1 Thursday, 8 November 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 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 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution had a preliminary
11 to be raised. Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours. Thank you.
13 Your Honours, this is with respect to two exhibits, P409, it is
14 an admitted exhibit, but it lacks an English translation. One is
15 available and has been uploaded, and the Prosecution would request that
16 the registrar be authorised to attach it.
17 The second matter is P459. If Your Honours will recall, that was
18 the document admitted yesterday upon which the translation had unrevised
19 copy blocking some words. The Prosecution has now uploaded a clean copy
20 and that is available -- or we are requesting that it replace the current
21 version in e-court.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
23 Mr. Lukic, I take it that the Defence will have had an
24 opportunity to look at it.
25 MR. LUKIC: Actually, Your Honour, I was submerged into this and
1 the next witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Would you agree that since it's just --
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: -- translations that we would grant leave to have
5 them added.
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And then if there's any problem, then we'd like to
8 hear from you soon.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 Then, Madam Registrar, leave is hereby granted to attach to
12 Exhibit 409 the English translation as uploaded into e-court by the
13 Prosecution and to replace the translation attached to P459, English
14 translation by the new translation uploaded by the Prosecution.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, and then just to -- to make the Chamber
16 aware that the way witnesses -- the witness schedule is working out this
17 week, it looks like the - at least according to Prosecution's
18 calculations - that the witness that will be called Friday may need to go
19 into next week. I'm not sure of that. But I do want to just alert the
20 Chamber to the fact that next week is a rather full week and a rather
21 complicated week because of the need to get Danish interpreters and that,
22 so it may be that the Prosecution next Monday might be asking the Chamber
23 to investigate the possibility of sitting an extra hour to accommodate
24 some exigencies which I can explain at that time, but I just wanted to
25 alert the Chamber at this time as to that.
1 Your Honour, then there's another matter. Next week, the
2 witness -- first witness of the week, we will be using military maps, and
3 they are maps 40, 41, and 48 in the Sarajevo Court binder. Your Honour,
4 these maps, they're very difficult to comprehend at the size they are in
5 the Court binder. The Prosecution has had them reproduced in their
6 original size and they are quite large, but they are a very important
7 piece of evidence. The Prosecution also believes that it is only fair
8 that Mr. Mladic have an opportunity to see the maps and discuss them with
9 his attorneys, so the Prosecution was proposing or seeking the permission
10 of the court to line them up against this back wall where they could not
11 be seen from the public gallery sometime today so that Mr. Mladic can
12 view them with his attorney. It will also give us an opportunity to work
13 with the director and to come up with some strategy for making them
14 available in a useable way for the Chamber and for the public. So I'm
15 requesting to put three maps at the back of the courtroom today.
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, thank you for the forewarning about
17 scheduling for next week. Second, the maps may be put against the wall
18 so that Mr. Mladic has an opportunity to look at them.
19 MR. GROOME: And finally, Your Honour, for this morning, I made a
20 proposal yesterday, and it would be appreciated if we could hear the
21 Defence views on it, we have prepared the materials to provide CLSS if
22 the proposal is adopted, but I will not do -- obviously not do that until
23 there's a decision by the Chamber.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, are you in a position yet to respond to
25 the request and suggestion made by Mr. Groome yesterday?
1 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid I was reading. Can -- can I -- what's the
2 proposal from yesterday?
3 JUDGE ORIE: The proposal from yesterday was about the way how to
4 prepare for the -- for the recognition of voices it was, isn't it,
5 Mr. Groome?
6 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, on tape-recorded intercepts.
7 MR. LUKIC: Yes, we agree with that proposal.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You agree with the proposal.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber also agrees that you proceed as you
11 suggested and requested.
12 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing else. If there's nothing else, could the
14 witness be escorted into the courtroom.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Philipps.
17 THE WITNESS: Good morning, sir.
18 JUDGE ORIE: I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
19 the solemn declaration you've given yesterday at the beginning of your
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
23 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
24 WITNESS: RICHARD PHILIPPS [Resumed]
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Philipps.
2 When we broke off yesterday, I put a question.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And in order to continue, could we
4 have 1D419, please, on our screens. We need page 3. From line 11 until
5 the end of the page.
6 Q. We talked about operational groups, tactical groups, and about
7 the units that made them up. In line 11 and further on, in the Galic
8 trial, the date is the 16th of July, 2002, there is what you say:
9 [In English] "As I understand it, these [sic] brigades or parts
10 of those brigades formed part of the operational tactical group at
11 various times. It may be that at one moment all of them were part of it
12 or it may be at other times that only some of them or part of each
13 brigade was within the tactical Operational Group."
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry for interrupting for a moment. Can that be
15 enlarged, please, from line 11 on. Thank you.
16 MR. LUKIC:
17 Q. And then you continue at line 23 at the end of this row:
18 "The group was brought together for specific purposes and may
19 have used all the brigade or may have used parts of the brigades."
