1 Wednesday, 10 October 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 11.04 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Before we'll start the administratively hearing on scheduling,
11 there are a few procedural matters I would like to deal with. First,
12 also about scheduling: Following the submissions by the parties in court
13 yesterday with regard to the scheduling after the winter recess, the
14 Chamber informs the parties that it will not be sitting on the 7th, the
15 8th, and the 9th of January, 2013, thereby including the day of
16 Orthodox Christmas on the 7th of January. As of the 10th of January,
17 2013, the Chamber will sit as usual, following the normal pattern.
18 We are still exploring the possibility if that is of any use to
19 the Defence, perhaps early arrival, whether on the 10th there would be a
20 possibility to move to the afternoon session. But if it does not
21 accommodate the Defence, we'd like to know because then we'd stick to the
22 usual schedule.
23 Second, admission of associated exhibits tendered through
24 Witness Tucker. The Chamber has received a revised list of associated
25 exhibits. The Prosecution wants to tender -- the exhibits the
1 Prosecution wants to tender following the end of yesterday's testimony of
2 Witness Tucker. The Chamber will consider the Prosecution's request in
3 light of its guidance and issue a decision after the two-week break. In
4 this respect, the Chamber draws the parties' attention to transcript
5 page 320, where it elaborated on the tendering of associated exhibits.
6 If the Prosecution has any further submissions on this matter, the
7 Chamber would like to receive them in writing by close of business
8 tomorrow. The Defence should then respond by Monday, close of business.
9 And just to clarify, the Chamber has invited the Defence not to
10 unnecessarily invoke the guidance when responding to 92 ter motions. The
11 mere fact, therefore, that there was no objection to the number of
12 associated exhibits is in itself not a reason for the Chamber then to
13 automatically admit them. I leave it to that.
14 Then the next item on my list is pace of filing of 92 bis or
15 92 quater motions. On the 28th of September, 2012, Mr. Groome, you made
16 a submission about increasing the pace of the filing of Rule 92 bis
17 motions. The Chamber has previously indicated that these motions should
18 be filed at least two or three weeks apart. Could the Prosecution please
19 indicate what schedule it would prefer in order to have all its 92 bis
20 and quater motions filed in a reasonable time before the close of its
21 case. I ...
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, in essence, what the Prosecution was
23 seeking to do was permission to file them as they are completed by us,
24 recognising that it may -- doing it in that way may impose a burden on
25 the Defence, but that we would have a standing position that we would not
1 object to any application by the Defence seeking time under Rule 127 for
2 additional time outside of the two weeks. It was the Prosecution's
3 position - and it still remains that - that the sooner they are all
4 before the Chamber and all before the Defence, a schedule could be
5 developed for the Defence to respond. We believe that if the Chamber
6 allows us to do it in this way and if the Chamber agrees that we can hold
7 in abeyance the 29 witnesses that we gave notice of last week as well as
8 the 19 witnesses that may -- we may not call depending on the decision of
9 the Chamber on the bar table motion, we believe we could complete that
10 process by the end of January/the beginning of February 2013.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will consider it whether we would still
12 expect the Prosecution to do it piece by piece or let's say small series
13 by small series, or whether we would accept your submission.
14 Has the Defence any specific position in relation to what
15 Mr. Groome just said?
16 Mr. Stojanovic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. We stand by
18 our earlier position. In view of the fact that we have to respond to two
19 92 bis motions already, we'd like to put it all in one filing.
20 JUDGE ORIE: What do you mean exactly by "put it all in one
21 filing"? What Mr. Groome suggests is that for responses to 92 bis
22 motions, that additional time would be given for you to respond. But you
23 now say that you respond in -- to put it all in one filing. Do you mean
24 the Prosecution to put it all in one filing? Or the responses to be put
25 in one filing? It's not clear, to me at least.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as we announced in
2 our discussions with the Prosecution, we will ask for an extension of
3 limit for our response to the two motions, and as far as I understand
4 there will be other motions coming in view of the Prosecution's intention
5 to include witnesses under 92 -- rather, 92 bis witnesses, to include
6 them as 92 ter. So we would like to compile it all in one.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, it's still not entirely clear to the
9 Chamber, but if you intend to say that you'd rather give one response
10 after you'd receive all of the 92 bis filings and then of course have
11 sufficient time for that, then the Chamber might not be that happy with
12 it because we have to proceed as well. I mean, if you would respond,
13 even if you take some additional time, if we would receive that response
14 we could then decide. But if we would wait until all the 92 bis motions
15 being filed and then to wait for a response for all of them in one
16 filing, that would be -- that would impede our proceedings. Yes.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We understand, Your Honour, and
18 that would exactly be our goal. According to the information we have,
19 responses to five motions have already been provided. We are yet to
20 provide two responses and we are prepared to respond to the future
21 motions filed by the Prosecution. Of course -- so we know at some point
22 where the whole process will end. Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think that the Chamber would be assisted if
24 the Defence would indicate once it has received another 92 bis motion
25 when the Defence thinks it could respond to that one, and of course you
1 then take into account what the -- what the still outstanding portion of
2 92 bis motions is. That is accepted. I saw that there was nodding yes
3 from the Defence side.
4 Then a few very smaller matters. I think the record does -- is
5 not clear on whether D74 has been admitted. I hereby put on the record
6 that D74 is admitted into evidence.
7 In relation to Witness RM145, on the 27th of September the
8 Chamber invited the Defence in court to make written submissions in
9 relation to the MFI's P257 and P258. These were video-clips related to
10 events near Rajlovac. I take it that you have a recollection of that.
11 The Chamber did not receive any submissions. Can the Chamber interpret
12 this to mean that there are no further objections against admission of
13 D257 and D258 -- P, P257 and P258.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.
15 There are none.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P257 and P258 are admitted into evidence and I think
17 they should be under seal, but we'll verify that.
18 Madam Registrar, if you would assist the Chamber in this respect,
19 it would be appreciated.
20 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also addressing the Prosecution.
22 Madam Registrar tells us that they both were MFI'd as public exhibits.
23 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it's the Prosecution's position that
24 there's no need for them to be under seal.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then P257 and P258 are admitted as public exhibits.
1 A correction in relation to D72. When Exhibit D72 was admitted
2 into evidence, it was announced as 1D313, which was a mistake. It should
3 have been announced as 1D330. Now, since the e-court uploaded exhibit is
4 the one that was admitted as D72, this correction is hereby on the record
5 and there's no need for further action.
6 Next item, submissions on D20, the NIOD report. The Chamber is
7 still awaiting parties' submissions on D20, this report. When can we
8 expect them?
9 MR. GROOME: Mr. Vanderpuye's more familiar with this particular
10 exhibit. I'll ask him to address that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, when can the Chamber expect that?
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I've actually
13 communicated with the Defence and we've agreed on a position. I believe
14 it would be pages 1 through 3 of that document and that would suffice.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Pages 1, 2, and 3.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now what is uploaded in e-court as D20, that is
18 more than the first three pages, isn't it?
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think the entire chapter is loaded into
20 e-court right now. It's 14 pages, and we've agreed to tender -- or that
21 the first three should constitute the exhibit.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my understanding I think D20 was MFI'd or
23 was it already admitted?
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: I believe it was MFI'd pending an agreement with
25 the Defence and the Prosecution.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's my recollection as well, which means that
4 once being MFI'd the Registry needs the approval of the Chamber to
5 replace the earlier version by the three pages which now remain.
6 Madam Registrar, is that -- have you received a new version just
7 existing of three pages?
8 THE REGISTRAR: No, Your Honour, and currently we don't have
9 anything in e-court under that number so the number was just reserved.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Could then be uploaded in e-court the three
11 pages you just indicated the parties agreed upon as to be tendered under
12 number D20.
13 Once uploaded, D20, first three pages of the NIOD report is
14 admitted into evidence. When will it be uploaded, Mr. Vanderpuye or
15 Mr. Stojanovic? Yes, I think it's a D exhibit so it would be for the
16 Defence to do it.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. We
18 agreed that they would be three pages. We will do it by Friday.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's hereby on the record.
20 Then the next and the last item on my brief agenda are the Tadic
21 transcript references. On the 27th of September of this year, the
22 Defence used excerpts of Witness Selak's testimony in the Tadic case
23 which had been uploaded under 65 ter numbers 1D273 and 1D275. The
24 transcript pages indicated on these excerpts did not match the official
25 transcript pages. I hereby put on the record that the Defence informed
1 Chamber's staff that there had been a mistake, which has been rectified,
2 and that the correct excerpts have been uploaded under numbers 1D273A and
3 1D275A. No further action at this moment is required.
4 This was all on my agenda.
5 Mr. Groome, under number 9 it says "administrative hearing on
6 scheduling." Would you like to -- we still have some time. Would you
7 like to raise any matter in relation to scheduling?
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, with respect to scheduling, the
9 Prosecution on the 8th of October sent a draft to both Chamber staff and
10 the Defence regarding the proposed scheduling for weeks 14 to -- sorry,
11 weeks 11 to 14 which would take us up until the next adjournment and
12 cover four weeks. The Defence have very gratefully -- or the Prosecution
13 very much appreciates the estimates they've provided. We've taken that
14 into account when we scheduled. So there's not a lot to discuss at this
15 moment unless the Chamber after reviewing this document feels there
16 should be some adjustments and would request the Prosecution to bring in
17 witnesses prior to the time that they're now identified being available
18 to testify.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber will further look into the matter
20 but is now informed that there is no agreement between the parties on the
21 scheduling as proposed by the OTP. We'll further consider it, and if we
22 would have any problems I think we could inform the parties not any later
23 than this Friday.
