1 Friday, 2 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 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.
8 This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I put on the record that Mr. Mladic is not present. Mr. Mladic,
11 the Defence has waived the right of Mr. Mladic to be present yesterday
12 and today. Therefore, we'll proceed.
13 Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
14 Meanwhile, I raise the following issue. The Chamber notes that
15 yesterday in the 1st of November, the Prosecution has filed an urgent
16 motion to add 13 exhibits to its 65 ter exhibit list which are to be used
17 during the testimony of Richard Philips. Philips is due to testify
18 Wednesday next week, the 7th of November. Given the urgency of the
19 matter the -- would the Defence be ready to indicate its position on this
20 motion and when.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we can give a
22 response on this issue on Monday.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated. Preferably not close of
25 business, but if somewhere during the day, that will allow us to further
1 look at it.
2 Good morning, Mr. Mole.
3 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mole, please be seated.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mole, I'd like to remind you that you're still
7 bound by the solemn declaration that you have given at the beginning of
8 your testimony.
9 WITNESS: RICHARD MOLE [Resumed]
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Yeah.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Ivetic will continue his cross-examination.
12 Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
15 Q. Good morning Colonel.
16 A. Good morning, Mr. Ivetic.
17 Q. I'd like to take up with paragraph 128 of your amalgamated
18 statement which will be P421, and it will be page 29 in the English,
19 page 32 in the B/C/S. And just a point of clarification. In this
20 paragraph, sir, which is not hopefully up on the screen, you describe the
21 use of mobile mortars as a "relatively frequent occurrence."
22 First of all, are you talking here exclusively of the
23 Bosnian Muslim or Presidency side?
24 A. Which paragraph was that, please?
25 Q. 128.
1 A. Thank you.
2 Q. Should be the first line.
3 A. Yes, the reference to the PTT building indicates that I was
4 referring to the Presidency side.
5 Q. Thank you, sir.
6 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that everything since the heading is
7 Bosnian government mobile mortars that it ...
8 THE WITNESS: Within paragraph 128, sir, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. And in paragraph 125 which is earlier on the page, you describe
12 the Serb response was sometimes overkill. But would you agree that if a
13 combatant persistently fires upon a party with mobile mortars from a
14 location that that party is entitled respond with counter-fire to
15 neutralize the source?
16 A. In essence, yes, but, of course, the fact that it's a mobile
17 mortar means that it is probably well gone by the time the response
18 occurs. So it is that timeline that we're discussing, not the principle.
19 Q. Would you agree, then, that such counter-fire in order to be most
20 effective would need to be undertaken as soon as possible after the
21 incoming fire is experienced.
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. And in that instances would you consider it plausible or
24 reasonable that a local artillery commander would have a level of
25 autonomy to be able to respond on his own to such attack without seeking
1 approval of superior commanders for that particular target?
2 A. There seems to be a disconnect in the statement, because you're
3 assuming that the person who's retaliating is on the scene, but they're
4 not. So they probably won't have a visual on the target that they're
5 trying to engage. So I'm not sure I understand the question in relation
6 to that.
7 Q. With respect to once fire is determined to have come from a
8 particular direction, return fire can be initiated -- kept by a certain
9 calculations to determine the source of that incoming round. Am I
10 accurate? Approximate location.
11 A. One assumes that should the target be an unidentified it would
12 then be sent back to the weapon position and the weapons position would
13 then respond. But they might not have visual contact with the actual
14 target. So there is -- your statement, therefore, doesn't quite make
15 sense. Because, yes, they would be responding of their own initiative,
16 but through a chain of command and through a series of events, which is
17 not the one-to-one event that perhaps you were trying to describe to me.
18 Q. Agreed. My focus was that that all would happen within the local
19 level of that particular battery that would be responding.
20 A. It could do. Depending where they had the observation points
21 that were looking and seeking for the targets. Of course, we don't know
23 Q. Right. I'd like to ask you to comment upon the --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- could I try to better understand the
25 testimony because there seems to be a bit of a -- of a -- apparently you
1 are not using language which the witness grabs as making sense at this
3 Now, I'm trying to understand the situation. A round is fired
4 from within the city by a mobile mortar to, wherever, outside
5 Serbian-held territory. Now, I can understand that if you target a
6 firing position on the Serb side that they see incoming round and they
7 want to respond if they can see where it came from. But I also can
8 imagine that a round is fired which ends somewhere at a distance of
9 1 kilometre, 500 metres, 2 kilometres from a firing position.
10 Now who would then respond to that incoming fire if you have 5,
11 6, or 7 positions from where you could respond to that fire? It's not
12 entirely clear to me if you said, A one-to-one position it looks as if
13 from a mobile mortar you fire at a Serbian fire position and then they
14 return that; whereas, that seems to be rather unrealistic.
15 Is that what keeps you apart?
16 THE WITNESS: That was exactly the point I'm making. This is not
17 a one-to-one engagement. Can we have a scenario: Let's say, for
18 example, I mention it in my statement about mobile mortars in a
19 location - doesn't matter where it is - if they fire those weapons, the
20 other side are looking obviously for military targets, they perceive that
21 as a military target because it's engaged them, but the who looks to see
22 what that target is, in my parlance would be a forward observation
23 officer. He would have good vision of the area of conflict. He --
24 JUDGE ORIE: If I would stop you there.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Wouldn't it be necessary, first of all, to decide
2 which firing positions from the Serb side would respond.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm coming to that, sir. Because the forward
4 observation officer operates to all the guns.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: So he would pass the information back to a control
7 centre, who would then, with that information, select the weapons to
8 engage the enemy and would give them the details of that and then the
9 engagement would take place.
10 So the people on the weapon site on the Serb side wouldn't
11 necessarily have visual with who they're engaging, obviously by virtue of
12 the range of the weapon.
13 Does that make that clear?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's clear to me now.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Apart from the fact that the mobile mortar may have
17 moved [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 THE WITNESS: That's another issue.
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's another issue, yes.
20 Please proceed.
21 I think I understand what the discussion was about.
22 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. And thank you, Colonel, for clearing that up.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. With regard to these mobile mortars would you be able to make any
1 comment as to their -- how precise or accurate they were compared to
2 regular mortars in the manner that they're being used?
3 A. Well, a mortar is a mortar. Doesn't matter if it's on the back
4 of a vehicle. It depends on the operator and how effective he is.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question in this respect, perhaps
8 The fact that a mortar is mobile and therefore perhaps installed
9 on a vehicle, that vehicle might be more subject to movement when firing
10 than a mortar which is installed on firm ground. Does that also make no
11 difference at all?
12 THE WITNESS: One would have to reset the weapon after each
13 round, because of that movement that you're suggesting.
14 But even if it was bedded in on the ground, there is inherently a
15 movement anyway. They -- by virtue of them being the indirect fire
16 weapon they are, they are not hugely accurate. They are a significant
17 area weapon.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Would you agree that these mobile mortars being used by the
21 Bosnian Presidency forces in the manner -- in this manner from vehicles
22 could result in short rounds falling within their own territory instead
23 of on enemy territory?
24 A. It's distinctly possible. It is up to the efficiency of the
1 Q. Thank you. And would you agree with me that for purposes of the
2 UNMO statistics any such short rounds coming from these mobile mortars
3 would be indistinguishable from the increp that you would attribute to
4 unmonitored Serb positions?
5 A. Don't forget that we had people on both sides so that we were
6 always trying to connect outgoing rounds to incoming rounds, so taking
7 that into account, your point is well made. It's a possibility.
8 Q. And that's why I said unmonitored --
9 A. Right.
10 Q. Now, I'd like to call up 1D387 again. That would be your
11 statement from 1997. And this time I'd like to focus on page 12 in the
12 English, page 10 in the B/C/S.
13 And if we could focus on the first full paragraph. We're talking
14 about Sarajevo. I'd like to focus on the third sentence onward of this
15 where you say:
16 "This meant that on the one side the Bosnian Serbs would -- could
17 put pressure on the Presidency in an attempt to control their actions,
18 and on the other side that the Presidency side used Sarajevo to
19 perpetuate their 'victim status' even if they caused the perpetuation.
20 For example, I am aware that on a regular basis, the Presidency forces
21 would employ weapons within the vicinity of Kosevo hospital. In my mind,
22 the Bosnians were on such occasions responsible for bringing fire down
23 upon the hospital. I also know that the Presidency forces could
24 sometimes drive one of their tanks around in the same vicinity. This, I
25 felt, was a direct provocation to the Serbs to shoot at it."
1 First of all, sir, these words that I have read out from your
2 statement, are they truthful and correct?
3 A. Yes, they are.
4 Q. We talked about, I think, the other incident. I'd like to focus
5 on the tank for the time being and if you could clarify. With the tank
6 being an obviously more visible military target than these soft-skinned
7 civilian mobile mortars, would you expect that it could be target of
8 legitimate incoming fire even if that tank had not fired any rounds?
9 A. Of course.
10 Q. And would you agree with me -- this statement is referencing
11 Kosevo hospital but would you agree with me that the Presidency forces
12 also utilised mobile mortars from near the PTT building, other hospitals
13 and other humanitarian buildings, including UN installations?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And am I correct that at least on some occasions you and/or
16 perhaps others in the UN structure in Sarajevo asked for these Presidency
17 forces to please move their weapons from near these UN installations
18 before engaging the Serbs?
19 A. Yes, we did.
20 Q. And if I recall correctly, I think the request may have been to
21 place their artillery pieces at least 500 metres from such installations.
22 Am I accurate?
23 A. I don't recall the exact distance, but we would certainly be
24 insistent to move them with -- so that collateral damage couldn't occur.
25 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to discuss a different topic. First of
1 all, with regard to the Presidency forces in the Sarajevo area, do you
2 recall that to be the 1st Corps of that army?
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Do you recall that approximately half of the 70.000 members of
5 that 1st Corps were located within the inner city itself?
6 A. Could you define inner city for me.
7 Q. The Papa zone.
8 A. So within the city.
9 Q. Within the city.
10 A. I agree.
11 Q. Would you agree with me that the roughly 30- to 35.000 members of
12 the 1st Corps located within the Papa side of the confrontation line
13 would be legitimate military targets?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did the UNMO mission have information that such members of the
16 1st Corps in the Papa side were locating themselves in schools or other
17 civilian type buildings in order to evade being identified as targets by
18 the VRS forces?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At paragraph 129 of your amalgamated statement, that would be
21 P421, and this is again page 29 in the English, page 32 in the B/C/S, and
22 while we wait for that, sir, perhaps I can remind you, there you talk
23 about there being a conflict between some elements of the Presidency
24 forces. And as you will see, you give the example of a Juka and again
25 it's paragraph 129. And, first off, I want to ask you when you say
1 conflict, do you actually mean that the so-called Presidency forces or
2 factions thereof engaged in combat with one another?
3 A. No, the expression conflict there would be one of policy and
4 command, not necessarily direct conflict in the combative sense of the
6 Q. And just to clarify who this Juka was, am I correct that this was
7 Juka Prazina a local hood or criminal who became propelled to a position
8 as a local military commander?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And -- pardon me.
11 If we can now turn to 1D391, which is the transcript of some of
12 your testimony from the Karadzic proceedings, and page 6 in e-court of
13 that document is transcript page 5885 where you were asked a question
14 about the Muslim side --
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is document D86. And it has
16 only three pages.
17 MR. IVETIC: One moment. I apologise. I think it's 390. And it
18 should be page 6. Yes, that's it.
19 Q. And here -- well, let me just present to you the question and the
20 answer as you phrased it:
21 "Q. Would you agree that the Muslim side targeted their own side
22 of the city, that there were shells directed at their own neighbourhoods,
23 their own citizens with the aim of causing them to be perceived as
24 victims and thus inviting international sympathy, compassion and, of
25 course, the military" --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could it be shown on the screens.
2 MR. IVETIC: I'm sorry, it's line 15 and further.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you indicate the line, it's easier for the
4 usher to find it.
5 MR. IVETIC: I apologise.
6 Q. "Q. ... and, of course, the military intervention that you
8 "A. You raise a very good but controversial issue here. I've
9 already in my testimony tried to explain that when incidents are
10 investigated, because we were not in a cease-fire situation but were
11 still engaged in a war, full forensic analysis of all incidents, such as
12 those you've already seen on the incident reports which we discussed
13 yesterday, are such that individual assessment was impossible. On
14 top," and then we have to go to the next page at line 1, "... on top of
15 what I've just said, there was suggestion and there was sufficient
16 unknowns for members of UNPROFOR to be reasonably sure that what you have
17 stated is true. I would not, because of what I've just said, be able to
18 tell you of specific incidences because I would deny anybody in the
19 environment which we lived to have the ability to conclude a satisfactory
20 forensic investigation to prove whether what you have suggested was true
21 or not. So all I can suggest to you was that we, as UNMOs, were
22 uncomfortable about that question because we sensed that what you say may
23 have been true. But there are a lot of riders to what I've just said.
24 It can't be determined that it's a fact, but there are very strong
1 And, sir, this portion of the testimony, do you confirm it to be
2 accurate and truthful as to this topic?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. And have I presented the entirety of your comments on this
5 question; that is to say, the riders?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I wish to move on to a new topic, and I propose to go through
8 some Sarajevo-Romanija Corps reports with you. First, I would like to
9 call up 1D149. And as we wait for the document, I'll preface my question
10 by indicating that it is dated the 1st December, 1992, and is titled to
11 be a report from -- from Colonel Galic to the Main Staff of the VRS and
12 I'd like to focus on the first paragraph, if we can, which discusses
13 heavily artillery fire coming on the Serb forces from the Presidency
14 forces at Igman, Ctes and Kovaci.
15 First of all, we've discussed Igman, but did UNMO have
16 information about Presidency artillery attacks from these other two
17 locations Ctes and Kovaci?
18 A. We were aware of fire coming into the Serb-controlled areas from
19 other regions. The names of the specific locations, I can't recall.