20 [Interpretation] May we conclude that your chart does not show
21 which brigades and possibly which parts of certain brigades took part in
22 the operations for which these operational or tactical groups were
24 A. That would be correct.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we need page 8 of this document.
2 Lines 13 through 17.
3 Q. The question was as follows:
4 "Mr. Philipps, [in English] to conclude that the Ilidza Brigade
5 and the Igman Brigade in the period of 1993 -- that is, from this report,
6 could we conclude that the Ilijas and the Igman Brigade were not part of
7 the Vogosca Tactical Group? Ilidza Brigade and Igman brigade."
8 And your answer at line 17 was, I quote:
9 "Yes, that would be a conclusion from this document on that
11 [Interpretation] Do you stand by this answer today as well?
12 A. Is the -- is the reference the document referring to the chart
13 that was presented during the Galic case?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. And that's a -- we don't have that document in front of us. But
16 so from memory, I'm unable to confirm what was on the Galic chart of the
17 SRK. It's very similar to the two charts we have here today but may be
18 subtly different in some way without me saying it.
19 But generally speaking, we seem to have established that the
20 Vogosca Operational Group or the Vogosca Tactical Group had different
21 brigades in it at different times, and I don't have the documents that
22 show which brigades were in it and when they seem to be moving in and
23 out, depending on the tactical operational situation.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
25 MS. HARBOUR: The Defence says that this answer refers to the
1 chart that Mr. Philipps produced in the Galic case. However, if we look
2 on page 7 of the excerpt of the Galic testimony, it appears that the
3 answer refers to an SRK report that was put to the witness during that
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think Mr. Philipps showed awareness that
6 apparently a document played a role in this discussion and he doesn't
7 know which document which exactly that was.
8 Now, I think the best way to proceed would at least be to give
9 access to that document to Mr. Philipps, because it might be difficult
10 for him to work from the top of his head.
11 MR. LUKIC: I can rephrase the question so we -- because I don't
12 have that document in the system. We can use this document.
13 Q. Is it visible from the document we are using in this case; that
14 is, the chart for 1999 [sic] to 1994. Is it the same conclusion that can
15 you draw from that document?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you say the chart from 1994?
17 MR. LUKIC: This -- the chart that is --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: 1992 to 1994.
19 MR. LUKIC: What did I say?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said 1999 to 1994.
21 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry. Thank you, Your Honour. 1992 to 1994.
22 THE WITNESS: In -- to answer your question, on the chart 1992 to
23 1994, four brigades are shown with a faint but solid line as being part
24 of Vogosca operational or tactical group. That is the Ilidza, Ilijas,
25 Rajlovac and Vogosca Infantry Brigades.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Does that mean that something changed now in relation to the
3 previous situation; namely, that the Ilidza Brigade is part of this
5 A. I can only refer to all the documents that I used to reach this
6 conclusion of which there were one, two, three, four, five separate
7 documents, all of which covered the composition of Vogosca
8 Operational/Tactical Group. That includes an order by Colonel Marcetic
9 about the forming of the tactical group in 1993, where we had the
10 discussion whether that was June or July.
11 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now I'd like to ask you the following.
12 In which way was there co-operation between the command of the
13 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and how did they communicate, actually, with the
14 brigade command? I beg your pardon. If, for example, fire was needed
15 from artillery weapons --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could all unnecessary
17 microphones please be switched off. Thank you.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you give us an answer?
20 A. I'm sorry, I was -- I hadn't understood the end of the question.
21 Q. Maybe it was inartfully posed. How would corps and brigade
22 commands or staffs co-operate if the use of artillery was asked for?
23 A. I understand. There was several means of communication between
24 the corps commander and the brigade commander, brigade commanders. This
25 could be done in person, verbally, where they were co-located, and during
1 meeting where the corps commander could talk in person to the brigade
2 commander, but this would be a rare event. Mostly a brigade commander
3 would be communicated to either by runner or by field telephone or by
4 radio. The disadvantage of the latter is that, of course, it can be
5 intercepted, and the disadvantage of a runner and a field telephone is
6 that they can both be intercepted by enemy fire. Intercepted in the
7 sense of destroyed in the latter case.
8 To call in artillery fire usually requires radio, that's because
9 it's required immediately in a certain position. As many of the
10 artillery locations were fixed through the period, many were laid with
11 field telephone, I imagine, is what you would do if you had fixed
12 artillery. And so either land-lines or radio could be used to call in
13 artillery fire.
14 And at that time in Sarajevo I suspect that maybe the telephone
15 system would partially work within a city, so there might even be a
16 method which we don't normally expect in warfare of being able to use the
17 simple telecommunications system by dialing a telephone number.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. That's as far as the technical side
19 of this communication is concerned. Do you know, though, which persons
20 are communicating in order to have fire support? Both from the corps and
21 from the brigade.
22 A. In -- in such a case obviously the corps and brigade commanders
23 themselves are not involved. The corps commander or the brigade
24 commanders might require the fire to be brought in, in a particular
25 place, but they would have staffs that would actually do the
1 communication for them rather than make the calls themselves.