24 MR. GROOME: Then, Your Honour, there are two other matters that
25 I'd like to raise.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, the Karadzic Defence case will begin
3 shortly, and the Prosecution has recently been able to access
4 Karadzic Defence exhibits as they are currently being uploaded and
5 released in the Karadzic e-court. We expect that this process will
6 continue throughout Mr. Karadzic's case. We also expect that over the
7 course of the Karadzic Defence case we may receive disclosures from him
8 in other ways as well. There are approximately 8.000 exhibits on the
9 Karadzic Defence exhibit list and a large number of witnesses who may
10 testify. I raise this as a concern for the following reasons.
11 First, there is a strong likelihood that given the nature of this
12 material that a high percentage, if not all of it, will be material that
13 the OTP must disclose under Rule 68.
14 Second, it is likely to be a large volume of material.
15 Third, the Karadzic Defence is commencing its case with a
16 presentation of evidence related to Sarajevo; so in effect, the
17 Prosecution in this case will be presenting its evidence related to
18 Sarajevo at the same time in another case, material requiring disclosure
19 is just becoming available to the Office of the Prosecutor to review and
20 evaluate for disclosure.
21 Obviously a process of the Office of the Prosecutor downloading
22 these large e-court disclosures, organising, cataloguing, and reviewing
23 this material would result in a delay of the Mladic Defence getting the
24 material at the time it is most useful to them. The Prosecution thereby
25 proposes to deal with this situation in the following way. I have spoken
1 to the Mladic Defence, they are in agreement with this proposal. Given
2 their agreement, I am not seeking any resolution of any issue at this
3 time, but given the unusual nature of the situation and the importance of
4 it, I believe it is prudent for the Chamber to be aware of the matter.
5 The proposed resolution, Your Honour, is as follows, that the
6 Prosecution has agreed to provide the Defence, the Defence has agreed to
7 receive, material provided to the OTP by the Karadzic Defence as soon as
8 we are able to copy it onto a hard drive. In essence, when we are able
9 to access the material through e-court, we will duplicate it for the
10 Mladic Defence. This will allow the Mladic Defence to have the material
11 in the shortest amount of time and will allow them to incorporate it into
12 their existing searchable library of disclosed materials. They will be
13 able to exploit the material as quickly as possible. We anticipate being
14 able to disclose approximately 6.000 of the Karadzic exhibits within the
15 next two weeks. There are approximately 1.000 documents which may
16 include material supplied by Rule 70 providers and we will have to take a
17 closer look at these documents to ensure that we have permission to
18 disclose them. Where we do not, we will undertake to get that
20 We will of course engage in a process of cataloguing and indexing
21 this material. When that process is completed, we will place all of the
22 material in a discrete, searchable index in the electronic disclosure
23 system under Rule 68(ii). Of course if during the process of working
24 with this material we encounter any material which places us in actual
25 knowledge of potentially exculpatory information, we will bring that to
1 the immediate attention of the Mladic Defence.
2 Your Honour, when I looked at this issue I considered what
3 relationship it might have to Mr. -- to a Defence access motion to the
4 Karadzic case. In doing so, I was informed that the Mladic Defence,
5 although it has sought access to many other Tribunal cases, has not
6 sought access to confidential material in the Karadzic case. Given the
7 parity that exists between the two cases, I wonder whether that is an
9 Your Honour, there is also the possibility that OTP staff may
10 interview Karadzic Defence witnesses prior to their testimony. It is
11 likely that any notes of these interviews would constitute material that
12 must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 68. We have implemented an OTP
13 protocol with the Karadzic Prosecution team to ensure that these notes
14 are provided to the Mladic Defence as quickly as possible. We will not
15 be subjecting them to an internal review process, but we will simply
16 disclose them given the high probability that they will contain material
17 which must be disclosed and given the importance of avoiding any delay in
18 the Mladic Defence receiving them. That concludes my submissions on that
19 particular topic, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 Mr. Stojanovic, I think Mr. Groome spoke more or less on behalf
22 of both Prosecution and Defence since he said you had agreed on it.
23 Anything to add?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honour. We spoke
25 about this yesterday with Mr. Groome, and I think that we agreed on that
1 point. One issue remains open. Did the Defence ask for access to these
2 documents in the Karadzic case? Well, we do believe that we have done so
3 and we are still conducting searches that we hope will prove that we have
4 done so.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Mr. Groome, disclosure of course in another case is only allowed
7 to the extent the material is not protected, confidential. Therefore, if
8 it's done then the possible obstacle against full disclosure, that is,
9 including confidential material - and I'm not talking about Rule 70
10 material - may be -- may have been addressed.
11 MR. GROOME: We'll be mindful of reviewing it for that purpose as
12 well, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. GROOME: And seek any appropriate orders that we need to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
16 Having dealt with this matter, the Chamber expresses its
17 appreciation for the parties to agree on how to proceed in this matter,
18 which is indeed a bit extraordinary.
19 Next point, Mr. Groome. You said you had two matters.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Chamber has expressed its
21 preference for bar table motions to be filed at a time later in the
22 Prosecution case. The Chamber did make exception with respect to one
23 case recognising the potential benefit of the Prosecution filing a bar
24 table motion regarding intercept evidence. And the Chamber agreed to
25 receive that application at an earlier time.
1 The Prosecution now wants to raise with the Chamber whether the
2 Chamber would consider receiving another class of bar table motions
3 earlier in the case. These bar table motions relate to some of the
4 upcoming expert witnesses. The benefits of this, in our submission,
5 would be that there would be a far clearer record of the expert's report
6 and testimony if matters related to the admission of some of the exhibits
7 the Prosecution intended to use and are incited in the report are
8 referenced by their P number rather than an ERN number. Similarly,
9 questioning in court could be done on the basis of P numbers instead of
10 65 ter numbers.
11 In the alternative, the Prosecution would seek leave to file an
12 application at least seeking that the documents an expert refers to be
13 marked for identification, and there once again allowing the examination
14 to proceed in a clearer, more efficient way. We would not do this for
15 all experts, only for those which we think doing so would be clearer --
16 would be a clearer and more efficient way of presenting our case. For
17 example, Dorothea Hanson is a Prosecution expert. Given the substance of
18 her report and her expected testimony, we believe that much of her
19 evidence may not be a matter of real dispute between the Prosecution and
20 the Mladic Defence. We therefore think in the case of her expert
21 evidence, it makes more sense to continue discussions with the Defence
22 and wait until after her testimony before making a decision regarding
23 what documents we should tender through a bar table motion. There are
24 other experts, however, who it's clear their expert evidence will be a
25 matter of great contention and we believe that it would assist the trial
1 process in resolving the admissibility issues of documents relied on by
2 those experts in advance of them appearing before the Chamber. Thank
3 you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
5 Is the Mladic Defence already in a position to respond to this
6 suggestion to the Chamber to review its position?
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow us that
8 possibility, we would like to have the time to express our views on this.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll consider it once we've received the
10 response by the Defence.
11 Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, and there's one small residual matter
13 regarding 65 ter 22719A. It is a video that arose during the evidence of
14 Mr. Crncalo. The Prosecution understood from transcript page 3309 that
15 the Defence wanted to review the material over the weekend and
16 communicate their position regarding it on the 1st of October. I've
17 asked Mr. Traldi to come to court today. If the Chamber considers it a
18 productive use of time to deal with that now, we are prepared to do so.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Is the Defence in a position to deal with 22719A?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I've just
22 consulted with my colleague who cross-examined Mr. Crncalo, and in
23 principle we are not going to oppose this, that is to say to have this
24 video-clip admitted into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you'll forgive me for not having
1 everything in my memory. Was it MFI'd already or --
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, it was not MFI'd --
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,
5 if I remember correctly, this is a document that the Trial Chamber asked
6 us to check. And if I'm not mistaken, it is a recording of a celebration
7 that took place elsewhere, as it were, in relation to this witness. So
8 it was not played in the courtroom. It was not tendered through the
9 witness. So this is a pending issue, if you will.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I think the Chamber raised the
12 matter, but in relation to evidence presented by the Defence. Therefore,
13 the Defence is invited to upload into e-court 22719A, if need be with
14 transcripts -- one second, please.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you wanted to use a different
17 number, which would then be 22719AA. Would you please upload that into
18 e-court and since it is -- it's done already. It was in relation to
19 evidence presented by the Defence. Do you intend to tender it now,
20 Mr. Stojanovic?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. At this point
22 in time, no.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Was that the material you said you would use with a
24 future witness -- just talking about numbers, I think it was a speech
25 delivered at a certain occasion by Mr. Seselj, if I'm not mistaken.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. We
2 think that that is it exactly, and this speech did affect the conduct of
3 this witness in a certain way. However, the Defence did not tender this,
4 the Defence did not put it on its list. After hearing this witness, we
5 made an effort to find this footage and to see what this was all about.
6 As far as we're concerned, we are not going to tender this into evidence.
7 However, we are not going to oppose any motion by the Prosecution, or
8 rather, if the Prosecution wish to tender it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
10 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour, and we would tender the material
11 into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. TRALDI: I'm prepared to address its authenticity and
14 relevance, but it seems as if there's no dispute in that respect.
15 JUDGE ORIE: There's no dispute about it. There's no objection
16 against it.
17 Madam Registrar, is there any text and are there transcripts
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, there is a cover sheet and two transcripts,
20 one B/C/S, one English.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 Then 22719AA will receive what P number? It's not on your 65 ter
23 list, Mr. Traldi, but in view of the developments its admission would
24 include here leave to add it to your 65 ter list.
25 Madam Registrar, it would receive number ... ?
1 THE REGISTRAR: Number P319, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: P319 is admitted into evidence, and it can be as a
3 public exhibit if I am well informed.
4 Any other matter?
5 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. That is all the matters that the
6 Prosecution wanted to raise. We thank you for giving us the time to do
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, any other matter from the Defence?
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Not at this point in time,
10 Your Honour. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break.
12 Is -- would it -- would the Prosecution be ready to call its next
13 witness at noon?