20 Q. Okay. At paragraph 2 of this document, there's talk of a
21 successful counter-attack. Would it be reasonable for such a
22 counter-attack to have included counter-fire from artillery or other
23 heavy weapons at these outside regions that you have mentioned and that
24 this document mentions?
25 A. I would expect a response, a military response from a side that
1 was so engaged.
2 Q. Okay. Would it be reasonable for a military commander having
3 received such a report to conclude that munitions replenishment requests
4 from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps were to replenish stocks depleted as a
5 result of the counter-fire used in the counter-offensive against the
6 Presidency forces that had attacked on the 1st of December, 1992, from
7 Igman, Ctes and Kovaci?
8 A. Yes. I think just yesterday I mentioned that the resupply during
9 that period would obvious be significantly enhanced to support the
11 Q. And would you consider, generally speaking, that such
12 counter-fire could be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a
13 trained military commander?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would seek to introduce this
16 document as the next available Defence exhibit number.
17 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objections, Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D149 becomes Exhibit D87, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: D87 is admitted into evidence.
20 MR. IVETIC: I would now like to turn to 1D129 and the first page
21 in both languages.
22 Q. This is another report from Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff
23 and it is dated the 4th of December, 1992, a time-period when you were
24 still in the Sarajevo sector. And --
25 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. We don't have English translation
1 in e-court.
2 MR. IVETIC: Uh-huh. Let me ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any way the Prosecution could assist.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, Your Honour. I believe that we noticed
5 this yesterday and we pulled it. I'm just looking for it now.
6 MR. IVETIC: I could also skip this one and come back to it.
7 That would perhaps be the most efficient use of time.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and perhaps meanwhile the Prosecution further
9 seeks to assist you.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm sorry to interrupt. I do have the English
13 translation that I pulled this morning. It doesn't have an accompanying
14 ERN but I can hand it to the Chamber if that would assist.
15 JUDGE ORIE: If it would -- if it would
16 be [Overlapping speakers] ...
17 MS. HOCHHAUSER: [Overlapping speakers] ... witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be copied and then at a later moment you
19 use that.
20 MR. IVETIC: That's fine.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could it first be copied.
22 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. We'll move on then for the time being to
23 the next document, which would be 1D130, which -- 1D130 should be dated
24 the 5th of December. I see we still have the prior document.
25 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. We don't have this document, as
1 well as English translation.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Sorry, I had both of these. I've handed them
3 both to the - thank you - court usher for copying.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But I do understand that the original is not
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, the original is.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The original is. Okay, then ...
8 MR. IVETIC: If we can try 1D131. I'm sounding like a broken
9 record. But hopefully we'll get one that works.
10 THE REGISTRAR: No English translation.
11 MR. IVETIC: 1D132.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Same, Your Honours. And it seems that they are
13 not released.
14 MR. IVETIC: I suspect that as much, and I'm trying to get word
15 of that to the back but I'm not getting a response yet. Well, let's move
16 ahead then to a document that I know is in the system. Let's -- to deal
17 with this document we'll need to go into private session.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We move into private session.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 4421-4423 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
21 MR. IVETIC: And can we try -- let's try 1D130 and see if that
22 one has been resolved.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that copies are available of 1D129
24 and 1D130 in English.
25 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Even if not uploaded, but at least we have --
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it seems it is now uploaded in
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is uploaded. And we can use it from the
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 Q. Sir, again as we wait for the English to come up, this particular
8 document is dated the 5th of December, 1992, and is dated to be from
9 Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And it is 130.
11 MR. IVETIC: 130, correct.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
13 MR. IVETIC: I started with this one because this one was the
14 first one they told me should be in the system, so going out of order
16 Q. And appears to be a combat report for that time-period. If we
17 look at paragraph 1 which describes the enemy forces and there it says
18 that 50 artillery shells were fired upon the Serb forces, and if you look
19 at the third item number it says at 1335 hours 30 shells from
20 122-millimetre Howitzer were fired from the Brijesce Brdo sector into the
21 Vogosca and Ilidza sectors.
22 The next line says at 1215 hours another attack on Orlic began
23 using gas-filled artillery shells. And the next line, from the Kovaci
24 sector mortar and infantry fire was opened on Vojkovici.
25 First of all, sir, Brijesce Brdo, would you agree that this was
1 another high point outside of Sarajevo that was controlled by the
2 Presidency forces and which was not monitored by the UNMO mission?
3 A. From that comment I can tell you that we did not monitor that
5 Q. And we see here a reference to poison gas filled artillery shells
6 allegedly being used against the Serb forces. Did UNMO receive
7 complaints or ever verify that any such armaments were being used by the
8 BiH Presidency forces?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. Would it be reasonable to assume that the VRS
11 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps responded to such attacks with artillery
12 counter-fire directed on the forces in Brijesce Brdo and Kovaci?
13 A. I assume so. We didn't monitor it. I'm not aware of it.
14 Q. Would you consider, generally speaking, that such counter-fire
15 could be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a trained
16 military commander?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Ivetic kindly slow down and repeat
18 his previous question. Thank you.
19 MR. IVETIC:
20 Q. Would you consider, generally speaking, such counter-fire could
21 be considered militarily justified or legitimate by a trained military
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Just for my understanding, would that be
25 irrespective of what that counter-fire would be, would -- if an atomic
1 bomb would be -- well, of course, this is not to be taken seriously but
2 would it be conditioned in any way whether it would be militarily
3 justified or legitimate apart from whether legitimate is the same as
4 militarily justified. You gave a simple yes as an answer.
5 Do I understand that whatever the counter-fire was, it was always
6 militarily justified or legitimate?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I gave a yes answer because
8 yesterday I was asked to keep my answers brief. We're speaking about
9 something that I wasn't present at, that my observers didn't observe,
10 about weapons which we were never had reported to us --
11 JUDGE ORIE: No. But "it depends" would be a brief answer as
12 well. If that is ...
13 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir. This is war. It means nothing to
14 answer the question intelligently, quietly in a courtroom about such an
15 issue when there are so many other issues that need to be discussed. It
16 depends how long we can sit here and discuss it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: No. Let me -- let me be clear. Mr. Ivetic asks you
18 a question whether, generally speaking, such counter-fire, of which you
19 say you have got no idea what it was, could be considered -- you can say,
20 You can always consider something to be justified or legitimate, you
21 always can do that by a trained military commander.
22 So the question, if you wanted to say, Yes, you can do that, but
23 it depends on how it was fired, what was fired, where it was fired. Then
24 the yes is still, I think, the short and accurate answer, because you
25 could do it.
1 Now, of course, this Chamber is not interested in what one could
2 do but is mainly interested in how you should consider that. Now if you
3 say, Without facts, I can't answer that question. That's an answer as
4 well. I'm justifying to find out how we can receive answers which assist
5 the Chamber in its task. And that's the reason why I'm focussing on this
6 matter [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. I would expect -- sorry.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, one of the problems that arises here is
10 that there is a lot of hypothesis in your questions, which leads to these
11 kind of discussions. This is a witness of fact. Could we keep that in
13 MR. IVETIC: Yes, it is, Your Honour. And the witness has
14 testified as to certain conclusions that he believes that a military
15 commander should have had based upon -- asks for -- for a request for
16 replenishment of ammunition. And I'm trying to demonstrate that there
17 are whole other scenarios that are not covered in the witness statement
18 which could be other reasonably understood reasons for replenishment of
19 munitions and asking if they're reasonable. These are the reports that
20 would have been sent to the Main Staff.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I focussed on the question you have put here, and
22 the Chamber sends as a message to you that the hypothetical character of
23 it is strong and that a witness of fact may have difficulties in
24 answering such a question and that's what we established for a fact a
25 minute ago.
1 Would you please keep that in mind.
2 MR. IVETIC: I will. And I will try to focus my questions more.
3 Q. Sir, would it be reasonable for a military commander receiving
4 such a report as this one to conclude that ammunitions replenishment
5 requests from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps would be to replenish stocks
6 depleted as a result of this counter-fire against the Presidency forces
7 in Brijesce Brdo and Kovaci?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me be clear. Is there anything about return
9 fire, the quantity of that which would, I think, be very important to
10 know before you can ask any question about replenishment of ammunition?
11 Is there anything in this report? Let's first try to establish that.
12 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours [Overlapping speakers] ...
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]... the report as we've
14 seen -- yes. Counter- fire.
15 MR. IVETIC: If we can -- if we can [Overlapping speakers] ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... of course replenishment
17 has got something to do with quantities, or am I wrong? I mean, if you
18 fire one shell in return, the need for replenishment might be less than
19 if you fire 10.000 rounds in return.
20 THE WITNESS: Engagement itself is not significant. It's the
21 quantities, you're right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if there was anything found in this
23 document, then we have, I would say, a factual basis for any further
24 assessment of what a reasonable commander could or should do. But ...
25 MR. IVETIC: If we look at item 2 where there is the action --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... okay let's look at --
2 MR. IVETIC: The way these reports are done, the first item, 1,
3 is always actions; the enemy course is -- item 2 is actions of the
4 friendly forces.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, let's then not talking simultaneously.
6 Let's then take the facts first and then see whether that gives a basis
7 for the question you would like to put to the witness.
8 So we now moved from page 1 to page 2.
9 MR. IVETIC: Item 2. There's only one page.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Item 2. Let me have a look. I think there is a
11 second page in English. We are there, yes.
12 Item 2. Okay. Let's put -- Please put your questions to the
13 witness so as to establish a basis for.
14 MR. IVETIC: In item 2 we see that the Ilidza Brigade in
15 co-ordination with the Igman Brigade successful carried out an operation
16 Otes and the 1st Sarajevo Brigade is carrying out operations in the
17 direction of Trnovo, as planned, and the other units are firmly holding
18 their previous sectors.
19 Q. Based upon your knowledge of the time-period and in particular
20 the operation in Otes, would you agree that there was artillery fire
21 utilised by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps that would have required
22 replenishment of their stocks in relation to this combat that is
23 reflected in this report sent to the Main Staff?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let first try to take it step by step.
25 Mr. Mole, your knowledge of what happened on this day in this
1 context, is that -- do you have any recollection of it personally? Or is
2 it on the basis of this document that you have to find a basis for any
4 THE WITNESS: The paragraph 2 in particular which relates to the
5 Otes operation I have, as you will have seen from previous testimonies, I
6 have knowledge of that element of this.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We have not studied all the previous testimonies.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We have your statement [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 Was artillery used at this point in time in the context of this
11 operation? The report is of the 5th of December. And it describes --
12 it's a regular combat report at 1400 hours on that date.
13 Could you tell us anything about the use and the intensity of the
14 use of artillery fire?
15 THE WITNESS: May I clarify, are we talking about Otes operation
17 JUDGE ORIE: We're talking about what happened on the 5th of
18 December and what the situation was at 2.00 in the afternoon, not the
19 whole of the Otes operation. Perhaps if -- later, Mr. Ivetic, if you
20 would have questions related to the whole of the Otes operation. But we
21 are at this moment looking at this document, and Mr. Ivetic phrases his
22 questions on the basis, at this moment, of paragraph 2 of this document
23 and, therefore, I'm inquiring what your personal knowledge about this is
24 at this moment.
25 THE WITNESS: The period, the 2nd of December through to the
1 7th of December, which includes this date, was, in my understanding, part
2 of an operation called Operation Envelope. It was mounted by the Serb
3 side in response to Presidency attacks on a number of fronts, and the
4 engagement at Otes, yes, it involved significant artillery engagements.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So apart from the document, you say not on the
6 basis of it but that your recollection for those days.
7 THE WITNESS: Specifically Otes, yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
10 Q. Would it be reasonable for a military commander receiving such a
11 report from this time-period to conclude that munitions replenishment
12 requests from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps artillery were to replenish
13 stocks depleted as a result of this specified activity?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now, what happens now, Mr. Ivetic, is I more or less
15 provided you with a basis for the use of artillery fire but the report
16 doesn't say anything about the intensity of it. And now you focussed the
17 question again on -- on -- on this report which doesn't say anything
18 about artillery ammunition used for artillery fire. I could imagine that
19 you ask the witness, On the basis of your knowledge what you knew if that
20 would be reported, would a reasonable commander under those circumstances
21 take care that replenishment would be there. And then we make it apart
22 from a document which doesn't say anything about it, but it's -- at the
23 same time, it's covering this time-period of early December.
24 Do you understand my comments.
25 MR. IVETIC: I do. I thought I asked the witness whether --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I think you said --
2 MR. IVETIC: Might have been for the previous document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- receiving such a report. But you apparently
4 wanted to say, Receiving reports containing the information as we just
5 learned you had at the time. Because such reports do not say anything
6 about artillery. The uses of artillery ammunition. [Overlapping
7 speakers] ...
8 MR. IVETIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... no reports talking about
9 replenishment yet we have the conclusions of this witness going one way
10 about replenishment, so I'm a little bit confused how to proceed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Proceed as you wish. But I think I've explained
12 sufficiently what we understand the -- this document can give as
13 assistance and what the information the witness just gave us could assist
14 in further exploring the need for replenishment of artillery ammunition.
15 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
16 Q. Based on your experiences including your military experience and
17 your experience as the SMO in Sector Sarajevo during this time-period,
18 would you expect that there would have been a need for replenishment of
19 stocks depleted by artillery action in these engagements that we've
21 A. I have no experience of anything other than that in the first
22 line relating to Otes. I have indicated in statements previously the
23 numbers of artillery rounds that we were able to verify had been fired
24 into that location and over the period of 2nd to the 7th of December.
25 And that, just to remind you, it was somewhere in the region of 1600
1 rounds during daylight hours. It was estimated at probably double that
2 over a 24-hour period for the full period, 2nd to the 7th of December.
3 I would obviously expect the weapons that had fired those rounds
4 into that location to be resupplied, to put them back to the stocks that
5 they were at before they began the engagement.
6 Q. And this area, Otes, would that be within the area that you
7 previously defined as being the front lines?
8 A. Not precisely. The front line went to the west of the village of
9 Otes, and the taking of the village of Otes, of course, went beyond the
10 front line. That's what taking a village would be.
