In other words, were convoys
4 sent to areas that were subject to air-strikes?
5 A. In general the air attacks -- strictly speaking in UN terminology
6 they were not air-strikes, they were close air support. Those air
7 attacks would normally take place when a convoy was blocked or it was
8 attacked. So the cause and effect are the other way around. UNPROFOR
9 simply wanted to allow humanitarian assistance to reach the eastern
10 enclaves and to fulfil its mandate to deter attacks on them. When the
11 Serbs would either block the convoys or would attack the enclaves, then
12 sometimes air power would be used against them, but it was that way
14 Q. Is it true that NATO aircraft automatically fired rockets if
15 Serbs turned on radars or fired at planes?
16 A. Yes, that was considered a hostile act under the terms of the
17 Security Council Resolution declaring a no-fly zone over
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina, over the ...
19 Q. Did that also lead to the increased number of air attacks, NATO
20 air attacks, on Serb positions?
21 A. No, I don't think so. And, in general, I can say that the policy
22 of General Rose and Mr. Akashi were of maximum restraint in the use of
23 air attacks. In my view at the time, in fact, they used them much less
24 than the mandate of UNPROFOR might have indicated, and it was only during
25 the later period under General Smith that a fuller [Realtime transcript
1 read in error "full"] use of air attacks was used.
2 Q. Thank you. Now please could we move to paragraph 156 --
3 JUDGE ORIE: One second, Mr. Lukic.
4 Did you say:
5 "It was only in the later period under General Smith that a full"
6 or "a fuller use of air attacks was used"?
7 THE WITNESS: Fuller, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Fuller with e-r.
9 Yes, please proceed.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Here you say that the deputy commander of the
12 Serb army, Milan Gvero, told General Rose that the Sarajevo airport
13 cannot be reopened until Serbs receive written guarantees from the
14 United Nations that NATO aircraft would not strike Serb targets without
15 the approval of the Security Council. Is it true that at that time NATO
16 aircraft were already attacking Serb positions without the approval of
17 the Security Council?
18 A. The limited number of air attacks that took place did not require
19 the authorisation of the Security Council, that's correct.
20 Q. Who made that decision, the Security Council or NATO itself, if
21 you know?
22 A. The United Nations Secretariat made an agreement with the
23 NATO Secretariat on the arrangements that would govern it. So if I
24 remember correctly, it -- Security Council Resolution 836 from 1993
25 authorises the use of all necessary means, including NATO air power,
1 to -- in defence of the UNPROFOR mandate. And after that, the
2 UN Secretariat and NATO Secretariat agreed on the so-called Blue Sword
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now call up in e-court
7 Q. You see the document. You mention it in this paragraph of your
8 statement. You have reviewed the document, haven't you? It's your
9 report dated 10 December 1994.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On page 2, paragraph 2 -- sorry, page 3 reads:
12 [In English] "By Saturday morning, all of the UNPROFOR detainees
13 had been released, and some convoys were moving again, though there were
14 still no fuel convoys. The airport remained closed."
15 [Interpretation] We see that all members of the UNPROFOR were
16 released. Is it the case that none of them had been hurt or killed?
17 A. I believe so.
18 Q. Thank you. The next paragraph of your report, the last
19 sentence --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Was there any dispute, Mr. Groome, about whether
21 anyone was killed?
22 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, it seems -- well, if I can point at many
24 issues where it could be clearly expected that the matter is not in
25 dispute, then I'm almost certain that you would be even better able to
1 assess that. And I think if on a few of these items you've asked
2 Mr. Groome: Is there any dispute about that that no one was killed, you
3 would have -- I mean, if Mr. Groome does not present such facts, then
4 they are non-existent for the Chamber. If Mr. Groome doesn't say: And
5 people were killed, then of course you would have to counter that if you
6 disagree with him. But if Mr. Groome says people were detained and were
7 released, then on the basis of such a presentation of facts this
8 Chamber - and I think I'm speaking on behalf of my colleagues - would not
9 out of the blue start to imagine that they may have been killed. So,
10 please, could you keep this in the back of your mind as guidance for your
11 cross-examination. Please proceed.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you for your guidance, Your Honour, but this
13 witness is one of a kind, so we have to elicit this information from him.