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break and we'll resume at 12.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 11.42 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.03 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, is the Prosecution ready to call its
19 next witness?
20 MS. BOLTON: We are, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
22 Meanwhile, Ms. Bolton, we received a confidential Prosecution
23 exhibits list. Second page, third from the top, 20799 I think is
24 uploaded with an A, although that's not yet reflected on this list,
25 intercepted telephone conversation. Two rows further down, 20805 appears
1 on the list with an A and should be without, as it is at this moment in
3 MS. BOLTON: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. That's hereby on the record.
6 Good morning, Mr. Wilson. Before you give evidence and could I
7 invite you to stand for a second. The Rules require that you make a
8 solemn declaration, of which the text is now handed out to you. I would
9 like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
10 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
11 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: JOHN WILSON
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Wilson.
14 Mr. Wilson, you'll first be examined by Ms. Bolton. Ms. Bolton
15 is counsel for the Prosecution, and you'll find her to your right.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honours. Does the Court or does my
18 friend have any objection to Mr. Wilson having a hard copy of his
19 consolidated statement?
20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think -- I usually do not intervene in
22 translation issues, but I heard "nee" and it was interpreted "yes."
23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise. It was barely
24 audible. It sounded like a yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But there's no objection, as I understand.
1 Could a copy be provided to the witness.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton.
4 MS. BOLTON: Thank you.
5 May I ask that 65 ter 28450 be brought up, please.
6 Examination by Ms. Bolton:
7 Q. We're on page 1 of that document, sir. Do you recognise this
9 A. Yes, I recognise the document.
10 Q. And is this a copy of the statement you provided to the Office of
11 the Prosecution on the 29th of March, 2009?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask in the English version only, please, to
14 turn to page 37 in e-court.
15 Q. And you'll see before you there sir, a signature. Whose
16 signature is that?
17 A. That is my signature.
18 Q. And have you had the chance recently to review your statement,
20 A. Yes, I have.
21 Q. And I understand there are a couple of corrections to be made?
22 A. There are.
23 Q. The first, as I understand it, is with respect to paragraph 76 of
24 the statement, where the - sorry - date on the first line should be the
25 29th of May, 1992, and not 1995?
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Secondly, paragraph 91, the phrase "the same day" should read
3 "the next day."
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And finally, in paragraph 95, I understand you actually drove
6 back from Belgrade to Sarajevo, not Zagreb; is that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And with those corrections, does your statement accurately and
9 fairly reflect the information you provided to the Office
10 of the Prosecutor in 2009?
11 A. It does.
12 Q. And if you were asked similar questions today to those that were
13 posed to you in 2009, would your answers be substantially the same?
14 A. They would.
15 Q. And now that you have taken a declaration of truthfulness, do you
16 affirm the truthfulness of your statement?
17 A. I do.
18 MS. BOLTON: I'd seek admission of the statement under
19 Rule 92 ter, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28450 becomes Exhibit P320,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 MS. BOLTON: With the Court's permission, Your Honour, may I read
25 a summary of the witness's evidence into court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
2 MS. BOLTON: General John Wilson has evidence to give in respect
3 of scheduled incident G1 before this Tribunal as well as a number of
4 other matters.
5 He retired from the Australian army in 1998 after 34 years of
6 service. From January to November of 1992, General Wilson served first
7 as the senior military liaison officer for the UNMLY and then as the
8 chief military officer for the UNMOs. From mid-November 1992 until
9 December 1993, General Wilson acted as the military advisor to the ICFY.
10 And General Wilson was awarded the conspicuous service cross for his
11 service in the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia.
12 He provides evidence about the deteriorating situation in
13 Sarajevo in March and April 1992, which culminated in the outbreak of
14 hostilities. He will also give evidence about beginning to receive
15 reports about ethnic cleansing by both the JNA and Serb militias,
16 particularly in Bijeljina, Zvornik, and the Drina valley, as well as
17 reports of the unlawful imprisonment of civilians in detention
18 facilities. And I anticipate he will give evidence to the effect that
19 he raised some of these issues with the Bosnian Serb leadership,
20 including General Mladic.
21 Between the 13th of May and the 24th of June, 1992,
22 General Wilson was in the city of Sarajevo regularly and he witnessed
23 frequent heavy bombardment of the city by the Bosnian Serb forces, which
24 he will describe in his evidence. General Wilson has indicated that he's
25 never seen such weight of fire used and particularly not against civilian
1 targets. And he will give evidence of his observations of the disparity
2 in terms of the Bosnian Serb forces and the Presidency forces in terms of
4 In May 1992, General Wilson was involved in negotiations
5 regarding the evacuation of JNA personnel from three barracks in
6 Sarajevo. And during two of those meetings, I anticipate he will testify
7 that General Mladic threatened to retaliate against the city of Sarajevo
8 if the evacuation of the barracks did not proceed to his satisfaction and
9 was not completed by May 28th. As indicated at the beginning, he will
10 give evidence about the massive bombardment of the city on the May 28th
11 to May 29th from Bosnian Serb artillery. And he will give evidence about
12 conversations he had following those events with representatives of the
13 Presidency and General Mladic, and particularly he will give evidence
14 about an audio-recording he was played which purported to be of
15 General Mladic directing the fire on May 28th and 29th.
16 That's the summary, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Bolton. Repeatedly you said that you
18 anticipated the witness would give evidence. Since his statement is in
19 evidence, there's nothing to expect anymore but rather what is already
21 MS. BOLTON: Sorry, Your Honour, force of habit.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you have any further questions to the
23 witness, please proceed.
24 MS. BOLTON: Thank you. I do have some clarifying questions.
25 Q. Good morning, General Wilson.
1 A. Good morning, Ms. Bolton.
2 Q. Your background is set out in considerable detail in your
3 statement, and so I have just a few questions for you. During the 35 --
4 or 34 years that you served with the Australian army, did you receive any
5 training in the use and different kinds of artillery?
6 A. Yes, I did. Initially during my four-year training to become an
7 officer, we spent some weeks learning how to be a gunner on the gun-line
8 and how to actually control the artillery on the gun-line. As I became
9 an officer we received progressive training throughout my whole career on
10 the employment of artillery, how it was to be targeted, its effect, the
11 different ways of using it, the different places that one should use
12 different types of artillery, and also in my military law training when
13 you could use artillery and when you couldn't use it as a legitimate
14 weapon of war.
15 Q. And have you ever had occasion to command artillery formations?
16 A. In my last command appointment immediately before I retired, I
17 had an artillery regiment under my command in my brigade. A regiment is
18 a unit of about 600 strong, 600 persons, with 12 artillery pieces in it.
19 Q. And what experience, if any, do you have with respect to the use
20 and deployment of snipers?
21 A. Every infantry battalion in the Australian army has a sniper
22 section. These are highly specialised riflemen with sophisticated
23 weapons. These soldiers are highly trained in concealment, in being able
24 to observe and approach targets without being seen themselves. And you'd
25 routinely expect them to be able to hit a target of a person size at a
1 thousand metres.
2 Q. Right. If I could just move on to paragraphs 5 and 6 of your
3 statement. You speak in those paragraphs about the fact that when you
4 were originally deployed to the former Yugoslavia you were part of the
5 United Nations Military Liaison Officers Mission in Yugoslavia. What was
6 the state of conflict at that time between the JNA and the Croatian armed
8 A. There was supposedly a cease-fire in effect from 1 January 1992,
9 which had been negotiated by Mr. Cyrus Vance. The role of our small
10 mission was to report to UN New York violations of that cease-fire, which
11 took place along the confrontation line between the JNA and the Croatian
12 forces, mainly in Croatia. At that time routinely between 2- and 300
13 violations were reported each day. These varied from perhaps one sniper
14 to several hundred rounds of artillery being fired into an urban area
15 within Croatia.
16 Q. Right. And I take it then that yourself and the other monitors
17 were actually physically located near the border between Yugoslavia --
18 sorry, between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia?
19 A. There were 75 observers or liaison officers in total, half on
20 each side of the line of confrontation, and they were deployed at the
21 corps headquarters level of each of the parties and that is some distance
22 behind the confrontation line. So they were not actually able to confirm
23 the violations of the cease-fire which was reported to them. That was
24 simply a post office.
25 Q. You weren't in the city of Sarajevo, I suppose, is my point.
1 A. No. The -- that mission had nothing to do with
3 Q. Right. And the mission then that commences in mid-March 1992
4 when the UNMOs are introduced into the former Yugoslavia, were any of the
5 UNMOs at that point in time involved in any kind of active monitoring in
6 the city of Sarajevo?
7 A. No, the military observers from March 1992 had no role whatsoever
8 under the Vance Plan and in Sarajevo. We did have some deployed in the
9 area of Bihac and Mostar, but none in Sarajevo nor did we have a role
11 Q. You discuss in your statement at paragraphs 17 to 24 the system
12 of reporting within the UNMO system. And my question is that as the
13 chief monitoring officer for the UNMOs, were you privy to both the
14 immediate and the formal reports you discussed in your statement?
15 A. Yes, I was.
16 Q. I'm going to concentrate the next portion of my questions, sir,
17 on your -- the time-period between the 13th of May, 1992, and the 24th of
18 June, 1992, when I understand you were spending the bulk of your time in
19 Sarajevo; is that correct?
20 A. I was actually residing in the city at that time, living in the
21 PTT building and working out of there also.
22 Q. And just to be clear, I understand that you were actually out of
23 the region between the 30th of April, 1992, and the 13th of May, 1992; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Yes, I'd been given leave to return to Jerusalem to repatriate my
1 wife back to Australia. I left her in Jerusalem while I was on temporary
2 deployment in Yugoslavia.