11 Q. And in that area, there were Bosnian Presidency forces I presume,
12 fighting back. Is that accurate?
13 A. Absolutely.
14 Q. Okay. And those forces fighting back and in the context of that
15 operation that region would have been appropriate for a military target.
16 Is that accurate?
17 A. Yes. It was an engagement.
18 Q. Would you also agree, based upon this document, that there were
19 potential other engagements of which the UNMOs would not have had any
20 information but which could also serve as an explanation for any
21 replenishment requested by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps from their
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'm going to object to that question as
24 extremely -- calling for speculation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I didn't fully understand the question.
1 Mr. Ivetic, would you rephrase it and perhaps split it up,
2 because based upon this document that there were potential other
3 engagement, what do you mean by based on this, upon this document--
4 MR. IVETIC: All right.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- to say there was something beyond this
6 document [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, if the witness limited his
8 knowledge to item number 1 of the -- of the section 2. So I presume that
9 means that he is not familiar with the engagements in the direction of
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then put to him clearly based on this document, say,
12 may it -- is it possible that beyond what is described here that you may
13 have missed information about other -- be concrete, please. I'm not
14 going to phrase the question for you. These are your questions.
15 MR. IVETIC: I am, sir. And presume we're still going on we had
16 decided -- the longer sessions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think we take the shorter sessions. That is
18 agreed upon.
19 Then perhaps you have 20 minutes to think about how to phrase
20 your questions, Mr. Ivetic.
21 We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Q. Colonel, I believe we were still dealing with this document
5 that's on the screen, which should be, I believe, 1D130. And if I can
6 ask to direct your attention to the item we have been looking at, number
7 2, would you agree with me that based on this document what is
8 represented here as to Trnovo that at least on this date there was an
9 operation or engagement in an area that would not have been known to the
10 UNMO mission?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. IVETIC: And -- now, can we have this document, then,
13 introduced into evidence as the next available exhibit number.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D130 becomes Exhibit D89, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. IVETIC: If we can turn to P421 and paragraph 63 of the same.
18 This is the amalgamated statement of the witness. And it's page 15 in
19 English, and I believe it is page 16 in the B/C/S.
20 Q. And, sir, I'd like to keep in mind the last several lines or --
21 or sentences of this paragraph of your amalgamated statement in regards
22 to the documents we've just looked at and the documents that we will be
23 looking at for the remainder of the questioning, and I will quote for
24 you, sir:
25 "If ammunition was being replaced on a daily basis, it must be
1 going somewhere. So the question begs: Where was it going? As a
2 commander, I would hope to know where it was going. In this sense, fire
3 missions cannot occur on their own without some kind of accountability,
4 at the minimum through expenditure of ammunition, which the commander
5 would be aware of."
6 Now, sir, in the context of what we've seen at least in the two
7 documents that we've looked at now, would you permit that a commander
8 receiving those specific reports would have an answer for where the
9 ammunition was going and that it would be that it was going towards these
10 other areas outside of the Papa zone?
11 A. Clearly an army commander is dealing with a theatre. You have
12 introduced other aspects of that theatre. My concentration was on
13 Sarajevo and the weapons that we monitored directly pointing at and
14 targeting that city.
15 Weapons, of course, can be moved and target different parts of
16 the same area within range, and we have indicated that the weapons that
17 we monitored sometimes engaged some of the targets that you have just
18 been outlining.
19 Of course, if we're monitoring the firing of those weapons, we're
20 also monitoring the resupply of those weapons. Now, we were not in a
21 position to monitor the resupply of weapons outside of our area of
22 observation, so many of the weapons, which will have engaged the targets
23 that you suggested, could just as easily -- weapons which we weren't
24 monitoring as those that we were. But those that we were, we have an
25 idea of where they fired to, because they are in the shootreps, which
1 we've indicated.
2 So an army commander has to balance the theatre, ammunition
3 expenditure, he and his staff. He would have an expectation of how much
4 ammunition it would require to fulfil his objectives. An army commander
5 who commands throughout Bosnia would treat Sarajevo as but one sector of
6 his responsibility. He would be familiar by reportings, which we've
7 already seen, how much ammunition was being expended to fulfil the task
8 he has given to his subcommander. And I, in my statements, indicated
9 that the numbers of rounds required to fulfil the task of containment of
10 Sarajevo seemed to be at variance to the task. In my understanding, from
11 our comprehension of the front line round Sarajevo, the lack of that
12 variation on that front line through that three-month period, there
13 were -- there was more ammunition expenditure within that period than one
14 would expect to contain the city militarily. That is the point I'm
16 Q. Fair enough. And just to be clear, in paragraph 63, the
17 commander you're talking about is identified as Commander Galic.
18 A. Well, it says "any commander."
19 Q. Okay. But the -- the paragraph 63 talks about:
20 "Giving Galic's dependancy on artillery it would have been
21 essential for him to essentially -- to carefully monitor the use of
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would you agree that the battle around and the takeover the Otes
25 that we discussed would have been a change in the front lines?
1 A. Absolutely.
2 Q. I'd like to now turn to 1D131 in e-court, dated the
3 5th of December, 1992. And hopefully -- hopefully both versions are in
4 e-court. And this is a report from Colonel Galic to the VRS Main Staff.
5 And if we could focus on paragraph 1 which would be the recitation of the
6 enemy activity.
7 And we see here that is says:
8 "In the afternoon the enemy continued persistent attacks on Orlic
9 and Zuc and succeeded in pushing back the forces of the Vogosca Brigade
10 by 700 metres in the Orlic area."
11 And then if we could look at the last line:
12 "During the whole day, the enemy opened strong artillery fire on
13 the whole zone of the corps."
14 And we see also there:
15 "Attacks continued from Ormanje and Igman towards Hadzici."
16 First of all, is Ormanje another Presidency heavy -- heavy weapon
17 site that was outside of Sarajevo and thus unmonitored by the UNMO
19 A. If it was unmonitored by the UNMO mission, I have no idea.
20 Q. Okay. With regard to the Orlic and Zuc areas, are you familiar
21 with a BH Presidency force offensive that, in fact, captured and took
22 over this region during the time-period that you were at the UNMO
24 A. Yes. I'll very familiar with Zuc, having gone up there and
25 visited it.
1 Q. And would that be a change in the situation as we discussed
2 before, a change in [indiscernible].
3 A. I was just coming to that.
4 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ...
5 A. The map which I drew in the early days you'll recall, if you've
6 seen it, has a dotted line across Zuc and that was because it was an area
7 that went backwards and forwards in terms of possession for either side
8 throughout the period. And if I might, I'll just make the connection
9 here, that I perhaps corrected you earlier on in terms of fire going to
10 places that you weren't necessarily sure, and you were suggesting that it
11 was a Serb province as opposed to Presidency. I'll make it clear now
12 that the Presidency forces within Sarajevo city fired in support of their
13 forces at Zuc and that was the rationale for my commenting earlier on
14 that it was not just a Serb feature firing onto Igman as opposed to
15 firing upon into Sarajevo.
16 Q. Thank you for that information. And with regard to this
17 document, if we can look at item number 2 and we see here that:
18 "Despite strong enemy resistance the Ilidza Brigade in
19 co-operation with the Igman Brigade is successfully operating in Otes -
20 two thirds of Otes had been liberated."
21 Can we confirm that this would be the same Otes operation that
22 you previously testified to have knowledge of?
23 A. Yes, indeed.
24 Q. And --
25 JUDGE ORIE: You're invited by one of my colleagues to slow down,
1 Mr. Ivetic.
2 MR. IVETIC: I apologise and thank you for the advice.
3 Q. The second paragraph of item 2 says that the
4 1st Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade is conducting operations towards Trnovo.
5 First of all, a mechanised brigade would be heavy weapons. Am I correct?
6 A. Appreciating that all organisations under different militaries
7 have different compositions, but the premise of a brigade is it's the
8 first level of command where you'll get all arms involved in one unit.
9 I'm sorry. That's rather a long answer to a straightforward question,
10 but you would expect artillery within the brigade and under command of
11 that brigade.
12 Q. And again, the location of this engagement towards Trnovo, I
13 believe you've already identified that was not a combat engagement that
14 you or the UNMO mission were monitoring or were familiar with; is that --
15 A. Correct, yes.
16 Q. For purposes of this report would a commander receiving this
17 report be able to understand and answer the question of where munitions
18 were going? Would he be looking at these specific engagements as
19 rationale for replenishment of munitions to this particular subordinate
20 unit, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps in your --
21 A. As a principle, yes. But the quantities we've already discussed
22 are not something that we could identify.
23 Q. Agreed. And again, the quantities are not listed here,
25 MR. IVETIC: Can we have this introduced as the next available
1 exhibit number, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D131 becomes Exhibit D90, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
5 MR. IVETIC: And if we can turn to 1D132 in e-court. This is
6 another report from Colonel Galic of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to the
7 VRS Main Staff. This one dated the 6th of December, 1992.
8 Q. And here, again, in the first paragraph we have the enemy action
9 where it is reported that from 200 hours the enemy continually fired
10 105-millimetre and 102 [sic] millimetre shells and VBR multiple
11 rocket-launcher missiles at Ilidza, Hadzici, Zunovicna, Ilinjaca,
12 Dobrinja, Nedzarici and Vojkovici. From Malo Polje, Veliko Polje and
13 Hrasnici and that over 200 missiles were fire.
14 First of all, sir, I believe, Malo Polje and Veliko Polje are the
15 Igman location that we've previously discussed, and we have had Hrasnici,
16 I think, in a previous document. Would you agree that these are all
17 sites that the UNMO was not in a position to monitor, these BH Presidency
18 artillery locations?
19 A. Yes. And just to make the matter totally clear that if weapons
20 such as that had been available to the Presidency forces within Sarajevo,
21 then, clearly, we would have been monitoring them.
22 Q. And if we could look at item number 2 on this document which
23 indicates the action of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and states that:
24 "Our artillery pounded at the firing positions of enemy artillery
25 at Igman and at Hrasnici and also fire at infantry in Sokolovic Kolonja,
1 Buca Potek and Boljakov Potok."
2 Are these combat engagements that you had any knowledge of as
3 part of the UNMO mission or would they be outside of the remit of the
4 UNMO -- of -- not the mission but outside the remit the facts that you
6 A. Yes, and [indiscernible] shot, the firing of the weapons or the
7 monitoring had been executed as part of the UNMO mission and you know
8 what that was, then clearly these were outside it.
9 Q. Thank you, sir. And then again, a senior commander receiving
10 such a report would answer your question posed of where the ammo -- could
11 answer the question of where the ammo is going in relation to this
12 particular combat. Would that be, generally speaking, a fair statement?
13 A. There will be a relationship between that report he has received
14 and the presumable ammunition resupply requests he'd receive.
15 Q. Thank you. That's exactly the correct answer that I was looking
16 for. I apologise for not being able to correctly ask the question.
17 With -- with regard to -- strike that.
18 MR. IVETIC: I guess -- I tendered this document, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D132 becomes Exhibit D91, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 Mr. Ivetic, yesterday we received an indication of one hour 15,
23 one hour 20. We went already beyond the one hour 20, I think. Could you
24 give us an indication as how much more time would you need.
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes. I have just one or two more documents, and
1 that's it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
3 MR. IVETIC: I'd like to look at 1D325.
4 Q. And this, sir, is dated the 23rd of December, 1992, so it would
5 have been near the end of your tour of duty at the UNMO Sector Sarajevo.
6 Again, it is a report of Colonel Galic reporting to the Main Staff of the
7 VRS. And once the English comes up if we could focus on the first
8 paragraph to begin.
9 And we'll see here that the enemy artillery is reported of
10 engaging in fierce offensive activity in the north western sector of the
11 front. And we see here various amounts of shells being shot into
12 Hadzici, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca and Ilijas. And there's indication
13 there that says:
14 "Which is an indication that the enemy has received larger
15 quantities of ammunition of all calibre, since they fired from all the
16 artillery weapons at their disposal."
17 And I would ask you, sir, first of all, do you recall, based upon
18 your information, if there was a time-period when even the artillery
19 within the Papa zone of the Presidency side was able to have more
20 ammunition than in previous months when your testimony was that it had --
21 that it had -- minimal amount of ammunition?
22 A. Could I just ask you to clarify that question. Are you asking
23 was the Presidency side within the city now reinforced with additional
24 ammunition, as a result of this piece of paper?
25 Q. No. I'm asking whether you had any knowledge of them being
1 reinforced with additional munitions, you being the UNMO mission?
2 A. They being within the city?
3 Q. Within the city, correct.
4 A. Okay. Yes, there is no doubt that they could not have continued
5 with the -- and maintained their resistance to the siege situation unless
6 they had had access to additional ammunition, which, of course, we had no
7 direct knowledge of. But I'm not too sure how you relate this answer to
8 the question about the enemy artillery opening fire from the following
10 Q. I was more concerned about the time-period. Did you note that
11 near the end of your tour of duty that the Bosnian Presidency forces
12 within the Papa zone appeared to have more ammunition available for their
13 heavy weapons than they did at the beginning of your tour of duty?
14 A. Yes, they certainly did. And they also had additional weapons.
15 Of that we're quite sure. We wouldn't document that but we are pretty
16 sure that that was the case.
17 Q. And just to be clear you say additional weapons, do we mean heavy
19 A. More medium weapons, I would suggest. If one takes a tank as a
20 heavy weapon, major artillery piece is a heavy weapon, not so. But more
21 mortars, yes, of the higher calibre, yes.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. And if we can look at item number 2 on this
23 document, it starts of by saying that:
24 "All SRK units are in full B/G combat readiness. They are
25 repulsing the enemy attacks successfully."