14 If we miss this [Overlapping speakers] --
15 JUDGE ORIE: If there's no dispute about a fact, you don't have
16 to elicit it from any witness. That's what my -- I tried to explain. If
17 Mr. Groome says: UN people were detained in February - I just give an
18 example - that if he leaves it to that, you don't have to establish that
19 they were not killed. If he doesn't say anymore, you don't have to
20 establish that they were malnourished, you don't have to establish that
21 they were -- that their uniforms were taken from them. If Mr. Groome
22 establishes one fact, the Chamber will rely on that fact and will not
23 start thinking what may have happened beyond of that. So you are
24 countering matters which are not part of the Prosecution's case, are not
25 in dispute. And that is if something is not in dispute, then of course
1 the Chamber is not impressed very much by the results of the negotiations
2 on agreed facts. But if you would have asked Mr. Groome: Is it the
3 Prosecution's case or -- that those detained, that some of them were
4 killed. And if he says no, then you could agree that those detained were
5 released and that none of them were killed. It is not a matter in
6 dispute. This Chamber would like to hear evidence focusing on matters
7 where the parties disagree on factual issues.
8 Would you -- you may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I just have to stress one
10 thing. You know that we are rushed to this trial. We haven't seen all
11 the evidence. We didn't have time to see all the statements, so I don't
12 know what's coming in the future. If I have the witness which whom I can
13 clarify one thing, I will clarify it. And as of today's date --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
15 MR. LUKIC: -- I have the right to elicit the evidence the way I
16 think is the most proper for my client.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, this Chamber will keep in mind that if
18 you are eliciting evidence on matters which could reasonably be expected
19 not to be in dispute, you can verify that. You can ask Mr. Groome, as I
20 did three, four, five times, no, no dispute about that. Then the Chamber
21 will certainly consider this in the way in which it allows time for
22 cross-examination. Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Harland, could we now look at the last
25 sentence in the next paragraph which says that US and French officials
1 stressed, or rather, have noted that UNPROFOR's departure --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, what are you reading? What is the next
3 paragraph? Next paragraph of what?
4 MR. LUKIC: The statement we have already seen.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, the next paragraph is deleted -- is
7 MR. LUKIC: No, no, not from the statement, from this document we
8 have on our screens --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
10 MR. LUKIC: Starting with "many Serbs ..." but I'm interested in
11 the last sentence --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much.
13 MR. LUKIC: It seems that General Mladic is not feeling well,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we should take a break and I think that the
16 medical services should be called to assist.
17 Can Mr. Mladic leave the courtroom or should he be treated?
18 We adjourn - curtains please down - and the witness, Mr. Harland,
19 could be escorted out of the courtroom.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.
21 [The accused not present]
22 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: We resume the proceedings at this moment.
24 Mr. Mladic has expressed concerns about his medical condition.
25 He has been preliminarily seen by a nurse. A determination was made that
1 he be further examined. The Chamber is unable to determine when
2 Mr. Mladic will be able to attend court, and therefore the proceedings
3 are adjourned for today.
4 We will resume tomorrow, Friday, the 13th of July, and that we'll
5 then either resume the cross-examination of you, Mr. Harland, or we'll
6 further review the situation which then exists. Therefore, I'd like to
7 instruct you, Mr. Harland, to - and I can imagine that it is a bit
8 unexpected -- but that you not speak or communicate with anyone about
9 your testimony either given or still to be given, and that you be back
10 tomorrow at 9.00.
11 The Registry is instructed to file confidentially a report on the
12 results of the further examination, and if that could not be filed today
13 then already sent as soon as it is available a courtesy copy to Chambers
14 staff and to the parties.
15 Mr. Groome, there's no need for the next witness to travel to be
16 here tomorrow because his testimony would not start tomorrow anyhow.
17 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. He'll appreciate being
18 informed of that and I will do that as soon as we leave court.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
20 If there was any matter to be raised, it can be done now;
21 otherwise, we will adjourn for the day. Nothing there. Then we adjourn
22 and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday, the 13th of July, at 9.00 in the
23 morning in this same courtroom, I.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.09 a.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Friday, the 13th day of
1 July, 2012, at 9.00 a.m.