3 Q. And just to be clear, were you in Sarajevo when
4 President Izetbegovic was kidnapped?
5 A. No, I was not.
6 Q. And were you involved at all in the negotiations surrounding
7 either his release or General Kukanjac's release?
8 A. No, I was not. These events took place while I was out of the
10 Q. I'm going to turn then to the date of your return to Sarajevo
11 after you assisted your wife with repatriation, which I understand to
12 be -- was it the 13th or the 14th of May, 1992?
13 A. I believe it was the 14th of May.
14 Q. And paragraphs 41 to 43 of your statement --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton. Ms. Bolton, both the French and the
16 B/C/S booths are just able to cope with your speed of speech. If you
17 would allow them to take a breath now and then as well.
18 MS. BOLTON: My apologies to the booths.
19 Q. Sir, then at paragraphs 41 to 43 of your statement you indicate
20 that there was some heavy fighting in the Dobrinja area of Sarajevo near
21 your apartment on the 14th of May. Could you tell the Tribunal where you
22 spent the 14th of May?
23 A. I actually spent the day in my apartment. It was virtually
24 impossible to move outside the building on that day. In the Dubrovnik
25 area there was very heavy infantry fighting. Armour was employed. And
1 there was very heavy volume of mortar and artillery fire in that
2 locality. Limited opportunity to observe outside the window because of
3 the danger of attracting fire.
4 Q. You indicated in your answer there that you were describing
5 events in the Dubrovnik area, which I understand is in Croatia.
6 A. I'm sorry, I meant Dobrinja.
7 Q. Where was the artillery and mortar fire coming from?
8 A. The fire appeared to be coming from outside the city into the
9 area of Dubrovnik in -- I keep saying it, my apologies, into the area of
10 Dobrinja. And it was very heavy and lasted from early in the morning,
11 approximately 5.00, until well into the evening. Many hundreds of rounds
12 of artillery would have landed in my vicinity during that day, and it was
13 only one small area within the whole of Sarajevo which was subjected to
14 that type of fighting and fire on that day.
15 Q. Sorry, are you suggesting then that there were other areas of
16 Sarajevo that were also subjected to that type of fire that day?
17 A. There certainly were and the staff of UNPROFOR headquarters in
18 particular were caught up in some very heavy infantry and artillery
19 fighting in the Ilidza area where their staff accommodation was. No UN
20 staff on that day were able to move about the city and the staff were not
21 able to move from their accommodation to the headquarters building to do
22 any work.
23 Q. You indicated that what you observed was that there was heavy
24 infantry fighting. Who was involved in the fighting?
25 A. Certainly in the area of Dobrinja there were a number of
1 Presidency policemen with a number of young civilian-clad soldiers, I
2 guess they were, who were fighting on the side of the Presidency. I was
3 able to observe through my window infantry who were apparently Serbs that
4 were dressed in uniforms, green uniforms, with helmets, that were
5 supported by tanks, and now fighting in quite an organised and
6 professional manner.
7 Q. And how -- in terms of weaponry, how well equipped were the Serb
9 A. Serb forces appeared to be equipped as a normal, well-armed,
10 military force supported by artillery, mortars, and tanks.
11 Q. And the Presidency forces, how well equipped were they in terms
12 of weaponry?
13 A. They were lightly equipped with rifles, essentially, and perhaps
14 some anti-tank rockets, a very light shoulder-fired weapon. Most of them
15 were dressed in civilian clothes. They appeared to be in the process of
16 getting organised as a military force. They were basically a rag-tag
18 Q. So in terms of the professionalism of the manner in which they
19 were fighting, how would you describe it?
20 A. Quite unorganised. Unprofessional would be my description of the
21 BH forces at that time.
22 Q. And you described in your answers quantities of artillery fire
23 coming in from the perimeter of the city. Did you have any understanding
24 as to where or which forces that fire was coming from?
25 A. No. It's my belief that artillery mortar fire was coming from
1 Serb-held positions.
2 Q. And what was that belief based on?
3 A. The rounds were actually landing in areas that were held by the
4 government forces, and it's very -- a large volume of fire which could
5 not have been produced by the Presidency forces at that time nor would
6 they have any reason to be firing in those areas. That volume of fire
7 could only be produced by the Serbs because of the amount of heavy
8 weaponry that they possessed.
9 Q. Let's talk about that for a moment. You indicated in
10 paragraph 48 of your statement that provided an estimate of Bosnian Serb
11 forces having something in the vicinity of 200 artillery and mortar
12 barrels they could direct at the city, and in addition having a large
13 number of other weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons. Could you tell
14 us how you came up with that number?
15 A. There are basically two ways I arrived at that estimate.
16 Firstly, it was over a period of time to look at the effect of fire that
17 had been produced on the ground and to look at the area that was being
18 covered. And you can roughly work out where artillery unit fire units
19 would need to be placed to achieve that effect. It's just then a
20 mathematical extrapolation to work out the number of fire units you would
21 need to have that effect.
22 Q. Right --
23 A. The second method I was able to use, I was -- I had the
24 opportunity to observe a map down in the military headquarters of the
25 Presidency military headquarters, and they had plotted on that what the
1 location of the Serb fire units that they'd been able to identify. That
2 map more or less confirmed my estimate of the number of Serb fire units.
3 Q. All right. And you indicated earlier in your answers that the
4 volume of fire you observed could not have been produced by the
5 Presidency forces at that time. And why do you say that?
6 A. By "volume of fire," I really mean that the number of rounds that
7 actually landed on the ground. In any given day in Sarajevo, there were
8 some thousands of rounds being fired into the city at that time. And on
9 particularly heavy days like the 28th of May or the 14th of May, there
10 may well have been 5.000, between 5.000 and 10.000 rounds fired into the
11 city over a period of 12 to 16 hours.
12 Q. You indicated - sorry, sir - at paragraph 50 of your statement
13 that the Presidency forces at that time didn't have a great number of
14 heavy weapons. Are you able to put a number on and a calibre, perhaps,
15 in the weapons that you believed they had or observed them to have?
16 A. I certainly heard and observed them firing 82-millimetre mortars.
17 I believe they probably had some 120-millimetre mortars. They had a few
18 tanks. And I would guess that they had somewhere between 20 and 30
19 barrels, I'll call them, at that time in mid-May of 1992. That number,
20 no doubt, grew over time.
21 Q. Given the observations that you've shared with us as to the
22 skills and fighting of the Presidency forces and their what you call
23 disorganisation and their lack of weaponry, did you form any impression
24 as to how prepared the Presidency forces were to fight a war in May and
25 June 1992?
1 A. Well, I would describe in May of 1992 the Presidency forces were
2 getting organised. They were not a complete fighting force. They were
3 lightly equipped. They had limited training. And they had had a long
4 way to go before they would be a competent military force.
5 Q. How about the Bosnian Serb forces?
6 A. I would describe that as patchy. They had some clearly
7 well-organised, disciplined, equipped forces; in other areas like village
8 militias they were dressed in civilian clothes, lightly armed, and I
9 suspect ill-disciplined.
10 Q. You mentioned village militias. I'm just focusing on Sarajevo.
11 Within Sarajevo?
12 A. Well, I -- that applies equally to Sarajevo. There were small
13 sort of, I guess, suburban village sort of groupings of people who
14 responded to protect their immediate area, their village, their suburb,
15 on the outskirts or on the perimeter of Sarajevo.
16 Q. One of the things you mention in your statement - this is at
17 paragraph 49 - is having had the opportunity at some point to visit the
18 Serb positions and look down on the city, as you described it. When
19 would that visit have occurred?
20 A. It occurred sometime after the airport had been opened in
21 June/July of 1992. I went on a tour with the senior military observer in
22 Sarajevo. We travelled from Lukavica up around towards Pale and to the
23 north of Sarajevo. And we visited a number of Serb artillery
24 concentration sites there, particularly those in the north and what I
25 would describe as an excellent view of the city. They could physically
1 from the firing positions look down on the city, see individual people
2 and vehicles moving around. They had a very good opportunity to know
3 exactly what they were firing at from those positions, although the
4 control of artillery use usually affected by forward observers and they
5 had plenty of opportunity to deploy those forward observers in areas that
6 had excellent observation over the city.
7 Q. And what is the role of those forward observers?
8 A. Forward observers role is to identify targets, to communicate
9 them to the gun position, and to adjust the fire of the artillery as it
10 lands on the ground so it is hitting the target that is desired. That's
11 the normal way of controlling artillery, through a forward observer.
12 Q. You indicated that you visited a number of Serb artillery
13 concentration sites. What do you mean when you're talking about a
14 concentration site?
15 A. Part of the plan for the opening of the Sarajevo airport was that
16 the heavy weapons of both parties would be concentrated into areas where
17 they could be observed by military liaison officers. And it is these
18 areas I'm referring to as concentration sites.
19 Q. And can you tell us what manner of weapons you saw?
20 A. Well, I certainly saw on that tour 122-millimetre artillery and
21 155-millimetre artillery. I'm also aware from the firing that the Serbs
22 did into the city that they had in their possession 120-millimetre
23 mortars, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft cannon.
24 Q. And not to move too far forward in time, but the idea that the
25 weapons would be concentrated and the agreement, was it ever fully
1 adhered to to the satisfaction of the United Nations?
2 A. I believe it was.
3 Q. And what time-period are you talking about there?
4 A. I'm talking about the period immediately prior to and after the
5 opening of the Sarajevo airport that weapons that were within range of
6 the airport were concentrated into known sites where they could be
7 monitored. I don't recall any complaints from my senior military
8 observer that there was a lack of co-operation from either of the parties
9 in that regard.
10 Q. If we could turn to some of your observations of the shelling and
11 sniping activity in Sarajevo in May and June 1992. This is a subject
12 that is addressed in paragraphs 47 to 60 of your statement, and I just
13 have some clarifying questions. Paragraph 51 of your statement you
14 describe Bosnian Serb forces -- you indicate that mortar and artillery
15 fire from the Bosnian Serb forces was usually in response to some threat
16 posed by the Presidency forces, but their responses were
17 "disproportionate and indiscriminately directed at the city."