1 And would, therefore, a commander -- well, first of all, do you
2 have knowledge of these attacks that were occurring on the
3 23rd of December on these regions, Hadzicic, Ilidza, Rajlovac, Vogosca,
4 Ilijas by artillery bombardment by the Presidency forces.
5 A. Yes, we were very familiar with what was occurring within the
6 region of Sarajevo. You'll recall that earlier in my testimony I related
7 the fact we had operations group meetings in the morning, and information
8 such as this would be made available to the sector and therefore to the
9 United Nations Military Observers. So we always tried to place into
10 context what was occurring on in direct area of Sarajevo the city with
11 what happened in the region. And this example that you're pointing out
12 to me now was part of a significant Presidency offensive on a number of
13 fronts. This identifies that offensive and it identifies the response to
14 it, of which Otes was another response to it.
15 Q. And, again, to tie this to the question that you posed in
16 paragraph 63 of your amalgamated statement, would a commander receiving
17 reports of such significant actions have at least one answer for where
18 the ammunition was going in terms of those particular engagements?
19 A. Yes. And just to supplement my yes, we, as UNMOs, would be fully
20 appreciative of the expenditure of ammunitions on these supernumerary
21 tasks, if one could not make that comment sound too trite, but
22 supernumerary military tasks that were occurring outside our immediate
23 area of responsibility. So our awareness of them tells you that we would
24 account for them in terms of expected ammunition expenditure.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. Fair enough.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, if I can ask for this document to be
2 accepted into evidence as the next --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D325 becomes Exhibit D92, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours, Madam Registrar.
7 Q. Colonel, I thank you for your time and your detail to answer my
8 questions. You've helped me understand your testimony a lot.
9 A. Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, any need -- yesterday you said about
11 four questions. Has that grown during the night?
12 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Yes, well, not during the night but it has grown
13 in the last session. I would -- also I can, whenever the Court suggests
14 that I do it, address the matters of the evidence that was MFI'd, that we
15 left MFI'd yesterday. I can do that at the conclusion of the witness's
16 testimony or now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first try to conclude the evidence of the
18 witness and then deal with these administrative matters.
19 Re-examination by Ms. Hochhauser:
20 Q. Colonel Mole, first I would just like to turn your attention to
21 the subject matter of the mobile mortars that was discussed with you
22 during cross-examination.
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And if we could have on the screen, please, the
24 witness's statement, which is P421.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Which paragraph on which page?
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER: And it would be paragraph 126, Your Honours,
2 which is at page 29.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's the hard copy page, yes, in English.
4 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
5 Q. Okay. And, Colonel, do you have it on the screen in front of
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And I would draw your attention to the portion of that
9 paragraph where -- again regarding mobile mortars, where you write, "When
10 the Serbs fired in response" -- I'm sorry. Beginning at the sentence
12 "If a professional operator targets something, you can expect a
13 concentration of fire in that area. When the Serbs fired in response,
14 there was no such concentration of fire because the mortar had gone.
15 This was therefore retaliation rather than a military response."
16 Can you explain to us what you're talking about there in terms of
17 the concentration of fire that you would expect to see and what your own
18 observations were of what you saw of Serb responses -- military response
19 to mobile mortar fire?
20 A. When engaging a target such as you've pointed out to me, the
21 mobile mortar, it's a matter of timeline and proportionality. Sometimes
22 it's also a matter of what weapon you use to engage the enemy as to how
23 effective that would be.
24 Let me take that point first.
25 Earlier on, we were talking about the possibility of a lone tank
1 moving somewhere close to a sensitive area, such as a hospital, to draw
2 fire, and I stated that that happened. The response to that by firing
3 artillery rounds at a tank isn't necessarily the best response. It's not
4 appropriate because an indirect fire weapon of the accuracy we're talking
5 of is unlikely to be effective against that particular weapon, a tank.
6 You would want to take that tank out by another direct fire, i.e., an
7 anti-tank round or a tank.
8 So the first part of engaging one of these targets is decision of
9 what you're going to use to engage it, the quantity, therefore, its
10 proportionality, and then the timeline. So now we move maybe to the
11 mobile mortars. The very fact that they are mobile, the very fact that
12 they were located proximatus to a sensitive area means that one's
13 response has to accord with the target. We've already discussed that
14 there is a passing of time, crucial time, between identifying that
15 target, let's say, a forward observation officer identifies the mobile
16 mortars firing from its firing location, reports that fact back to his
17 commander. His commander would then presumably allocate the weapons to
18 return the fire, and by the time that detail is passed to the heavy
19 weapon operator and the target is engaged, obviously the weapon that
20 you're originally engaging, the mortars, could and probably have moved.
21 So that's the timeline. And then one has to consider what sort
22 of response it is that you are giving to the initial engagement. If
23 there are a lot of rounds fired at a place that the enemy is no longer
24 at, not only is that a waste of ammunition, but it is also, of course,
25 likely to cause casualties beyond what your original target was.
1 Those are all the considerations that one would take into account
2 when considering an engagement such as you described.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one follow-up question in this context.
4 A mobile mortar fires and the time it needs to respond to that
5 fire is such that the mobile mortar most likely will have left the
6 location from where it fired, which leaves you almost empty handed
7 because either you fire at the larger region where the mortar initially
8 was, which you say is not an appropriate way of doing, if I understand
9 you well, which means that you would be left behind with frustration and
10 no legitimate answer.
11 Is that -- well, at least more or less what you are telling us?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That's war, isn't it?
13 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine. I would just like to understand if you
14 criticise the answer given, the response given by the attacked party,
15 that there is no -- whatever you do, it's always wrong. You would agree
16 with that? Apart from lodging complaints and -- I mean, but militarily.
17 THE WITNESS: It's extremely frustrating and what you're dealing
18 with are two totally different weapons systems and it's sledge hammer to
19 crack a nut.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
21 Please proceed.
22 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
23 Q. Colonel Mole, is -- just in terms of -- in terms of the -- a
24 legitimate response to a -- to a mobile mortar in that situation, would
25 an attack on another military target in response also be a possibility?
1 A. Are you suggesting that from, say, the Serb side, that by not
2 being able to engage the original target, they might engage another?
3 Q. For example.
4 A. No, it's -- is that what you're asking me?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. It is. Yes. They might well do that.
7 Q. Yesterday -- I'm moving on from that topic. Yesterday at
8 transcript page 70 to 71, you -- you agreed, and I'm paraphrasing here
9 that the incident forms that we've discussed in the course of your
10 testimony that your UNMOs used could also include outgoing fire. So
11 could -- sorry. Your incident forms recorded fire on those incident
12 forms could also include outgoing fire from Serb artillery directed at
13 Mount Igman rather than at the Papa zone. Do you recall that testimony?
14 A. Yes, I do. Obviously if an increp is being completed
15 appropriately then the fact that the weapon fires means that you would
16 continue the completion of the serial on the increp by filling out that
17 information that you're just suggesting, i.e., what was the proposed
19 Q. Okay. I'm sorry, just so -- so I understand you, it would be a
21 A. [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.
22 Q. [Overlapping speakers] ... then not an increp; is that right?
23 A. If you're monitoring the weapon and the weapon happens to be
24 firing at a different target than what you expected, it's still a
25 shootrep and it would be recorded as to what the expected target was,
1 assuming that the UN Military Observer asked the commander the question.
2 Q. And so taking that into account, does -- does that in any way
3 affect your observations, the possibility that -- that these shootreps
4 could have -- could also include outgoing fire from Serb artillery
5 directed at Igman, although the shootreps would have, if done correctly,
6 recorded that. Does that in any way affect your observations about the
7 fire that was being directed from Serb positions into the centre of the
8 city of Sarajevo?
9 A. No, because the completion of the shootrep would indicate what
10 the expected target was. So we would be familiar with it. We would
11 understand it. We would accord it as part of our assessment.
12 Q. I'm going to turn for a moment to the document -- actually, I'll
13 do that, sorry, at the end because it will require going into private
14 session. So I'll put that question later.
15 Yesterday you testified at page what was page 28 -- I'm sorry
16 today page 28 of the temporary transcript, line 24, to page 29, line 3,
17 you were asked whether those forces fighting back and in the context of
18 that operation that region would have been appropriate for a military
19 target, in the context of, I believe, it was talking about the Otes
20 operation. Do you recall that testimony?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. You were asked is that accurate. And your answer was,
23 Yes, it was an engagement.
24 And I'd like to just draw your attention to that question and
25 answer and ask you to clarify. In the context of -- even in the context
1 of the military engagement does that make that whole region into an
2 appropriate military target, or are there still tactical decisions to be
3 made about what can be targeted within that region?
4 A. I would just have to be reminded of the region that we were
5 discussing. Can you help there?
6 Q. Yes. I believe that we were discussing the region of Otes but
7 just for certainty's sake, I'm going to look. If you'll give me a
9 JUDGE ORIE: The question was: And this area, Otes, would that
10 be within the area that you previously defined? No, that's the front
11 lines. Let me see...
12 Yes. And those -- so you were talking about the area of Otes:
13 "And those forces fighting back and in the context of that
14 operation," and that was the operation about Otes, "that region would
15 have been appropriate for a military target. Is that accurate?
16 Your answer was:
17 "Yes. It was an engagement."
18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. The engagement in Otes, by virtue of
19 what was going -- what the objective was from the Serb side, was to take
20 the village of Otes and to square off the west hand -- western end of the
21 city to allow communications for themselves on a north/south axis to be
23 The front line originally was obviously to the west of the
24 village of Otes, and that conflict to which you refer became the area of
25 intense artillery fire for the period we've discussed 2 through 7 of
2 So of necessity, behind the front line where you would expect
3 conflict then became the front line, by virtue of that conflict. That
4 was the basis of my saying that the area was a military target.
5 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
6 Q. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.
7 MS. HOCHHAUSER: I'd like to ask, please, for Exhibit P425 up on
8 the screen. And if we could just -- if we could, please, have, I
9 believe, it's the next page, the second page.
10 Q. Colonel Mole, I'm afraid this is going to be a long question.
11 Several of the exhibits that you commented on during the course of the
12 cross-examination, such as D87, 90 and 91, illustrated the confrontation
13 that was going on in the first week of December 1992; is that right?
14 A. Yes, very much so.
15 Q. And several of those -- the questions and answers that you gave
16 when commenting on those documents show that BiH forces from Igman,
17 amongst other places, such as Kovaci and Otes were attacking Serb
18 positions. So I'm drawing your attention to that area of the
20 Now, P425 on the screen, which is the December end-of-month
21 report, if we look at the entries for, let's say, the 1st through 4th of
22 December, 1992, which is the same time-period as those reports. We see
23 on the 1st of December 330 rounds recorded into the Presidency -- the
24 Presidency positions -- the Presidency monitoring sites in Sarajevo.
25 UNMOs recorded 330 rounds into the Presidency positions; 264 rounds on
1 2nd of December; 1284 rounds on the 3rd of December; and 1480 rounds on
2 the 4th of December.
3 Can you explain to us, please, is there any connection or what is
4 the connection, if any, between the confrontation described -- as
5 described in the Defence exhibits in those areas outside of the --
6 outside of the city of Sarajevo where your UNMOs were located at their
7 Papa positions and what your UNMOs were observing in Sarajevo as shown in
8 this December en- of-month report, P425.
9 A. May I try and paraphrase the question so that I can answer the
10 right one? But I think, are you asking what the relationship is between
11 the weapons we monitored and what targets they engaged during that
13 Q. Well, can you answer that question and then I may follow up on
14 your answer.
15 A. During this course of this period of intense artillery activity,
16 all the weapons that we were monitoring were engaged in the conflict.
17 The majority of them, should they be in range, fired at Otes and into the
18 region of Otes. That is not to say that some of them didn't fire
19 elsewhere because we know that the range on some was insufficient for
20 purpose to support that engagement. We also know that having seen the
21 evidence that there were other pressure points that the Serbs felt that
22 they were under by virtue of attacks the Presidency were making. Zuc was
23 a good example, and there were others besides around the front line of
24 the city. So other weapons that we were monitoring targeted there.
25 I also state that during the course of that period, there were
1 considerable number of rounds still fired into the city, not on the front
2 line, not into Otes.
3 I don't recall ever knowing of or being told or reporting that
4 any of the weapons that we monitored or were aware of fired out of the
5 city at that time; i.e., they concentrated their fire at Otes or the
6 front line or the city. I cannot recall any report - I might be wrong -
7 but I cannot recall any report of any of that fire being directed
8 elsewhere. It was concentrated very much on the city.
9 Q. Okay. So can I just ask you to clarify from what you've -- the
10 end of that answer that you've just said:
11 "I don't recall ever knowing or being told that any of the
12 weapons that we monitored or were aware of fired out of the city at that
14 Which weapons are you referring to?
15 A. Those weapons that we monitor or we were aware of.
16 Q. Inside the city of Sarajevo.
17 A. No. The ones we monitored on Lima side, on Serb side.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could I try to see whether we understood as well.
19 What you are actually saying is all those weapons we monitored were
20 focussing either on the conflict on Otes or perhaps Zuc. They were also
21 firing into the city itself. But you're not aware of any engagement to
22 other front lines or other combat areas apart from these at that point in
24 THE WITNESS: At that point in time, sir.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MS. HOCHHAUSER:
2 Q. And the numbers that are reflected -- the numbers that are
3 reflected in your December end-of-month report as incoming rounds into
4 the Presidency side, that's referring to -- into the centre of the city
5 of Sarajevo?
6 A. Yes. Into the area of observation from our UN Military Observers
7 without being too pedantic, in principle, yes, inside the city.
8 Q. Finally, Colonel Mole, in terms of -- and I believe you touch on
9 this in your -- in your statement as well. But in terms of what you
10 would expect to see -- what you would expect to see in terms of the
11 locations that were damaged within the city of Sarajevo, for fire that
12 was targeting military -- military targets, can you explain to us what
13 your expectations would be even taking into account that sometimes
14 military targets are missed or mobile, and what the actual damage that
15 you saw was?
16 Do you understand my question?
17 A. Yes, I do. Am I allowed a relatively long answer?
18 Q. You can't look at me for that question.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, usually long answers are triggered by -- by
20 questions with some vagueness in it. But please give it a try, as short
21 as possible.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. It's a balance between what is expected from
23 our understanding of the military situation and what we saw.
24 If I might give you an example. If there was a headquarters
25 position within the -- within the city and it's an accepted military
1 target for the Serbs to engage, I would expect a concentrated fire order,
2 a concentrated attack, and consequent damage. Otes says they could do
3 that. We know that they could engage targets effectively.
4 Therefore, one then has to question why we saw - and they are
5 recorded - so many rounds throughout the city not anywhere near targets
6 we knew of. I accept the rider that we didn't know all the targets, but
7 we knew a lot from the sources of information that we had. My own
8 personal experience of driving round the city, walking, was such that I
9 had a free remit to walk and go anywhere I wished. My personal
10 experience of weapons that were being engaged whilst I was walking or
11 driving round the city say to me there were no direct targets of a
12 military nature where those rounds were landing. Excuse me. If I'm
13 driving in the western part of Sarajevo, Novi Grad, there were very few
14 buildings on the road network. Why, then, would there be multiple rounds
15 in a very general area fired into empty space? Space that anybody could
16 be travelling through at any particular time, and, more often than not,
17 my UN Military Observers, or myself, was doing exactly that. There's no
18 perceived target there. What else are we expected to think? We have the
19 analysis which I've tried to explain to the courtroom of where you would
20 expect fire to be at any particular time. To experience that then has to
21 be rationalised.
22 Going back to where the headquarters may be, for example, in the
23 old town on the east of the city, a concentrated fire mission could
24 effectively destroy it. If you are an intelligent person, you would
25 remove the headquarters or remnants of it, if it had been hit, somewhere
1 else, then explain to me why we would get continued rounds going into the
2 old city not in a particularly targeted fashion, not concentrated fire,
3 and over a long period of time. It doesn't make any correlation to the
4 ability that we knew that the Serbs and their artillery had available to
5 them. And it's that mismatch which we're trying to analyse.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, I'm looking at the clock. How
7 many --
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: That concludes my re-examination, Judge.
9 JUDGE ORIE: You concluded your re-examination.
10 MR. IVETIC: One question that arises out of it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps I'll first ask my colleagues.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I would have one or two relatively short
14 questions, and I hope relatively short answers as well.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 Mr. Mole, a number of questions were asked in relation to the
17 number of incoming fire on the Serb side and on the Papa side.
18 Specifically two or three documents were shown to you where the incoming
19 fire on the Serb side was at a higher number than at the Papa side.
20 Does that reflect the overall picture? Was it equal incoming
21 fire? Was there ordinarily, that means more days, more incoming fire on
22 the Papa side? Could you give us any indication where we looked at
23 instances where clearly the incoming fire on the Serb side was of a
24 higher number. The overall picture. Without going into details.
25 A. Our concentration was very much looking inwards to the city by
1 virtue of the location of the UN Military Observer OPs.
2 When we started, that was very much our focus, but it would be
3 very unfair and unbalanced if we didn't accept that parts of the city
4 were actually occupied by the Serb side rather than the Presidency side,
5 which I'm sure you're probably aware of, but Nedzarici, Ilidza and so on.
6 As a consequence, we have to include them within our observations
7 and it is only appropriate that we do. And as soon as we do that, we see
8 that those places came under intense pressure from artillery fire outside
9 of our immediate area of observation. That's the reason those figures
10 are presented to you, and they are rightly and appropriately interpreted
11 that way. They have come from outside our immediate area of
12 responsibility, but the pressure that the Serb side, or Lima side, felt
13 was very understandable and intense on occasions.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Some questions were put to you in shells
15 falling short although directed outside -- from inside the city to the --
16 to the Serb positions outside the city.
17 Did you -- that was suggested as a possibility and I think you
18 agreed that such a possibility does exist. Did you ever find incidents
19 where you could establish that a shell fell fired from a direction where
20 you could not but possibly conclude that it fell short of where it should
21 have landed, in terms of direction and in terms of where it fell close to
22 the confrontation lines? Did you -- apart from the theoretical
23 possibility, did you ever find such a thing on the ground or indications,
24 not necessarily conclusive evidence?
25 A. No, sir, if I'm going to be very brief in the answer, that isn't
1 the case. The only experience that I personally had of such an event was
2 when a tank round hit the room that I was in but fortunately didn't go
4 Now you would say, Was that one from the Presidency side that
5 fell short and hit us, or did it come from outside the other side of the
6 confrontation line. That is the difficulty we have in interpreting it.
7 But I think to answer your question that, overall, no, I can't recall
8 ever being aware of a specific incident where that occurred. But it has
9 a possibility, of course.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You have testified to that. Thank you for
11 those answers.
12 Mr. Ivetic, I suggest that we take a break after we concluded the
13 testimony of Mr. Mole.
14 MR. IVETIC: Agreeable, Your Honour.
15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
16 Q. Sir, very briefly, at temporary transcript page 50, lines 12
17 through 17, you were asked by the Prosecution whether the numbers that
18 are reflected in your December end-of-month report as incoming rounds
19 into the Presidency side are referring to -- into the centre of the city
20 of Sarajevo. You answered:
21 "Yes, into the area of observation from our UN Military Observers
22 without being too pedantic, in principal, yes, inside the city."
23 Am I correct that the rounds that were directed towards Otes
24 would have been considered rounds into the zone of observation of UNMO
25 and therefore into the city as well?
1 A. Yes. And specifically Papa 5 was the location.
2 Q. That's what I thought.
3 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. Thank you, Colonel.
5 MR. IVETIC: And thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser, for the MFIs from yesterday -- well,
7 let me first doing something else.
8 Mr. Ivetic, I think I fully understand that you do not need to
9 tender 1D00387. That's the statement from Mr. Mole from 1997. I think
10 you have read everything you wanted to. Same would be true for the
11 transcript of the Karadzic case, 18th of August, 2010 and finally also
12 the -- what you read from the transcript in the Galic case, the evidence
13 of Mr. Tucker. Yes.
14 MR. IVETIC: That is correct, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then we've dealt with that.
16 Ms. Hochhauser, should the witness be present if we deal with
17 your last --
18 MS. HOCHHAUSER: There's no need for him to be.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll first -- Mr. Mole, I would like to thank
20 you very much for coming to The Hague and for having answered all the
21 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench. And I
22 wish you a safe return home again.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The witness may be escorted out of the courtroom.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hochhauser.
2 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Your Honours, Mr. Ivetic and I communicated last
3 night. He proposed to me and we agreed that P430 -- that's currently
4 MFI's as P430 that the whole document would be end into evidence. He has
5 withdrawn any objection to that.
6 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: P430 is therefore now admitted into evidence.
8 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As to P431 which is the transcript of the 6th
9 Assembly -- the transcript of the 6th Assembly --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down, please. Thank you.
11 MS. HOCHHAUSER: As to P431 which is the transcript for the
12 16th Assembly, we have agreed that, through Colonel Mole, only the
13 excerpt regarding Mr. Karadzic's statement on a the fifth strategic
14 objective would be entered into evidence through this witness, but I
15 have -- we have a suggestion if it is acceptable to the Court to enter it
16 as P431A and to keep the entire document MFI'd as P431. The reason
17 being, Your Honours, that I believe that others, during the course of the
18 Prosecution case, will refer to portions of the transcript, and -- and we
19 may as well actually at some point offer the entirety the transcript, and
20 it would prevent the record from being littered with little pieces of it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Has the excerpt P431A been uploaded and under what
23 MS. HOCHHAUSER: No. I wanted to wait for Your Honours'
24 permission before doing that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Chamber grants leave to proceed.
1 So we'll wait until you have uploaded it and then we'll decide on
2 admission, once we have the 65 ter number.
3 MS. HOCHHAUSER: Okay. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break, and we resume at 25 minutes
5 past 12.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 12.26 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness.
9 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours. The Prosecution calls
10 Elvir Pasic as the next witness.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
12 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, as the witness is being brought in,
13 perhaps I might give a brief explanation of the exhibit that has recently
14 been added to the exhibit list for this witness. That's Exhibit 28487.
15 During the proofing on the 31st of October, 2012, the witness was shown a
16 list of 64 names. These 64 names were taken from an exhumation report
17 from Paklenik pit. That is Prosecution Exhibit P00315 that was on the
18 list for this witness. The witness was also shown an additional name
19 that appears in a separate table on page 8 of this exhibit. That name
20 was provided in the statement of another witness. The witness was given
21 no information about these names by the OTP, and the witness provided
22 comments on the names he recognised in that list together -- and that
23 list, together with the witness's comments were made into a Prosecution
24 exhibit, 65 ter 28487.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. From the Defence, will it be --
1 Mr. Stojanovic, will it be you who will examine the witness or
2 cross-examines the witness? Are there any problems in relation to this,
3 and the way in which the Prosecution proceeded here?
4 [The witness entered court]
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. We
6 have received this and we believe that there will be no problem in using
7 it during the examination of this witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.
9 Mr. Pasic, before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
10 make a solemn declaration. The text is now handed out to you. May I
11 invite you to make that solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: ELVIR PASIC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Pasic. Please be seated.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, you'll first be examined by Mr. Jeremy.
19 Mr. Jeremy is counsel for the Prosecution.
20 And, Mr. Jeremy, I hereby inform you that leave is granted to add
21 65 ter 28487 to the 65 ter list.
22 You may proceed.
23 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Examination by Mr. Jeremy:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. Can I ask you to please state your full name for the record.
3 A. My name is Elvir Pasic.
4 Q. Mr. Pasic, is it true that you have previously provided a written
5 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor and testified before this
6 Tribunal in other trials?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. In particular, did you provide a written statement to the
9 Office of the Prosecutor dated 21 October 2004?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I ask that 65 ter 28434 be brought on
12 our screens. It is a statement of Mr. Pasic dated 21 October 2004.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Jeremy, it says 1994 on the document that was
14 given to us. Which one is correct?
15 MR. JEREMY: Forgive me, Your Honours. It's 1994. That's my
16 error. 1994.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where it is transcribed "2004", we're talking
18 about the statement, 1994.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. JEREMY:
21 Q. Mr. Pasic, can I ask you to view the page on the screen before
22 you; and at the bottom of that page, can you recognise your signature?
23 A. Yes, that's my signature.
24 MR. JEREMY: Can I ask that we go to the last page of this
25 statement; e-court page 14.
1 Q. Again, Mr. Pasic, do you recognise your signature at the bottom
2 of that page?
3 A. Yes, I do.
4 Q. Have you had an opportunity to read and review this statement in
5 preparation for your testimony today?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And having read that statement, do you have any changes that you
8 wish to make?
9 A. No.
10 Q. If I were today to ask you questions similar to those that you
11 were asked in the taking of that statement, would you provide the same
12 answers, in substance?
13 A. In substance, yes, to the best of my recollection.
14 Q. And now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm
15 the accuracy and truthfulness of this statement?
16 A. Fully.
17 MR. JEREMY: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution tenders
18 this is statement, 65 ter 28434 as the next Prosecution public exhibit.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, no objections?
20 Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28434 becomes Exhibit P434,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: P434 is admitted into evidence.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, with your leave I'll now read a brief
1 summary of the witness's evidence.
2 In 1992, Mr. Pasic was a serving policeman in Rogatica. He
3 describes the takeover of Rogatica and his detention in the
4 Veljko Vlahovic secondary school, the Susica camp and the Batkovic camp.
5 After the takeover the people were told that Rogatica was
6 designated a Serbian municipality and that the Serbs intended to cleanse
7 the town of Muslim extremists.
8 The witness hid in the basement of his apartment block together
9 with a number of other Bosnian Muslims, including his mother and
10 grandmother. On the 7 of June, 1992, the witness and others were
11 captured by men in military fatigues. They separated the Bosnian Muslim
12 men from the women and their hands were tied with wire.
13 The witness, together with Muslim men and women, were then
14 detained in the Veljko Vlahovic secondary school for 20 days.
15 On the 27th of June, 1992, the witness and about 280 others were
16 transferred. En route, the witness and 28 other Muslim men were then
17 separated and detained in an abandoned farm building for 20 days.
18 Thereafter, the witness was transferred to the Susica camp in Vlasenica
19 where he and others were physically abused by the camp commander, Dragan.
20 The following day, the witness was transferred to Batkovic camp
21 where he remained for over a year.
22 That concludes the summary, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy. Do you have any further
24 questions for the witness.
25 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
2 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, at this time I would like to tender
3 the one associated exhibit for this witness, 65 ter 28435. This is a
4 sketch of Batkovic camp.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28435 becomes Exhibit P435,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I would also like to place on the
10 record the adjudicated facts on reliance on which the 92 ter statement
11 has been redacted and the reliance on which certain evidence will not be
12 elicited during this examination. They are as follows: 505, 506, 508,
13 509, 510, 512, 513, 514, 516, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1125, 1128, 1129,
14 1132, 1133, 1258, and 1263.
15 Q. Mr. Pasic, in paragraph 12 of your statement, now in evidence as
16 P434, e-court page 4 in both languages, you state that in
17 late March/early April 1992, you decided to leave the Rogatica police
18 force shortly after it had been separated along ethnic lines.
19 Why did you make the decision to leave at that time?
20 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters. Thank
22 MR. JEREMY: Apologies.
23 THE WITNESS: As for this decision to leave the police, I reached
24 it for a simple reason because the police force in Rogatica was divided
25 in two, of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Republika Srpska. And this led
1 to a single development: Conflict. I personally did not want to be
2 drawn into any kind of conflict, political or armed conflict, so I
3 decided to leave the police force and I returned my uniform, therefore,
4 as well as my weapons, and the ammunition that I had and that I had
5 received as a member of the reserve police force in Rogatica.
6 Q. In paragraph 17 of your statement, e-court page 5, you state that
7 on May the 25th, 1992, around mid-day, the conflict broke out in
8 Rogatica. In a few sentences can you tell us when you realised that the
9 town was being attacked?