18 Could you describe what you mean by disproportionate and
20 A. The general reaction or the general reaction of the Serbs to
21 provocation as I would describe it was overreaction. It was the use of
22 sledgehammer to crack a nut. So in the case of -- I give an example in
23 my statement of a mobile mortar which I observed that fired perhaps two
24 rounds of mortar fire out of the city; and in response perhaps a couple
25 of hundred rounds of 122-millimetre and 155-millimetre artillery rounds
1 were fired back in counter-battery fire. Now, this covered an area of
2 perhaps a square kilometre in an urban area and was firing the target
3 area of one truck.
4 Q. And when you talk about it being disproportionate, are you
5 referring to the number of shots or the kind of weapon that was used in
6 response or both or neither?
7 A. I'm really referring to both in this case, that -- well, in most
8 circumstances that it was a general bombardment of the city almost
9 constantly between the 14th of May and the 23rd of June when I departed
10 the city. It was rare to have a quiet day. So there was a constant
11 background of artillery fire coming into the city, and along the lines of
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, could I seek verification of whether I
14 understood one of the answers well. You said when talking about the
15 counter battery fire:
16 "Now, this covered an area of perhaps a square kilometre in an
17 urban area and was firing the target area of one truck."
18 Do I understand the last part of the sentence to be that you said
19 what was there to be targeted was of the size of a truck but the firing
20 extended to a square kilometre covering that by far larger area? Is that
22 THE WITNESS: You've successfully decoded my thoughtology.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
24 MS. BOLTON:
25 Q. Just to make that clear, when you use the term mobile mortar, can
1 you physically describe what you were actually seeing?
2 A. It was an improvised arrangement where the Presidency forces
3 mounted a mortar on the back of a truck, just a flatbed truck so that it
4 could fire and be very quickly redeployed. Normally mortars are fired
5 from a metal base plate on the ground. They can be quickly redeployed,
6 but it involves manhandling them, loading them onto a vehicle, and
7 driving them away. It takes longer than operating from a back of a
8 truck, as they had done. They were simply making it a much harder target
9 for the Serbs to respond to.
10 Q. If you had been -- well, sorry, what might have been an
11 appropriate weapon to use in trying to hit a mortar that was mounted on a
12 truck that was capable of moving?
13 A. My point here about the disproportionate nature of the fire was
14 that the actual procedure of responding with that type of weapon and that
15 volume of fire against the military position outside a city would be
16 perfectly normal military procedure. But here we've got this sort of
17 very destructive fire being fired into an urban area which is going to
18 cause -- it's quite clear it's going to cause quite a lot of collateral
19 damage and potentially civilian casualties. So one has to sensibly seek
20 other ways of perhaps countering this threat. And the Serb forces had at
21 their disposal a large number of direct-fire weapons which -- perhaps
22 like tanks or anti-aircraft weapons which if deployed forward and if they
23 can see the target, they fire directly at it and are highly effective.
24 They could have placed perhaps more emphasis on that. But the standard
25 response was to fire a large number of heavy-calibre weapons into an
1 urban area.
2 Q. And in this instance, what part of the city was that mobile
3 mortar in?
4 A. It was deployed between the PTT building and the city centre,
5 about 1 and a half to 2 kilometres away from the PTT. I was observing
6 the activity through binoculars from the top of the PTT building.
7 Q. On a related issue you discuss in your statement occasions when
8 UNPROFOR would fire mortars not mounted on trucks but regular mortars
9 from proximity to the PTT. How many times do you recall seeing that
11 A. On at least one occasion the Presidency forces used the PTT
12 building as a sort of cover so they could fire mortars out into Serb
13 areas, and we had them on agreement with the Presidency forcibly removed
14 from that location. It only happened once while I was there.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I seek clarification, Ms. Bolton.
16 Madam Bolton, your question referred to fire by UNPROFOR. The
17 answer is talking about fire by Presidency forces. What are we talking
19 MS. BOLTON: Yes, that was my error, Your Honour.
20 Q. The mortars that we were talking about being fired in proximity
21 to the PTT building, those were being fired by Presidency forces, not
22 UNPROFOR; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you raise that issue with the Presidency at all?
25 A. Yes, I did. It was they who actually arranged to move them on.
1 We saw no benefit in having a confrontation with them over this
2 particular deployment. But they were moved with -- they were moved
3 quickly by the Presidency once they were aware of it.
4 Q. We've heard some allegations that the Presidency forces may have
5 positioned mortars in proximity to hospitals. If true, is that permitted
6 by the Geneva Conventions?
7 A. It is. I did receive reports of this happening and no, it's not
8 permitted within the Geneva Conventions.
9 Q. Would that then entitle the Bosnian Serb forces to fire back
10 without -- at the hospital without regard for the risk of civilian
12 A. I don't believe it does. I don't think two rights make a wrong.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, despite the fact that there was no
14 objection from the Defence, aren't you asking at this moment legal
16 MS. BOLTON: I'm asking questions based on this witness's
17 training in the area of the Geneva Conventions and military law, which he
18 gave us some information about at the opening, and based on the
19 jurisprudence of the Tribunal which has indicated in previous cases that
20 people with military experience may give opinions based on their
21 knowledge and experience and obviously -- on matters such as this. And
22 obviously the ultimate decision on that issue lies with the
23 Trial Chamber, but my understanding is the jurisprudence allows people
24 like General Wilson to express the opinion and it's up to the
25 Trial Chamber ultimately to determine the issue.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the Chamber -- it is not only legal
2 opinion but it is also to some extent expert opinion and just is it
3 allowed or not of course does not explore the case law and the reasons
4 why this witness has formed that opinion. So therefore, it's not the
5 preferred way to receive this type of evidence. Could you please keep
6 that in the back of your mind when you continue.
7 MS. BOLTON: Absolutely, Your Honours. I would just note that
8 this issue was vetted somewhat in the pre-witness filings. It was an
9 issue that was raised by the Defence in their response to our 92 ter
10 filing, and we filed a reply to that which the Trial Chamber indicated by
11 way of e-mail it was going to consider. And subsequently, there was the
12 ruling that has been referred to by -- in the last couple of days on I
13 believe it was the 6th of September, 2012, regarding -- guidance
14 regarding 92 ter litigation, where the Defence were advised that they
15 shouldn't keep raising the issue of --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
17 MS. BOLTON: -- opinion evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Not in response to the motion, but not that the
19 matter would not be relevant anymore. Some -- of course to some extent
20 we had given guidance in our earlier decisions and not to repeat again
21 and again and again. I said that this is not a preferred way and whether
22 you'd keep that in the back of your mind. Please proceed.
23 MS. BOLTON: Certainly, Your Honour.
24 Q. Now, one of the last things you said there was I think two rights
25 don't make a wrong.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And how about two wrongs making a right?
3 A. No, but can I comment that it's -- a military commander in this
4 situation, certainly in Western military organisations, you would have a
5 military lawyer there with you who would be advising you on targeting.
6 And if there was any doubt about the legitimacy of a target, then you
7 would be seeking advice from that lawyer.
8 Q. I guess what I'm not clear on is -- I'll move on.
9 Paragraphs 56 of your statement you indicated that during the six
10 weeks you were in Sarajevo in May and June 1992 there was heavy artillery
11 fire directed at virtually the whole of the city. And I just wish for
12 you to clarify which force or forces was responsible for that heavy fire?
13 A. Well, I was able to observe fire coming into the city. That's
14 where I was residing and I was really outside the city so I couldn't see
15 any fire that may have been generated by the Presidency forces, though I
16 am aware that they did on at least one occasion attack with mortars the
17 Lukavica barracks. In general, the outgoing fire from the Presidency was
18 light. The incoming fire from the Serb forces was constant, heavy, and
20 Q. And when you refer to "widespread," what are you referring to
22 A. Well, we were able to observe a considerable area of the city but
23 not the whole city from the PTT. We had people positioned on the roof of
24 a fairly tall building, you could see quite a way. And you could see
25 artillery fire landing all around the PTT, in every direction. And you
1 could certainly hear it. It was a constant background noise for the
2 whole -- for virtually the whole period we're talking about. And it was
3 heavy. It was -- would start early in the morning at perhaps 5.00 and it
4 would run until sometime around about midnight.
5 Q. And you spoke about -- earlier about the fact that fire was often
6 in return to some kind of a provocation. Where would the fire from the
7 Serb forces be -- or was there any correlation between where the fire
8 from the Serb forces was landing and where those provocations had come
10 A. The UN was rarely in a position to observe the provocations as
11 reported by the Bosnian force, but we would be told by the -- perhaps the
12 Serb representatives that an infantry attack had been launched by the
13 Presidency forces somewhere along the line of confrontation. The
14 response to that attack would be artillery fire in the immediate area of
15 the attack, but also in great depth behind that attack into the city
16 where there were no apparent targets, military targets.
17 Q. At paragraph 57 you describe:
18 "I've been involved in conventional military operations as a
19 soldier and I'd never seen such weight of fire used and particularly not
20 against civilian targets."
21 Where else had you been involved in conventional military
23 A. As a young officer, a platoon commander, I was deployed in
24 Vietnam on a regular basis, used artillery in support of operations
25 there, including on one occasion calling it -- the fire down to within
1 100 metres of my men. I'd also been able to observe Israeli use of
2 artillery in southern Lebanon and also in the Beirut area. And of course
3 I could see the effects of the use of artillery in Croatia immediately
4 after I arrived in the former Yugoslavia.