10 A. On that day, I was in one of the cafes in town with my girlfriend
11 and with my friends. We were playing billiards. All of a sudden we
12 heard strong reverberations, a sound which we could not trace. We ran
13 out to see what was going on, and we realised that the city was being
14 shelled and that shells were falling in the centre of town. We were
15 confused. We didn't know what to do. We tried to hide. We tried to
16 save ourselves, and I decided to save my mother and I went throughout
17 town in order to get home, even though shells were falling. When I got
18 home, my mother was also confused. She didn't know what to do. She
19 started carrying food, putting it into a car that we had. We thought
20 that we would be safer in this big building, but halfway the car broke
21 down so we had to hide in one of the private houses in one of those
22 streets there for a while until the shelling stopped. This lasted for
23 about three or four hours. After that, we managed to go to the building
24 where we had lived basically.
25 Q. And had you been given any warning that this attack would start?
1 A. No. No warning whatsoever. It was totally out of the blue.
2 Q. In paragraph 20 and 21 of your statement, e-court page 6 in the
3 English and 5 in the B/C/S -- 5 and 6 in the B/C/S, you refer to a JNA
4 armoured personnel carrier entering Rogatica town.
5 Soon after you refer to an announcement being made, stating:
6 "The Serbs intended to cleanse Rogatica of Muslim extremists and
7 so-called Green Berets allegedly consisting of 4.000 people."
8 Mr. Pasic, were you aware of the existence of any of these 4.000
9 Muslim extremists or Green Berets in Rogatica?
10 A. No. As far as I knew, there weren't any military organisations
11 or extremists in the territory of Rogatica.
12 Q. And shortly before this time, you were a policeman in Rogatica.
13 If such extremists or Green Berets were active, would you have expected
14 to have been aware of them?
15 A. Probably. Because, as a policeman in Rogatica, I noticed columns
16 of the JNA passing through town but I didn't notice any other military
17 formations near town or going through town.
18 Q. At paragraph 22 of your statement, e-court page 6, you describe
19 hiding in the basement of your apartment building shortly before you were
20 arrested. How many others were hid in the basement with you?
21 A. About 20 or so people were there in the basement where I was.
22 Q. And upon your arrest, could you tell us what you could observe
23 when you came out of the basement in a sentence or two?
24 A. When we were thrown out of the basement, what impressed me was
25 the flames around our building. You could feel the smell of houses
1 burning. People were lying on the ground. Faces to the ground, hands on
2 the back. Women were standing in a corner by the building. There were
3 about 20 of them there with children. The shelling of town was still
4 going on, but the intensity was not as high as it had been about half an
5 hour before that when it started.
6 Q. And in paragraph 22 of your statement you state that the men
8 "Masked and uniformed."
9 Can I describe the uniforms of these men?
10 A. Yes. The soldiers that came to take us prisoner in the building
11 and to evict us from the building, they wore camouflage JNA uniforms that
12 were olive green grey. Some of them wore grey-blue camouflage uniforms
13 that I had occasion to see in the police. For the most part their faces
14 were covered with black caps. There were only two of them that did not
15 wear any caps like that.
16 Q. And you refer to the names of these men in paragraphs 22 and 24
17 of your statement.
18 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honours, I would note that these names are
19 listed as names 3, 6, 18, and 26 in Exhibit P00313, which I don't wish to
20 call up at this stage.
21 Q. Mr. Pasic, the men who had been separated from the women you have
22 said their hands were behind their back. Were their hands tied?
23 A. At first, when we just got out, we all had to lie on our chests
24 and to face the ground. At that point in time, our hands had not been
25 tied. However, later, I noticed that the men who remained in front of
1 the building were lying there with their hands tied.
2 Q. Did you observe what their hands were tied with?
3 A. Their hands were tied with a wire. It would be easiest for me to
4 describe it in the following way: It looked as if a tire, a car tire had
5 burned and then there are wires left. That's what it looked like. The
6 wires that were used to tie their hands.
7 Q. In paragraph 25 of your statement, e-court page 7, you describe
8 being the only man permitted to leave with the group of women that were
9 taken to Veljko Vlahovic school. The other men being taken from the
10 basement remained behind. Aside from one man, Enes Korjenic, whom you
11 refer to in paragraph 26 of your statement, did you ever see any of these
12 men alive again?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. In paragraph 26 of your statement, you state that Enes Korjenic
15 told you that a man named Rajko Kusic intervened to release him from this
16 group of men. Who was Rajko Kusic?
17 A. As far as I know, Rajko Kusic was the main commander of the Serb
18 armed forces in the territory of the town of Rogatica. He was an
19 inhabitant of Rogatica before the conflict. He worked in a company
20 there, a factory, and Enes Korjenic worked in the same company. Now
21 whether this affected Rajko Kusic's decision to let Enes Korjenic go back
22 to his family or not, I cannot say.
23 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I would ask that 65 ter 28487 be
24 brought to our screens. And this is the list of names that I mentioned
25 at the start of this session.
1 Q. Mr. Pasic, while this exhibit is being brought onto the screens
2 during your proofing on the 31st of October, 2012, do you recall being
3 shown a list of 65 names?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And were you told any information about these names by the
6 Office of the Prosecutor?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you recall recognising certain of these names and providing
9 comments on the names to the Office of the Prosecutor?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 MR. JEREMY: Could we please go to the last page in e-court.
12 Q. Mr. Pasic, do you recognise your signature on this last page?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you recall whether any of the names you recognised and
15 commented on were involved in any military activity in Rogatica?
16 A. I don't believe that any of them was involved in any military
17 activity in Rogatica.
18 Q. Mr. Pasic, you recognised 16 of these 64 names. Of these 16
19 names you recognised, you referred to last seeing ten of these persons
20 listed as name 4, 12, 15, 41, 42, 48, 53, 59, 60, and 64. You're listing
21 these names, these men as having their hands tied behind their back with
22 wire. Were these men among the group that you discussed earlier in your
23 testimony today, the group of men with their hands tied behind their back
24 on the ground outside your apartment building on the 7th of June, 1992,
25 who were being guarded by the Bosnian Serb soldiers?
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. And was one of these men your uncle?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Pasic, in paragraph 30 of your statement, e-court page 8, you
6 "On June 27, we were all picked up with the exception of doctors,
7 engineers, and mechanics."
8 And here you're referring to being picked up from the
9 Veljko Vlahovic school. Was one of the men who remained behind
10 Muho Besilja [phoen]?
11 A. Mujo Besilja, yes. He stayed behind.
12 MR. JEREMY: And, Your Honour, I would note that on the last page
13 of 65 ter 28487 Mr. Pasic provides details about the last time he saw
14 Mujo Besilja. At this time, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28487 into
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
17 Mr. Stojanovic, no objections?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence objects to this
19 proposal, simply because we don't think that this is sufficient standard
20 to introduce this document through this witness. First of all, this
21 document is practically a product of the Prosecution, and it is a
22 compilation of statements and lists made by the OTP. By compiling a
23 piece of evidence in that manner and then tendering it into evidence, we
24 don't think satisfies the relevant standard.
25 Secondly, on the basis of footnotes and comments which are an
1 integral part of this document, you can see that there are comments that
2 only testify to the fact that this person was recognised and identified,
3 whereas his subsequent fate is not known.
4 For all these reasons, the Defence is opposed to tendering this
5 into evidence.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
7 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, as earlier described, the names were
8 given to this witness. No indication was given to the witness from where
9 they came. The witness has -- this is an exhibit created by this witness
10 in terms of the comments that he provides in respect to the names from
11 this list that he recognises.
12 On that basis, I submit it's relevant and probative and should be
13 accepted into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I did not fully understand your
15 observation that, since the final fate of these persons is not known, is
16 it your position that you cannot ask a witness to recognise people and
17 ask him when you saw them last time without the witness knowing what
18 finally happened?
19 Is that -- would you expect a witness to provide the full
20 evidence until the very end, or could he just give what he knows?
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you answer, can we have the document on
22 the screen again, please.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I respond now, Your Honours?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I am not analysing at this
2 moment the issue of what happened to these persons. This is not the time
3 to do that. I just want to reiterate that if you look at comments
4 provided by the witness under number 7, for example, there's no other
5 information other than that he knew that person. There is no other
6 information provided as to what happened to this individual. The fact
7 that this is a compilation document, which was practically drawn up by
8 the OTP based on the statement of this witness, we do not see any
9 relevance ground for tendering it into evidence.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber denies the objection and admits the
12 document into evidence.
13 Madam Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28487 becomes Exhibit P436,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P436 is admitted into evidence.
17 You may proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
18 MR. JEREMY:
19 Q. Mr. Pasic, as a final question, based only on what you could
20 personally observe, as a former policeman responsible for law enforcement
21 within Sanski Most who observed the attack from the inside and later the
22 outside of the town, did that attack appear to you to be an organised and
23 planned attack?
24 A. I'm sorry, there's mention of Sanski Most here. Maybe it's a
25 misinterpretation. Probably the reference was made of Rogatica.
1 Q. The mistake is mine; forgive me. When I referred to Sanski Most,
2 I meant to refer to Rogatica.
3 A. The attack on Rogatica, as I see it, had been organised and I'm
4 relying on the fact that it was launched exclusively on Muslim populated
5 parts of the town and the attack was launched from nearby villages that
6 were 2 or 3 kilometres from the town, and those villages were mostly
7 populated by Serbs. So, judging by all of that, the attack on town was
8 definitely an organised one.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MR. JEREMY: I have no further questions at this time,
11 Your Honours?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, are you ready to cross-examine Mr. Pasic?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will try, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Pasic, you will now be cross-examined by
16 Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
17 You may proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Pasic.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. If I understood you correctly the first statement you gave during
22 the war while you were a refugee in the UK ; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, it is.
24 Q. On the 20th of May, 1996, you testified before this Tribunal.
25 Can you remember if that is correct?
1 A. I cannot remember the exact date, but it was in 1996.
2 Q. Did you testify in any other case after 1996 in this Tribunal?
3 A. I testified twice, once in Tadic case and the second time in the
4 Nikolic case.
5 Q. Did you, at any point, receive summons from the BH Court to
6 testify about your experience relating to Rogatica?
7 A. No. I had never been summoned by the BH Court to testify about
8 any acts.
9 Q. That means neither Susica nor Batkovic?
10 A. No. Not by the BH Court.
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between
12 questions and answers. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, please, a short break between
14 question and answer. And, Mr. Pasic, would you also take a short break
15 after the question, before you answer it.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will do so, Your Honours. Can
17 we please have in e-court the statement dated 20th October 1994, which is
18 Exhibit P ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Microphone not activated]
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] P434, paragraph 7.
21 Q. Let me remind you, Mr. Pasic, that here you speak about the fact
22 that in the period between September 1991 until the end of that year,
23 call-ups for military exercise became pretty regular. Then you say:
24 "The Muslims generally did not respond because it was feared that
25 they would be sent to fight at the front in Croatia. On the other hand,
1 the Serbs tended to comply with the call-ups."
2 What was your experience that prompted you to make this
4 A. From September 1991 onwards, there was a conflict inside the
5 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, specifically in Croatia and
6 Slovenia. The Yugoslav People's Army started becoming active in those
7 areas and the reserve contingent of the JNA was called up to react in
8 those areas. The Muslim population did not want to go and fight another
9 Yugoslav people. The majority of my friends refused to respond to the
10 call-up and join the reserve force.
11 Q. So, based on your experience, you made this statement. And also
12 based on the contacts with the people that you had who refused to
14 A. My experience is based on the contacts that I had with people
15 who -- both those who responded and those who did not respond.
16 Q. Can we agree that, at the time, that was a legal obligation of
17 every conscript?
18 A. I did not know what legal obligation was at the time; therefore,
19 I cannot provide any positive answer.
20 Q. Were you aware that, should one refuse to receive call-up papers,
21 these persons could be prosecuted?
22 A. I personally never refused to receive call-up papers; therefore,
23 I was not aware of consequences should one refuse to do so, and I'm not
24 knowledgeable about these processes.
25 Q. This attitude of non-Serb population towards the JNA, was that
1 something that made the JNA, at one point in time, a single ethnic army?
2 A. Well, I wouldn't put it that way.
3 Q. What would you put it like?
4 A. Well, I would say that the Yugoslav People's Army was never
5 mono-ethnic, but that the majority, nevertheless, was by the Serbs.
6 Q. Well, we can agree that the majority part of the population of
7 Yugoslavia were Serbs.
8 A. I'm not aware of that data.
9 Q. Well, how do you know, then, that the majority members of the JNA
10 were Serbs? You just said that a minute ago.
11 A. On the basis of my experience, because I served in the JNA. I
12 served for 11 months. And over that period, I met many people who were
13 in the JNA, most of them were Serbs, of Serbian religion. When I say
14 "the majority," I'm not saying that I counted them or that I learned some
15 percentages. But the majority of people I met there, and befriended were
16 Serbs, and I didn't mind that at all.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, the Chambers fails to see on many of
18 your questions what the relevance is. And for some other questions, it
19 appears that the witness has no specific knowledge about it, such as the
20 composition of the JNA, for example. So, therefore, would you please
21 move on. Come to questions which are both relevant and where the witness
22 can -- has knowledge to answer your questions.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Can we now look at paragraph 8 of your statement. In the last
1 sentence of that paragraph of your statement, P434, you say that:
2 "After period of time there was a move towards establishing
3 separate police stations."
4 Can you please explain how these separate police stations were
6 A. In early 1992, in Rogatica town and in the general area, a
7 territorial creation was made, which was called Republika Srpska. So as
8 part of that territory, town of Rogatica was integrated into it.
9 This creation was not established through any kind of elections
10 or through opinion polls conducted among the population. It was called
11 the Serbian republic, which means that the majority of non-Serb
12 population started feeling as second-rate citizens.
13 Following the establishment of that territorial unit, was
14 establishment of institutions, and one of those institutions was the
15 police of Republika Srpska. So in addition to the existing police force
16 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the police of Republika Srpska was
17 also created. And immediately after that, the building in which the BH
18 police was headquartered was literally partitioned by a wall, and in one
19 half of that building the police of Republika Srpska was housed and it
20 was made up of former members of the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina who
21 were of the Serbian ethnicity.
22 So in the very small territory of the Rogatica town there were
23 two police forces. One of them was the police of Bosnia-Herzegovina; the
24 other was the police of Republika Srpska.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Now, can we please look at
1 document D176.
2 Q. Whilst we're waiting for this document to appear, can you
3 remember until which --
4 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. We don't have document D176.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D176. Thank you.
6 Q. Let us look now at -- but before that, I began my question by
7 saying until what time you remained part of the professional force of the
9 A. I remained until the end of March or early April. I cannot
10 remember exactly, but I think that was the time when I left the police
12 Q. Let's look at paragraph 4 of this document. It is a document
13 issued by the minister of the interior of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
14 Alija Delimustafic, and in this document he is addressing all public
15 security stations and all security services centre and the SUP of
16 Sarajevo and is conveying an order by the staff of the
17 Territorial Defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And he says as follows:
18 "Swiftly plan and launch combat operations throughout the
19 territory of the Republic of BH and co-ordinate them with the
20 Territorial Defence staff of the region, district, and Republic of BH,
21 planning combat operations, provide for extensive measures of protection
22 of the people and property of citizens of the Republic of BH."
23 Now my question is the following: At any point after this date,
24 did you see anything of these activities as described or as requested by
25 the minister of the interior and the TO staff in this order?
1 A. If I look at the date of this document, it's 29th of April, 1992.
2 As I said in my previous response I said that I left the police duty in
3 early April. Therefore, I'm not able to give you an answer to this
4 question because, quite simply, I wasn't there.
5 Q. You will agree with me that you were in Rogatica until the 7th of
6 June, when you were practically taken into custody or arrested; is that
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Now I'm asking you, from April until the 7th of June, did you
10 have an opportunity to hear or see any of the activities mentioned in
11 this order and requested to be implemented by the minister of the
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. And then I'm going to ask you whether the name of
15 Ramiz Alajbegovic rings a bell?
16 A. It does.
17 Q. Do you know what kind of duties he carried out in that period,
18 April, May, June 1992?
19 A. In that particular period of time, I could not say what his
20 duties were. The only thing I can say to you is that as far as I know,
21 Ramiz Alajbegovic was deputy commander of the police forces of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the town of Rogatica.
23 Q. At any point in time did you hear that already in June 1992 he
24 had established a unit that held part of the territory of the
25 municipality of Rogatica?
1 A. No.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at document
3 P434 again; paragraph 15 more specifically.
4 Q. This is what you say there. Paragraph 15, please. This is what
5 you say there:
6 "About 20 days before the attack on Rogatica," if I understand
7 things correctly, this was on the 25th of May, "two separate Crisis
8 Staffs were established, one was predominantly Muslim, the other
9 predominantly Serb. Each one of them had three to four members
11 How come you know about the existence of these Crisis Staffs?
12 A. As for the existence of Crisis Staffs, I found out about that as
13 I talked to my friends in town. Basically it was a small town, a very
14 small town. And this was the ruling principle. If anything happened to
15 anyone, people would hear about it. Since that was a topical things at
16 the time, that these Crisis Staffs were being organised, I heard from
17 some people that were Crisis Staffs were organised on both sides.
18 Q. When you say on both sides, on these two sides, what do you mean
19 by that?
20 A. The Crisis Staff of Republika Srpska and the Crisis Staff for the
21 non-Serb population.
22 Q. In view of your answer, when you said that it was a small town
23 and that the principle on which things functioned was, I have heard,
24 et cetera, did you, at any point in time while you were in Rogatica, have
25 information to the effect that through the chief of the public security
1 station, Ismet Osmanovic, activities were taken to organise the Muslims
2 in a military way to obtain and bring in weapons and distribute these
3 weapons in Rogatica basically through ethnic Muslims.
4 Have you heard of this information?
5 A. No, never.
6 Q. Then I'm going to ask you the following: Is it correct that
7 Ismet Osmanovic at the time was the chief of the public security station
8 in Rogatica where you worked?
9 A. I cannot recall.
10 Q. The next thing I'm asking you is --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Pause between question and answer, and between
12 answer and question.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Did you have an opportunity to hear or find out in a way which
16 you describe here that members of the police station or, rather, of the
17 public security station in Rogatica, Ragib Hodzic [phoen] and
18 Mujo Satrovic [phoen], if I'm reading this correctly, and Mrdjan Gakovic
19 [phoen] were person who were actively involved in the Crisis Staff of the
20 SDA, in Rogatica?
21 A. No. I did not hear that. As I've already said, I left the
22 police force of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Rogatica for a
23 single reason: Not to be drawn into any kind of conflict, political
24 conflict, armed conflict, or any kind of debate within Rogatica. In that
25 way, I basically separated myself from all the developments that took
1 place after I left. I can only confirm what happened to me personally
2 and what I saw myself.
3 Q. Thank you. That is my understanding of the situation, too, but
4 you said this, and that is why I wanted to ask you this question:
5 Whether the principle upon which you functioned in Rogatica was I have
6 heard such and such a thing because it was a small town. If this is your
7 answer, then I'm not going to put any other questions to you in this
8 regard because I know that it would amount to hearsay.
9 Now let us look at paragraph 17?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, for your information, the Chamber
11 has decided that we'll not take another break, and that we will continue
12 and stop at 2.15 sharp to the extent that it would be possible to
13 conclude cross-examination by then, you're invited to do so.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, I shall
16 do my best.
17 Q. Now let us look at paragraph 17. You say, inter alia, that on
18 the 25th of May, 1992, when the conflict broke out in Rogatica, there may
19 have been 50 to 70 armed Muslims in Rogatica and that part of these
20 weapons were obtained through private channels. Do you know this? Did
21 you see this?
22 A. When I say "through private channels," I mean that the weapons
23 that people had were basically hunting guns that were used for sports,
24 for hunting, or there were individual pistols that a minority had from
25 earlier on.
1 Q. This is what my question was. Please take a look at this. Fifty
2 to 70 armed persons; you say that. Is that based on your personal
3 knowledge? Did you see that yourself? Yes or no?
4 A. No.
5 Q. On the basis of what did you say that kind of thing to the
7 A. I knew the people had weapons, but I did not see 50 or 70 persons
8 in a single spot; 50 or 70 persons who were armed, that is.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, "through private channels," is that
10 still in paragraph 17?
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe I have a problem with the
12 translation. In B/C/S, it says:
13 "Part of the weapons were obtained through private channels."
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is that not the redacted part of paragraph 17, which
15 is replaced by Adjudicated Fact 1128?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. But since I
17 thought that this is something that this Defence would challenge I wanted
18 to put this question: How come the witness had this knowledge?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the knowledge of the witness of
20 adjudicated fact seems not to be relevant anymore, just the adjudicated
21 fact itself. And if you refer to any portion of paragraph 17 which is
22 meanwhile redacted, then at least you were expected to indicate that
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. But this is what I'm going to ask you now: Did you then have an
2 opportunity to see these armed men in -- at any point in time?
3 A. Yes, I had the opportunity of seeing some of them.
4 Q. Will you say that I'm right if I put it to you that, then, just
5 before the 25th of May, 1992, the Serb population from Rogatica had fled
7 A. As far as I know, most of the Serb population of Rogatica had
9 Q. And then I'm going to ask you whether you know the reason why the
10 Serb population left Rogatica.
11 A. I don't know the reason.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please take a look
14 at P166. While we're waiting for this document, Your Honours, I would
15 just like to say that this is a document that bears the date of the
16 23rd of May, 1992, and it was signed by Rajko Kusic, who has been
17 mentioned here.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Pasic, I would like to ask you that we take a look at
19 this document together. So this is the 23rd of May, 1992. And it says
20 that the commander of the battalion of the SO Rogatica. Can this
21 abbreviation assist you in any way? Can you tell us what this stands
22 for, SO?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. Thank you. It says here that on the 22nd of May, there was
25 firing against enemy strongholds. In Dub Pokrivenik enemy strongholds of
1 Dub Pokrivenik, Kopljevici, Kozici, and Cadovi and also against Pasica
2 Kula, Rajs Laze and the Rudo 2 settlement. And then it says as for the
3 parts of town of Rajs Laze and Rudo 2, an infantry attack was launched
4 against these areas.
5 Please tell us, these names, Rajs Laze, Rudo 2, do they say
6 anything to you? Are these neighbourhoods in Rogatica? Are these parts
7 of Rogatica?
8 A. Rudo 2 and Laze were neighbourhoods outside the town of Rogatica,
9 as far as I know.
10 Q. Are you trying to say or, rather, would you please tell the Court
11 what the population was there in those areas in these neighbourhoods on
12 the outskirts of town?
13 A. I cannot really say. I cannot answer that question.
14 Q. Then I'm going to conclude by putting the following question: An
15 infantry attack was launched here - that's what it says - did you know
16 anything about that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to deal with this document any longer
20 It was my understanding that it was on the 7th of June, 1992,
21 that you were brought into custody; is that right?
22 A. I was arrested. I was taken prisoner in the beginning of June.
23 I can no longer remember the exact date. I believe it was the 7th.
24 Q. You were arrested by policemen and amongst them you recognised
25 two of them, Slavisa Vukojcic and Milisav Ivanovic; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Before this happened, as you describe things here, you returned
3 the weapons that you had received as a policeman; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But part of these service weapons or, rather, the pistol that you
6 had had issued to you, did you return that as well?
7 A. A pistol is not a service weapon.
8 Q. Could you tell us whether you had a pistol of your own, privately
10 A. I inherited a pistol from my father upon his death.
11 Q. This pistol was seized from you in the presence of your
12 colleague, an employee of the police station in Rogatica. His name is
13 Vlado Markovic; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, I worked with Vlado Markovic, and he is the one who took the
15 pistol away from me.
16 Q. While that happened, and while you went to your apartment,
17 Vlado Markovic was fair towards you. He treated you in a correct manner;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. During the next 20 days, you were in the building of the
21 Veljko Vlahovic secondary school; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. That is also where the police provided security, the police
24 commanded precisely by Vlado Markovic yet again; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In addition to yourself in the building of the school in Rogatica
2 there were quite a few women and children from Rogatica there; is that
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber roughly what your
6 estimate may be, how many people were in the school at the time.
7 A. My estimate is approximately 300 men, children, and -- women,
8 children, and elderly men, that is.
9 Q. During the 20 days that you spent there, you were guarded by the
10 police force; is that correct?
11 A. We were guarded by the police of Republika Srpska.
12 Q. Thank you. And during that period, you were allowed to go out,
13 to neighbouring houses, to do the shopping, to buy foodstuffs and hygiene
14 items, and things of that nature.
15 A. No. Only specific individuals had permit to leave during a
16 specific period of time to go to the neighbouring houses and to try and
17 find if there were any food left in those houses so that they could bring
18 it to the people who were detained at the secondary school. All the
19 shops were closed at the time.
20 Q. Were you in a position to procure a cooker and fuel so that you
21 can cook your meals in the secondary school building?
22 A. If I remember correctly, there was only one cooker there and it
23 had been brought from a nearby house. It was being used to prepare food
24 for 300 prisoners who were there.
25 Q. Let us now look at paragraph 27; Exhibit P434. It's your
1 statement, Mr. Pasic, which was admitted into evidence in this case, and,
2 there, you say, among other things. We're going to wait for the B/C/S
3 version to appear as well.
4 Somewhere in the middle you say:
5 "Then we were permitted to take three stoves from neighbouring
6 houses. They let us prepare meals in the school building. Women
7 prisoners were allowed to leave the school building to fetch supplies in
9 So what is correct? This, what is written in your statement, or
10 your evidence that you gave a minute ago?
11 A. Well, both. We were allowed to go out and bring in three
12 cookers. However, only one was obtained. As I said, certain
13 individuals, mostly women, were allowed during a certain period of time
14 to go out and try to fetch food in order to prepare meals for the
16 Q. Thank you. Money was not confiscated from you, and, therefore,
17 you were able to buy cigarettes on the black market; is that correct?
18 A. I personally didn't have any money on me, and I didn't buy any
20 Q. I'm asking you about what you saw. Did you have an opportunity
21 seeing other detainees buying various commodities, including cigarettes
22 from street vendors?
23 A. Yes. On a couple of occasions I saw people buying cigarettes
24 from the soldiers who were guarding us.
25 Q. At one point while the shelling was in progress, the guards let
1 you leave the school building in order to visit your girlfriend in town;
2 is that correct?
3 A. During a break in the shelling, I was told that I should go to
4 town and to ask a number of people to come and join us at the secondary
5 school building, including my girlfriend.
6 Q. Whilst you were at Veljko Vlahovic school, you personally were
7 not physically abused or maltreated; is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Let us clarify a dilemma that I have and that stems from
10 paragraphs 29 and 30 of your statement.
11 To the best of your knowledge, how long you stayed at the
12 secondary school building, Veljko Vlahovic?
13 A. If I remember correctly, I spent 20-odd days at the secondary
14 school, Veljko Vlahovic.
15 Q. The reason I'm asking you about this is that in that context we
16 should look at paragraph 30 of your statement, P434, where you say
17 exactly as you said today as well, and I quote:
18 "On the 27th of June, we were all picked up and the transfer
20 And then in paragraph 29 you say that you were detained on the
21 school premises from June 7 to June 27 of 1992.
22 Can you see that? Can we then agree that practically, if this
23 date 27th of June is correct, you spent about 20 days there?
24 A. Yes, that is correct. I stayed there until June 27th.
25 Q. Thank you. And then if -- when you say in paragraph 29 "until
1 the 17th of June" is a mistake; is that correct?