5 Q. You speak in paragraphs 55 and 56 of your statement about the
6 fact that shelling was a common occurrence and that there were a number
7 of civilians killed by artillery or mortars apparently fired from Serb
8 positions during the time-period. And my question is: Were you aware of
9 any civilian deaths or injuries from Serbian snipers during May and June
10 of 1992?
11 A. We regularly received reports from the Presidency about civilian
12 casualties. We certainly saw on the local TV actual film of people --
13 civilians being shot. And we received incidental reports from people
14 travelling or from local employees. So we were aware that there were
15 constant flow of casualties in the city at that time.
16 Q. And at that juncture were there any areas in particular that the
17 sniper -- Bosnian Serb sniper activity seemed to be concentrated?
18 A. I did not travel throughout the whole city, but certainly on --
19 in the down-town, in the city area that was quite prevalent or on the
20 fringes on it, and around Dobrinja it was very dangerous to move around
21 that area also. But in travelling through the city we would routinely
22 have our vehicles fired upon. I can't accuse any particular side of
23 doing that. I believe both sides were guilty of firing on UN vehicles.
24 Q. When you travelled in UN vehicles to the down-town area of
25 Sarajevo, would you travel along the main road that runs in front of the
1 Holiday Inn?
2 A. No, that was far too dangerous. One would use back streets and
3 try and keep out of areas that were regularly observed or were subjected
4 to fire. Even that precaution wouldn't stop you being fired upon. I
5 would estimate that 70 to 80 per cent of the time we would receive fire
6 against our vehicles when we were moving about.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, I'm looking at the clock. Would this be
8 a suitable time for a break?
9 MS. BOLTON: It would, Your Honour. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could we first have the witness escorted out of the
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, two observations in relation to the
14 legal opinion. First of all, the standard response by the Defence often
15 was this is expert opinion not within the limits of what a witness could
16 tell us and we need an expert report. That's one. Now, this is of
17 course a very specific expertise, that's legal expertise, which is of
18 course within the knowledge of the Chamber and within the knowledge of
19 the parties. So the witness without further elaborating on case law or
20 what -- I mean, you would expect him to write a brief on the matter in
21 order to be able to follow whether his opinion is valid or not. And
22 that's really -- really we don't need that from this witness even if he
23 had received some courses in the law of war.
24 Second, you were specifically asking about whether the
25 Geneva Conventions admit firing from the proximity of a hospital area.
1 Is there any dispute about the illegality about such firing between the
2 parties? I would be surprised as a matter of fact. The Prosecution
3 apparently takes the position that it's not permitted under the
4 Geneva Conventions. And I hardly could imagine that the Defence would
5 take any other position. I see nodding that the Defence agrees. So
6 therefore, it's a matter which is not in dispute, therefore no need to
7 ask the witness questions about it apart from the whole aspect of legal
8 opinion and expert evidence.
9 MS. BOLTON: I understand Your Honour's rulings and I will avoid
10 these areas in the future.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 25 minutes past
13 --- Recess taken at 1.02 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.26 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Ms. Bolton.
18 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Q. General Wilson, just before we leave this topic, you had
20 indicated in your statement that you would sometimes raise these issues
21 with General Mladic - and I'm referring to incidents in which civilians
22 were injured by or killed by either artillery fire or sniping fire - and
23 that he would generally not deny responsibility but would provide a
24 justification such as defending the Serbs or responding to attacks. Was
25 there ever an occasion when you protested a civilian casualty to
1 General Mladic that he seemed uninformed of the incident?
2 A. No. In particular, I had a meeting with him on the 30th of May,
3 at which the events or the shelling of the city on the night of the
4 28th of May was discussed at some length. And he didn't deny
5 responsibility or argue about the detail of the attack on that night. He
6 accepted that he was responsible for it, but that he was acting in
7 response to provocations.
8 Q. And we will come to that incident to discuss it in more detail in
9 just one moment.
10 Could we turn to the issue now of the evacuation of the JNA
11 barracks which you discussed starting at paragraph 67 of your statement.
12 There you indicate that there were three barracks to be evacuated and
13 that this is one of your key activities after the 17th of May, 1992. Do
14 you recall the names of the barracks that were to be evacuated?
15 A. I do, although my pronunciation may be found wanting, but they
16 were in the sequence in which they were evacuated. They were
17 Viktor Bubanj, Jusuf Dzonlic and Marsal Tito.
18 Q. And who or what was inside the barracks that needed to be
20 A. There were JNA soldiers and in some cases their families were
21 located inside the barracks.
22 Q. Was there any military equipment in the barracks?
23 A. Yes, there was. I didn't personally observe it, but I was led to
24 believe that they were the personal weapons belonging to the soldiers and
25 there was also an array of more heavy weapons which were the subject of
1 lengthy and intense negotiations between the parties.
2 Q. And who or what was preventing the troops and their families
3 within the barracks from simply leaving?
4 A. The Presidency forces had invested the three barracks, were
5 preventing anybody entering or leaving the barracks. They had barricades
6 placed around them and in some cases they were denying them electricity
7 and water.
8 MS. BOLTON: Could I please have 65 ter 10613. And, for the
9 record, this is a document the witness discusses at paragraph 71 of his
11 Q. We're seeing page 1 of this document in both English and B/C/S.
12 Do you recognise this document?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Who authored this document?
15 A. I'm not sure who authored it. It would have been somebody in
16 UNPROFOR headquarters in Belgrade, but it's released and signed by
17 General Nambiar, the commander.
18 Q. And at paragraph 1 you'd agree with me that there's an indication
19 that there are some cables attached that were authored by yourself; is
20 that correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 MS. BOLTON: Could I have page 7 in both English and B/C/S,
23 please. Thank you.
24 Q. Now, there's a signature on this document in the English version.
25 Whose signature is that?
1 A. That's my signature.
2 Q. And the date appears to be the 20th of May, 1992?
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Paragraph 1 refers to a meeting with General Mladic and
5 Colonel -- is it Cadjo?
6 A. Cadjo.
7 Q. Taking place at the Lukavica barracks. Were you in attendance at
8 that meeting?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. And who is Colonel Cadjo?
11 A. Colonel Cadjo was the JNA liaison officer to UNPROFOR. He was
12 with UNPROFOR before they deployed to Sarajevo and remained until after
13 the last barracks was evacuated.
14 Q. And at paragraph 2 there's an indication that the general stated
15 there was a shortage of food - I'm paraphrasing - in the Viktor Bubanj --
16 A. Bubanj, I think.
17 Q. Thank you. Barracks, I assume. Who is the general they're
18 referring to?
19 A. General Mladic.
20 MS BOLTON: Can we scroll down so that paragraph 3 is visible in
21 both English and B/C/S, please.
22 Q. Now, there is a discussion in paragraph 3 (A), (B), and (C) of an
23 agreement between reached between the Presidency and presumably
24 General Mladic for the delivery of some food to the Viktor Bubanj
25 barracks, and also in subparagraph (C) to some food being delivered to
1 the children's embassy convoy. Could you describe what the children's
2 embassy convoy references to.
3 A. At that time there was convoy of approximately 2.000 who the
4 humanitarian organisations were attempting to evacuate out of Sarajevo to
5 the coast. They were being prevented from leaving the city by the Serb
6 forces and were being used as a bargaining tool to get concessions from
7 the Presidency forces in -- associated with the evacuation of the three
9 Q. Where were they being held up?
10 A. I believe they were being held in the vicinity of Ilidza.
11 Q. And who was using them as a bargaining chip?
12 A. Ultimately it was General Mladic who was preventing their passage
13 from the city.
14 Q. And how do you know that?
15 A. Because this cable records a discussion that was going on between
16 the Presidency and General Mladic through us which various concessions
17 were being sought by both sides. The Presidency was seeking the release
18 of the children's convoy and General Mladic wanted to affect the
19 evacuation of the Viktor Bubanj barracks. The movement of food was a
20 preliminary action before the actual evacuation of the barracks.
21 MS. BOLTON: Could we please have in the English version
22 paragraph 4, so the next page, please.
23 Q. There's an indication there at paragraph 4 that during the
24 discussions on that date the general also mentioned that if a peaceful
25 solution for the evacuation of personnel from the barracks could not be
1 found, he would use other methods and threatened to destroy half the
2 city. Again, who is the general we're referring to there?
3 A. In this case we're referring to General Mladic.
4 Q. And what city did you understand General Mladic to be referring
6 A. Sarajevo.
7 Q. And did he indicate or intimate how he would destroy half the
9 A. He indicated that he would use considerable artillery resource
10 that he had at his disposal. He talked about levelling half the city.
11 Q. Did you take his threat seriously?
12 A. I always took General Mladic's statement seriously. He was known
13 to deliver what he said, both good and bad.
14 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that this be marked as the next exhibit,
15 Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would you please ... ?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit P321.
18 JUDGE ORIE: P321 is admitted into evidence in the absence of any
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. BOLTON: May I have 65 ter 09382, please.
22 Q. Sir, you should see a document before you. Do you recognise this
24 A. I do.
25 Q. It appears to have been authored by an Adnan Abdelrazek. Who is
1 that gentleman?
2 A. Mr. Abdelrazek was the civil affairs officer allocated to
3 Sarajevo when the UNPROFOR headquarters relocated to Belgrade.
4 Q. And what country was he from?
5 A. He was a displaced Palestinian.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, is it that you want to elicit evidence
7 for us to know?
8 MS. BOLTON: I simply want -- I was going to ask the witness to
9 clarify that this is not the same Abdelrazek as --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's then well done. I intervened too
11 early, apologies for that.
12 MS. BOLTON:
13 Q. And, sir, is this the same individual or a different individual
14 than General Husein Aly Abdel-Razek of Egypt?
15 A. Different personalities.
16 Q. At paragraph 4 of this document - if we could just scroll down,
17 please - there is again a reference to a convoy of 2.000 women and
18 children. Is this the same or different convoy than we were discussing
19 in terms of the children's embassy convoy?
20 A. The same convoy.
21 Q. And in terms of the contents of this document, if we could turn
22 in English, please, to page 2, so paragraph 5. There's an indication
23 there that you ended up issuing an order suspending mobile assistance by
24 UNPROFOR for humanitarian or other purposes. Why was that?
25 A. In the preceding week or so we had been consistently fired upon
1 with considerable violence when moving about the city and had reached the
2 stage where there was absolutely no respect for the UN presence there.
3 And I did this to draw the attention of the leadership of both sides to
4 the fact that it was impossible to operate under those circumstances.
5 They had to impose some sort of authority if we were to continue to be
6 able to work. It was simply an attention getter.
7 Q. And did it assist you at all in moving forward negotiations?
8 A. Well, the leadership was certainly willing to co-operate, but
9 there was still elements of ill-disciplined, elements within the city
10 continued to fire upon us, but there was a slight improvement.
11 Q. Now, you'd indicated that there was a bargaining process ongoing
12 with respect to the JNA barracks on the one hand and the children's
13 convoy on the other hand. You've had the opportunity to review this
14 document during proofing?
15 A. I have.
16 Q. And does this document accurately reflect how or what transpired
17 with respect to those events?
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Q. Ultimately were the children safely allowed to proceed on their
21 A. They were.
22 Q. And who delivered on that promise?
23 A. It was an agreement from General Mladic that they be allowed to
24 proceed on the basis that food was actually delivered to Viktor Bubanj
25 barracks. And I physically delivered that food to allow that release to
1 take place.
2 Q. And on the previous page had there been an indication that the
3 convoy was being held by Serbian militias. Did you draw any conclusion
4 about General Mladic's ability to control those militias in terms of
5 holding the children or releasing the children?
6 A. They were being held on his authority. He made it quite clear on
7 a number of occasions that he "controlled everything."
8 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that that document be introduced as the
9 next exhibit, please, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No objections.
11 Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours 65 ter 09382 will be Exhibit P322.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 MS. BOLTON:
15 Q. In your statement you indicated -- we started to talk about the
16 fact that you were attending negotiations over the evacuation of the JNA,
17 and could you tell me was the JNA represented in those negotiations?
18 A. Yes, the JNA was represented by a number of different leaders,
19 but primarily by General Boskovic, who I believe was an air force officer
20 with some intelligence portfolio.
21 Q. And was the Presidency represented in the negotiations?
22 A. Yes, they were.
23 Q. By whom?
24 A. Principally by Mr. Djorko, who was the Defence minister, I
25 believe, and assisted on many occasions by Mr. Pusina, who I think was
1 deputy minister for the interior, a policeman.
2 Q. And the Bosnian Serbs, were they represented?
3 A. No, they weren't, although they were consulted by the JNA
4 representatives on a regular basis.
5 Q. Were you aware as a result of your discussions with any of these
6 parties of any areas of disagreement between the JNA and General Mladic
7 with respect to the evacuation?
8 A. Yes, there was a violent disagreement on the issue of handing
9 over of weapons from the JNA to the Presidency forces. I was made aware
10 of this both by observing the negotiations, by being briefed by the JNA
11 representatives, and talking with General Mladic about the issue.
12 Q. Do you recall what roughly the position of the Presidency was
13 with respect to the weapons inside of the barracks?
14 A. The Presidency were insisting that all heavy weapons within the
15 barracks should be left behind, and they were also arguing that they
16 should have a percentage. I believe it was something like 60 per cent of
17 light weapons should be returned to them.
18 Q. And as these talks progressed in terms of the evacuation, could
19 you tell us were the media present during any of these negotiations?
20 A. No, the media were not present and they were not informed about
21 the progress of negotiations.
22 Q. And in particular were the details of the plans once reached for
23 evacuation a matter of public knowledge?
24 A. No, they were not.
25 MS. BOLTON: May I have 65 ter 27571, please.
1 Q. This is a transcript of an intercepted conversation where the
2 speakers have been identified as a Captain Tomcic and Ratko Mladic with a
3 date of the 21st May, 1992. And you'll see that the conversation begins
4 with speaker identified as Ratko Mladic saying:
6 Tomcic saying:
7 "This is Captain Tomcic here."
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- no loud speaking. No loud speaking.
9 Please proceed.
10 MS. BOLTON:
11 Q. And within the first five lines you will see that the speaker
12 identified as Ratko Mladic says:
13 "This is Mladic speaking."
14 MS. BOLTON: And if we could scroll down, please. Thank you. I
15 guess in both -- the B/C/S as well, please.
16 Q. There's then a conversation where General Mladic is asking:
17 "Do you have enough food?"
18 And they're discussing the fact that there is bread and there are
19 beans for lunch. And General Mladic cautions them to distribute or
20 Tomcic to distribute it evenly. And then finally you'll see in the last
21 fourth and fifth last lines there's a reference to:
22 "Don't let them approach you by vehicles. Are there any barracks
23 around the barracks?"
24 This is a 21st of May, 1992. Do you recall whether at that point
25 in time food had yet to be delivered to the Viktor Bubanj barracks?
1 A. I believe it was delivered on the 21st, but I may well be wrong
2 on that -- 21st or 22nd, somewhere around there the food was actually
3 delivered, but it was linked to the release of the children's convoy and
4 the food was delivered before the convoy was released.
5 Q. Were there any other barracks in the Sarajevo area at that time
6 where food was an issue that you were aware of?
7 A. It was not raised with us that other barracks had a food problem.
8 MS. BOLTON: Could we turn to page 2 in both documents, please.
9 Q. And while they're bringing up the document, to the best of your
10 knowledge was the fact that there was a short supply of food in the
11 barracks of Viktor Bubanj, was that a matter that was a matter of public
13 A. No, it wouldn't have been. It was certainly something that
14 General Mladic raised with me. He had some concern that food ought to be
15 provided to the Viktor Bubanj barracks while the negotiations progressed.
16 There was also the issue of a sick soldier on the other side and I
17 believe who had appendicitis. He was also evacuated as part of the
18 bargaining process. When the food was delivered we removed the sergeant
19 and delivered him back to Lukavica.
20 Q. On the English transcript approximately nine lines down you will
21 see General Mladic referring to firing incendiary munitions that would
22 burn the buildings down. What is an incendiary munition?
23 A. It's a type of munition that typically white phosphorous thick
24 and start a fire and burn a building down.
25 Q. Did you see white phosphorus or were you aware of white
1 phosphorus being used by the Bosnian Serb forces while you were in
3 A. I saw it being fired but I didn't see it being fired in an urban
4 area. I saw it being fired on the hills around.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No consultations during the examination of the
7 MS. BOLTON:
8 Q. Moving further down on the page in the English version to the
9 very bottom. General Mladic is quoted as saying:
10 "So tell your men, because entire Sarajevo is blocked. There's
11 nothing they can do. They can only breathe and birds can fly round
13 How does the description that General Mladic provides there
14 accord with your recollection of the situation in Sarajevo at the time?
15 A. He's accurate in that the city was invested and it was very
16 difficult for anybody to come in or leave the city.
17 MS. BOLTON: Could we have page 3 in both the English and the
18 B/C/S, please. And could we scroll a little further down in the English
19 page, please. Thank you.
20 Q. There's a reference about halfway down the page in English to
21 snipers with silencers. Do you understand what that's a reference to?
22 A. He's asking the young commander there whether he has soldiers
23 equipped with sniper rifles which also have a silencer fitted. And the
24 answer is that they do.
25 Q. And then the second-last line from the bottom that's visible on
1 the screen there's a reference to passive night optics, it appears. What
2 would that be a reference to?
3 A. It's equipment that gives the use of the ability to see at night,
4 quite often infrared. At that stage it wouldn't have been very
5 sophisticated but enough to see people moving in close proximity to the
7 Q. The user of what?
8 A. I'm sorry, would you repeat the question.
9 Q. You said it would allow the user to --
10 A. To observe any movement in the close vicinity of the barracks.
11 Q. And the question is the user of what piece of equipment?
12 A. Of the infrared -- of the night vision equipment.
13 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that that be tendered as the next
14 exhibit, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be ... ?
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours 65 ter 275 --
17 JUDGE ORIE: One second. I see Mr. Petrusic is on his feet.
18 Mr. Petrusic, as that may have been caused by -- that you have to
19 wait for the translation. Any objection?
20 MR. PETRUSIC: [No interpretation]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I do not receive any translation.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Can you hear us now?
23 There's been a breakdown in equipment.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We can hear you now.
25 Could you please repeat your objection, Mr. Petrusic.
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the position of the
2 Defence in terms of the admission of intercepts from audiotapes is the
3 following. We oppose that vehemently because authenticity has not been
4 proven at all, namely that Mr. Mladic is one of the participants in this
5 conversation. So the Prosecutor did not proffer any proper evidence in
6 this respect. This is our general position with regard to all of these
7 intercepts. As far as I can remember, the Defence is supposed to state
8 its views one of these days in respect of all the intercepts that are to
9 be used in this trial.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton.
11 MS. BOLTON: My respectful submission would be at this point I'm
12 content -- there is going to be additional evidence led in these
13 proceedings with respect to provenance. So I'm content that it be MFI'd
14 for the time being if that's of assistance.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against the document being MFI'd?
16 Apparently not.
17 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] No.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, this document would receive
19 what number ... ?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 27571 will be P323 marked
21 for identification.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
23 Please proceed.
24 MS. BOLTON: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. Earlier in your evidence you gave evidence about the fact that
1 the city of Sarajevo was to repeated and almost continuous bombardment
2 between the middle of May and the end of June 1992. Were there ever
3 periods of quiet or respite from the bombardments?
4 A. There were very few periods where it was quiet, but one notable
5 occasion was the day on which the Marsal Tito barracks were evacuated.