2 A. I believe that's a misprint.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at the original because in English
5 it says 27th. And apparently this is it mistranslated. Because the
6 English seems to be the original.
7 Therefore, Mr. Stojanovic --
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has carefully monitored your
12 cross-examination until now, Mr. Stojanovic, and the Chamber expects you
13 in view of relevance and issues raised to prioritise the most important
14 matters and to finish by ten minutes past 2.00 so that Mr. Jeremy has
15 another five minutes for re-examination. If you need any time for that,
16 Mr. Jeremy. Would you need any?
17 MR. JEREMY: Not at this moment, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment. Then we'll at least establish
19 whether this has changed at ten minutes past 2.00.
20 Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. You were taken from the Veljko Vlahovic school again by members,
23 as you say, special police forces, to a farm where Vlado Markovic's
24 headquarters was also housed; is that correct?
25 A. We were taken to the premises of former agricultural farm at the
1 exit point of Rogatica town. Two or three days later, we were able to
2 conclude that also on the premises were the headquarters of the forces
3 that had captured us and were guarding us there.
4 Q. We are again talking about the same police forces that you spoke
5 about earlier and who were led by Vlado Markovic?
6 A. Those were mixed forces. There was police. There was army. And
7 apparently Vlado Markovic was the commander.
8 Q. During your stay there, at this farm, you were not physically
9 abused or maltreated; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. And then, on the 15th of July, to the best of your recollection,
12 you were driven towards Vlasenica and Kladanj until the place called
13 Tistje, which is located on the separation line; is that correct?
14 A. We were told that we were going to be exchanged and allowed to go
15 to the territory controlled by some other forces; specifically the Army
16 of Bosnia-Herzegovina. En route, we were stopped at Tistje.
17 Q. Do you know why you were not exchanged on that particular day?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Did you ask to be exchanged?
20 A. No, I personally did not.
21 Q. What was your position? What did you wish at that moment? What
22 were you willing to do at the moment?
23 A. You mean when we were at Tistje?
24 Q. Both whilst you were on the farm and when you headed off towards
1 A. While we were on the farm, I was under a false impression that I
2 would be allowed to continue living in my native town as a loyal
3 resident. However, that was not something that was going to be permitted
4 for me to do because I was under suspicion. Once we left Rogatica, and
5 once we were told that we would be exchanged, my only aim was to survive.
6 Q. Practically you spent night in Susica near Vlasenica. Am I
8 A. Yes, you are right.
9 Q. And after that, you were sent to Batkovici?
10 A. Yes, we were transferred to the Batkovici camp.
11 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Stojanovic,
12 you apparently read portions of the statement in the last ten minutes
13 right -- I mean, the witness has testified to that. So, therefore,
14 unless there is any reason why you would expect him to change his mind,
15 there's no need to do that.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. Let us now look at paragraph 41 of your statement; Exhibit P434.
19 Mr. Pasic, I'm going to put a few questions to you about
20 Batkovic, but before that, I would like just to present the Defence case
21 to you.
22 You cannot recall all the details relating to Batkovic. You can
23 only assume who performed which duties. Would that be a fair statement?
24 A. No, I wouldn't agree with what you said. I'm talking about what
25 I saw and what I know. I'm making no assumptions.
1 Q. Now I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 41 where you
2 say that when you arrived, the chief of the camp was a man by the name of
3 Veljo. Can you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. To the best of your knowledge, can you tell us how long did he
6 perform this duty of camp warden until he was replaced by a person called
8 A. A few weeks.
9 Q. What you say in paragraph 41, that the camp warden had the rank
10 of a sergeant and that was the most senior non-commissioned officer rank
11 in the JNA; is that correct?
12 A. Yes. That is my conclusion, based on the insignia that he had.
13 Q. And he performed the duties of the camp warden with that specific
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Then, in paragraph 42, you say, among other things:
17 "One night, approximately in mid-August 1992, a man from
18 Bijeljina, about 35 years of age, known to us as Professor, was taken
19 from the hangar building to the open compound area."
20 And then you go on to describe his death.
21 This date, or this period, mid-August, is this something that you
22 are sure about, or is it your -- is this your assumption?
23 A. I wasn't assuming anything. I said this to the best of my
24 recollection. And that's exactly why I said mid-August, because I cannot
25 say for sure whether it was the 5th or the 10th.
1 Q. But that was not in July?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Now, let us look at Exhibit D47.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- I apologise.
5 D267. 1D267.
6 Whilst we are waiting, let me tell you, Your Honours, that this
7 is a -- the indictment that we had an occasion to see earlier in
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Previous translation continues]... D267. Yes,
10 it's MFI'd as D47.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are still
12 waiting for the translation. That's why it was only MFI'd. And, with
13 your leave, I would use the interpreters in the booth, in order to go
14 through these documents.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, to a limited extent, with the indulgence of
16 the interpreters, we may go on that path, although it's not common.
17 But could you then please come to your point as quickly as
18 possible. If it is about the date, then let's deal with the date
19 immediately. To the extent you could not agree with the Prosecution on
20 dates mentioned in documents.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. I would kindly ask you to take a look at page 3 of this document.
23 You saw the first page, and you saw that four persons were
24 indicted and their names were mentioned on page 1. The warden, the
25 deputy warden of the camp in Batkovic. And it says that they were also
1 responsible for the following:
2 "Due to the beatings administered, the following persons were
3 killed: Zecevic Ferid, nicknamed Professor, passed away on 28
4 July 1992."
5 Do you see that? Do you see that, Mr. Pasic.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. This date, in connection with which four persons were indicted,
8 would that be the exact date of the Professor's death, or is what you are
9 telling us correct; namely, mid-August?
10 A. I had been in captivity for quite a long time before this
11 happened. I had seen terrible things happen. If I misstated the date, I
12 think that it was possible that I made a mistake in terms of a week or
13 two. This was the end of July, and I said that it was August. So a
14 ten-day difference doesn't make this less correct.
15 To the best of my recollection, it happened in the beginning of
16 August, or in mid-August ...
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. The point is -- the point --
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. I understand that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The point seems to be clear is that there's a
21 different date here than in the indictment.
22 Please move on, Mr. Stojanovic.
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. In paragraph 45 -- actually, Your Honours, to be as practical as
25 possible, I will try to fit into the time allocated to us.
1 While we're still on this page, let us take a look at this
2 indictment. And does it not say here that in the period that is
3 mentioned in the indictment, the period during which you were in
4 Batkovici, six persons, six prisoners succumbed to the beatings
5 administered to them. And then their names are listed. You can see
6 that, can you not?
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could we first ask: Have you ever
8 seen this indictment before, Mr. Pasic?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I haven't.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What the indictment says, Mr. Stojanovic, I take it,
11 certainly after it has been translated, you could agree on that, I take
12 it, with the Prosecution -- well, as long as it comes to Professor and
13 the 28th of July, it is not that difficult to find it, and even for us to
14 read it on page 2. But let's not go through a document -- unless you
15 have any specific question to this witness about something which is
16 described here, point at that portion, ask the question, and then move
17 on. But we shouldn't go with this witness through an indictment. That
18 is not assisting the Chamber. Certainly if he has not seen that
19 indictment ever before.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. And
22 I shall be done with this very quickly.
23 Q. You saw the names: Sutic, Husein; Zecevic, Ferid; Okanovic,
24 Iljaz; Hadziomerevic, Zulfo; Topcic, Idriz; and Habibovic, Sead. Now I
25 would like to ask that we look at paragraph 45 of your statement, which
1 is P434.
2 This is what you say there: "During the first two months of my
3 detention at Batkovic ..."
4 You say that you had the occasion to know that Mehmed Hodzic and
5 Hamdo, whose last name you don't know, were beaten very badly and that
6 they died as a result of the injuries sustained during the beatings.
7 Do you stand by this part of your statement?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Then I'm going to ask you this: Did you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell the Trial Chamber where you were and where you watched this
13 A. While I was in camp Batkovic, during the first two months before
14 we were registered by the Red Cross, it would often happen that soldiers
15 would come from the front line, enter the camp, and do whatever they
16 wanted. For the most part, they came to take things out on prisoners.
17 Actually, express their rage in that way against the prisoners.
18 At first, we were in a big military tent within the camp
19 compound, and, on one day, among other things, these soldiers came, and
20 they beat and mistreat all the prisoners who were in that tent. The
21 prisoners were mistreated in a variety of ways. The prisoners included
22 these two elderly men whom I knew from Rogatica. On that same day, later
23 on, both of these men died. They were taken out. They were carried out
24 of the camp compound.
25 Q. My question was whether you saw this and where you were when you
1 saw this, in which facility?
2 A. I was in this tent.
3 Q. Did you see this personally?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you another question in respect
6 of what you said in paragraph 43.
7 In the camp in Batkovic, you remembered two Muslims who had a
8 special status among the inmate population. Their nicknames were Pike
9 and Spajzer. Why do you remember them so well?
10 A. I remember these two detainees because they were favoured. They
11 had certain privileges that the camp guards gave them. They could eat as
12 much as they wanted, and they could also behave like the Serb soldiers
13 behaved. They could walk into the camp, and they could mistreat and beat
14 whomever they wanted.
15 Q. Did they mistreat you?
16 A. No, not me personally.
17 Q. Did anyone else mistreat you personally, physically?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did that happen in Batkovic or outside the facility at Batkovic?
20 A. In Batkovic.
21 Q. How many times did this happen, or was this on a single occasion?
22 A. To the best of my recollection, it happened once.
23 Q. You were hit by a hand.
24 A. A hand, a foot, a rifle-butt. I cannot remember all of it.
25 Q. Were you registered by the International Committee of the
1 Red Cross when you arrived in Batkovic?
2 A. Not immediately after my arrival.
3 Q. Tell the Trial Chamber when the ICRC came after your arrival.
4 A. To the best of my recollection, it was six or seven weeks after
5 we were registered. After -- we were registered six or seven weeks after
6 we arrived. Or perhaps even more than that.
7 Q. Did you have an opportunity to send mail through the prison
8 administration and the Red Cross?
9 A. When we were registered by the Red Cross, we were given the
10 possibility of writing messages to relatives, friends, anyone we knew,
11 and we were promised that these messages would be delivered to such
12 persons, if such a person could be found in the territory of
14 Q. Did you avail yourself of that opportunity?
15 A. Yes. I sent a message to my mother.
16 Q. Did you have an opportunity of receiving an answer to that
18 A. I cannot remember that.
19 Q. During your stay in Batkovic, did you get meals?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Three meals?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I will conclude with a question related to personal hygiene. Did
24 you receive soap and the like?
25 A. The prison administration didn't give us anything. As far as
1 personal hygiene was concerned, we got our first supplies after we were
2 registered by the Red Cross, the International Red Cross, for the first
3 time. These supplies consisted of toothpaste, a tooth-brush, and a small
4 bar of soap.
5 Q. I'm just going to conclude with a question that has to do with a
6 man who you knew by the nickname of Spajzer. Did he leave Batkovic
7 before you did?
8 A. I cannot recall.
9 Q. Why do you remember him so well?
10 A. As I've already said, he enjoyed certain privileges from the
11 soldiers and the --
12 JUDGE ORIE: The question has been asked. The question has been
13 answered. Please, next question.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, then
15 I'm going to conclude by putting this question.
16 Q. You were exchanged and you went to Croatia; is that correct?
17 A. I was exchanged and went to Croatia.
18 Q. In July 1993?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Together with you, another group of detainees were exchanged from
21 Batkovici. Detainees from Batkovici; is that correct?
22 A. The group that I was in included 40 prisoners.
23 Q. The number of prisoners from the moment when you arrived in
24 June 1992 until June 1993 when you were exchanged is the number of -- is
25 actually a number that was considerably lower than the original one; is
1 that correct?
2 A. The number of detainees in Batkovic camp varied because some
3 people left and others were being brought in. I would not say that it
4 was decreased radically.
5 Q. In the group --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you have now -- you are now starting
7 your fourth or fifth final question. Last question.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 With your leave, I will just suggest that this indictment that
10 was used here in the courtroom as MFI'd, I would like to suggest that it
11 be admitted into evidence once it's been translated. I don't have
12 anything else to tender because everything else has already been
13 admitted. Thank you.
14 Q. And thank you, Mr. Pasic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I think it was MFI'd because it was
16 tendered but there was no translation, so that status is there already.
17 Mr. Jeremy, any question?
18 MR. JEREMY: One question, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 Re-examination by Mr. Jeremy:
21 Q. Mr. Pasic, at temporary transcript page 88, lines 17 to 23, you
22 were asked about the mixed police/army force headquartered at the farm
23 where you stayed before going onto Susica camp, and you confirmed that
24 they did not mistreat you.
25 Did any members of that unit speak to you about their operations?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what did they say?
3 A. They said that in the territory of the town of Rogatica, they
4 attacked the town and they had a minor incident in which one of them
5 almost lost his life, because they were not careful in terms of where
6 they should shoot in the part of town where they went to cleanse the town
7 of Muslims.
8 MR. JEREMY: No further questions, Your Honours. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Bench also has no further questions,
12 Mr. Pasic, this concludes your testimony in this court. I'd like to
13 thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for answering all the
14 questions that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench. I wish
15 you a safe return home again. And I would invite you to follow the
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then briefly, for the record, the Chamber
19 understands that the portions selected by both parties of P431, MFI'd,
20 has been uploaded as 65 ter 02353A and is therefore ready to be admitted
21 into evidence and will receive - Madam Registrar, please correct me when
22 I'm wrong - P431A.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That's the 65 ter number, yes, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: But I gave -- but it will be admitted under number?
25 I think it would receive an A number as well.
1 THE REGISTRAR: The number would be the same as it was MFI'd. So
2 P431, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. I think P431 is the whole of the 16th Session,
4 whereas, the selected portion which has now been uploaded as 65 ter 2353A
5 would then be admitted into evidence separately.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Then as the number P437, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And we cannot work with P431A. If that is
8 impossible, then we have to take care.
9 P437 is admitted into evidence.
10 We adjourn for the day, and we will resume, Monday, the 5th of
11 November, in this same courtroom, I, if I'm not mistaken ...
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. We resume Monday, the 5th of November, at 9.30
14 in the morning, in Courtroom III.
15 We stand adjourned.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.16 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 5th day of
18 November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.