6 There was an eerie quiet throughout the whole city on that day.
7 Q. Not to spoil the story, but were the other two barracks
8 eventually evacuated, Viktor Bubanj and Jusuf Dzonlic?
9 A. Yes, they were in a period of relative quiet, but not as quiet as
10 the Marsal Tito evacuation day.
11 MS. BOLTON: Can I have 65 ter 27576, please. And if we could
12 scroll up in English, please. Thank you.
13 Q. Now, this is an intercepted conversation where the speakers
14 change, but you'll note that the date is the 24th of May, 1992.
15 MS. BOLTON: And could we then have page 3 in both English and
16 B/C/S. Thank you.
17 Q. You'll note, sir, that near the top of the page there's the
18 beginning of a conversation where there's introductions given. One
19 person says:
21 And the other speaker says:
22 "Mr. Doko ..."
23 And the person says:
24 "My respects!"
25 And then the other person says:
1 "Mladic, the general."
2 Mr. Doko, his first name appears to be Jerko, is that an
3 individual that's known to you?
4 A. He was the Presidency minister of defence at the time.
5 MS. BOLTON: And if we could then turn to page 6 in both
6 versions. And could we scroll down, please, to the bottom of the page in
8 Q. Now, on the 24th of May, 1992, could you tell us if you recall
9 what the situation was in terms of the Viktor Bubanj barracks?
10 A. I'm sorry, the date, the 24th?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. The barracks were evacuated on that day, my understanding. I was
13 actually out with the children's convoy at that time and some of my
14 military observers were present during the evacuation of the barracks.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt, Madam Bolton.
16 MS. BOLTON: Of course.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: General Wilson, I thought you mentioned the name
18 of the government, but it's not on the script. This gentleman whom you
19 say is the minister of defence is the minister of defence of which
21 THE WITNESS: Of the BiH Presidency, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. I did think you did say
24 MS. BOLTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. On the screen you'll see that General Mladic is quoted as saying
1 at one point during this conversation:
2 "I've not ordered one bullet to be fired at Sarajevo yet. I made
3 fire around Sarajevo cease."
4 MS. BOLTON: And if we could turn to the next page in English,
5 please. And I believe it's also the next page in B/C/S. Apparently not.
6 If we could go back, please, I think it's just at the very bottom of the
7 page in B/C/S.
8 Q. You will see that Ratko Mladic is quoted as saying:
9 "Mr. Doko, you should know ..."
10 And this is about a fifth of the way down the page:
11 "... Sarajevo is within the range of my artillery.
12 "You should also know that I now have more artillery pieces
13 around Sarajevo than there were soldiers when I came over here."
14 And then later on that page he says:
15 "And, Mr. Doko, you know, ... let me just tell you ...
16 "... your head is in front of my feet, not the other way
18 Now, first of all, General Mladic is quoted as mentioning
19 something about making Sarajevo or fire around Sarajevo cease. Had fire
20 around Sarajevo ceased to any extent?
21 A. The -- on the 24th there was sufficient quiet to allow the
22 evacuation of the barracks so it was relatively quiet, but there was not
23 total cease-fire within the city. To be honest, a cease-fire requires
24 the co-operation of both parties; that was not always the case in
25 Sarajevo. But certainly General Mladic was capable of imposing a
1 cease-fire if he really wanted to.
2 Q. And what makes you say that?
3 A. Because he did on occasions, most notably during the evacuation
4 of the Marsal Tito barracks.
5 Q. The other thing that General Mladic is quoted as saying is that
6 he has more artillery than men when he came to Sarajevo. Do you have any
7 comment to make in respect of whether that was true or not?
8 A. I received reports from my military observers later in 1992 that
9 the Serb forces actually moved gun crews by bus between the various
10 firing positions because they had more guns than they had men to fire
11 them, so I guess that supports the statement by Mr. Mladic --
12 General Mladic.
13 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that that be marked as the next exhibit
14 for identification, please.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no objections against the document
16 being MFI'd, Madam Registrar, the number would be ... ?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours 65 ter 27576 will be P324 marked for
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Ms. Bolton.
20 MS. BOLTON:
21 Q. Were there any major difficulties with the evacuation of the
22 Viktor Bubanj barracks?
23 A. No, it went relatively smoothly. There were some problems with
24 the delivery of food but we'd learnt a lesson from there that there
25 needed to be representatives of both parties at the site to make sure
1 that things went smoothly. So the evacuation on the 24th went relatively
3 Q. Now, according to your statement on the 25th of May, 1992 - and
4 this is at paragraph 72 - you attended a meeting at the Lukavica barracks
5 with General Mladic and Mrs. Plavsic. Do you recall that meeting?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 MS. BOLTON: And could I have 65 ter 21363, please.
8 Q. And while that's being brought up let me ask you: At that point
9 in time how safe was it for the United Nations to move around the city of
11 A. We were still drawing firing on a regular basis. In particular
12 when we moved between Dobrinja and Lukavica we would routinely be fired
13 upon then.
14 Q. And had you taken any steps to try to make arrangements before
15 going to Lukavica to ensure the safety of your voyage?
16 A. We had liaison officers from both sides residing with us in the
17 PTT building by this time. We would routinely advise them well in
18 advance of our planned movements and we would ask them to warn their
19 forces in that locality that we would be moving through and that we
20 should be offered safe passage. I presume they did that but didn't
21 necessarily stop the incidents of fire against our vehicles.
22 Q. You have before you a transcript of a conversation that purports
23 to be between General Mladic and Colonel -- or Cadjo. Do you know who
24 that individual is?
25 A. He's the JNA liaison officer we discussed earlier in my evidence.
1 Q. And you'll note that there is an indication that someone from
2 UNPROFOR who they quoted as Willston was to attend an appointment at your
3 place that day at 1300 and then at the very bottom of the page in English
4 that individual and asking General Mladic if he could prevent people from
5 shooting in the area of Nedzarici as the convoy will be travelling
6 through there today. Did you travel through the area of Nedzarici?
7 A. We did on a regular route that we used. I can't recall whether
8 we were fired upon on that particular day or not.
9 Q. If you had been fired upon on that day, is that something that
10 would be recorded in your -- in the reports that you submitted?
11 A. Yes, it would be.
12 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that this be introduced as the next
13 document for MFI, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
15 Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 21363 will be P325 marked
17 for identification.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status at this moment.
19 Please proceed.
20 MS. BOLTON: May I have 65 ter 03275, please.
21 Q. Do you recognise this document, General Wilson?
22 A. I do. It's a report signed by myself.
23 Q. And does that mean that you authored it if you signed it?
24 A. I authored it and released it, yes.
25 Q. And this is -- the subject matter is a record of discussion with
1 Mrs. Plavsic and Lieutenant-General Mladic 25th May, 1992. And at
2 paragraph 2 there is a quote that -- excuse me, there's a discussion of
3 the evacuation of the remaining JNA personnel from the Sarajevo barracks.
4 And then General Mladic is quoted as saying -- I'm sorry, who is the
5 person who says:
6 "The evacuation had to be completed in three days or strong
7 action would be taken against Sarajevo."
8 A. General Mladic made that statement. He was becoming frustrated
9 that the negotiations of the evacuation of the barracks were protracted
10 and not moving and there was little prospect of the barracks being
11 evacuated quickly. And he was making it clear to me and asked me to pass
12 on to the Presidency and, indeed, the Secretary-General that unless the
13 barracks were evacuated soon that he would be taking strong action
15 Q. Was Mrs. Plavsic present when this remark was made?
16 A. Yes, she was.
17 Q. And what was her reaction?
18 A. She had no objection to what Mr. Mladic -- or General Mladic had
19 to say.
20 Q. Did he give any indication of why it had to be three days?
21 A. No, he didn't. But he made it quite clear that if the barracks
22 were not evacuated within three days that he would be taking strong
24 Q. Paragraph 3 discusses "international military intervention could
25 only bring catastrophe on Sarajevo as, in a military option, Sarajevo
1 would" I assume it should "be levelled."
2 Who made that remark?
3 A. General Mladic made that remark. There was some discussion in
4 the international media at that time that there could be some
5 international military intervention in the conflict. He was simply
6 warning that the consequences of such intervention would be significant
7 and in particular directed against the UN.
8 Q. Sir, just in terms of the remark that Sarajevo would be levelled,
9 who did you understand would level Sarajevo if there was international
10 military intervention?
11 A. My understanding was that General Mladic would initiate artillery
12 fire that would produce that effect.
13 Q. And you just indicated moments ago that there was some kind of a
14 warning about intervention directed against the UN. What did you mean by
16 A. He pointed at the badge on my beret and said that's the badge of
17 death if there is any foreign intervention in this conflict.
18 Q. And what was the badge on your beret?
19 A. It was the UN badge.
20 MS. BOLTON: Could I ask that that be marked as the next exhibit,
21 Your Honour?
22 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections.
23 Madam Registrar, the number ... ?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 03275 will be Exhibit P326.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P326 is admitted into evidence.
1 MS. BOLTON: That would be a convenient place for a break.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Could the witness already be escorted out of the courtroom but
4 only after I've instructed you, Mr. Wilson, that you should not speak or
5 communicate in any other way with whomever about your testimony, whether
6 that is testimony you've given today or still to be given in the days to
7 come. Is that clear?
8 THE WITNESS: Perfectly clear, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then we would like to see you back tomorrow morning
10 at 9.30. You may now follow the usher.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Bolton, how much time would you need tomorrow?
14 MS. BOLTON: I'm right on schedule for my three-hour total
15 estimate, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which means somewhere during the first session or
17 immediately after the first session tomorrow morning?
18 MS. BOLTON: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Then we adjourn for the day. We will resume tomorrow, Thursday,
21 the 11th of October, 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.14 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 11th day of
24 October, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.