2 Occasionally a corps commander or a brigade commander might talk
3 personally to an artillery commander to bring in the appropriate fire.
4 Q. So could this communication take place apart from the commanders?
5 Could representatives of staffs communicate directly?
6 A. In a sense now we're outside the scope of my knowledge. I know
7 how it works in other armies, I know how it ought to work in certain
8 organisations, but how it actually functioned within the
9 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps is something that I have not looked at. I would
10 be very surprised if the staff didn't communicate with the staff in -- in
11 the brigade headquarters. So Corps Staff and brigade staff would talk to
12 each other.
13 Q. But you don't know for sure.
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Lukic is kindly asked to wait for the B/C/S
17 translation to be over before putting his next question in B/C/S because
18 otherwise we are overlapping and a part of the witness's answer is lost.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: If you're reading your screen.
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes. Thank you.
23 Q. [Interpretation] [B/C/S on English channel]... about military
24 post 7491, and you said that that was a paramilitary formation?
25 A. Military post 7491, as far as I know, is the
1 Ilijas Infantry Brigade, and I don't believe Ilijas Brigade --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Where we are in our chart?
3 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. You mentioned Vasko's Platoon -- sorry. Do you remember that you
7 mentioned that platoon, Vasko's Platoon, and that you determined that it
8 was a paramilitary formation?
9 A. I located a platoon called Vasko's Platoon with a VP number of
10 7491/20, and the 7491 prefix indicated that it was part of the
11 Ilijas Brigade. And then I used two documents to establish this: A
12 daily combat report of November 1993 and information on the transfer of
13 soldiers within the Ilijas Brigade in December 1993. And I have the ERNs
14 if that would assist the Court.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honour, I only ask that if the Defence is
17 referring to something that the witness said in his prior testimony, that
18 that just be made clear for the record since this information wasn't
19 elicited from the witness in this case yet. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: That seems like a good suggestion, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: Since the witness knows what I'm talking about, I'll
22 just put the follow-up.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we would like to know what you are talking
24 about as well. So if there's any reference to earlier testimony --
25 MR. LUKIC: I don't have reference here, unfortunately.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we'll see. And the date again was, mister ...
2 the date of the testimony?
3 MR. LUKIC: I don't have the reference at all.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Nothing at all.
5 MR. LUKIC: No, I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we --
7 MR. LUKIC: But I can pose a general question.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Philipps, if a formation were to have a VP
11 number and if it were to be included in the system of command and
12 control, would it then be a paramilitary formation?
13 A. To answer that, generally speaking I would not expect that to be
14 a paramilitary organisation. And I don't think, in fact I'm sure on both
15 of these charts where Vasko's platoon is shown, and in my alphanumeric
16 listing, no mention is made of it being a paramilitary formation.
17 Paramilitary is a very emotive term and is often misunderstood and it's
18 not often a term I would use. If I used it in the Galic case, I would be
19 pleased to see the transcript.
20 Q. You heard me that I don't have that reference and we move on.
21 A. Yeah, I'm sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is that -- even the date when the witness testified
23 in Galic, is that not known?
24 MR. LUKIC: It's 16th and 17th of July, I think.
25 JUDGE ORIE: 16th and 17th of July.
1 MR. LUKIC: 2002.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We could have a look at it.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. [Interpretation] I'd like to ask you something about artillery
6 pieces now within the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. On page 11745 -- the
7 document is 1D419. In this document, it is page 11. And it is the 16th
8 of July, 2002. Again, it is the transcript from the Galic trial.
9 We see here that there were howitzers in a mixed artillery
10 division. Lines 10 through 16 in this transcript. You say that this
11 particular artillery piece was involved with Colonel Jovo Bartula
12 "[In English]... and the relationship, therefore, between the battery and
13 the commander at that period has been used to identify those batteries."
14 [Interpretation] May we agree that howitzers are not anti-armour
16 A. I agree that howitzers are not anti-armour weapons. They have a
17 capability against armour but are not generally used against armoured
19 A good example would, of course, would be the 122-millimetre
20 howitzer that does have an anti-tank shell that can be used for direct
21 anti-tank fire that was in use by the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
22 Q. Howitzers are not normally found in such anti-armour units; is
23 that correct?
24 A. That's correct. It would be an odd thing to find a howitzer in
25 an anti-tank artillery regiment.
1 Q. Thank you. Within this mixed anti-armour artillery regiment, you
2 have shown three batteries, and they are all connected with dotted lines.
3 A. If you're referring to both the charts, I see that the 4th Mixed
4 Anti-Tank Artillery Regiment has no subordinated equipment, whereas the
5 mixed artillery regiment on the bottom left of the chart has multiple
6 batteries associated with firing positions.
7 Q. This dotted line indicates that you were unable to confirm this
8 with certainty, where it belonged.
9 A. That's correct. This data came from a very detailed fire
10 planning map, which was drawn up by the 4th Mixed Artillery Regiment
11 showing positions of weapons at four different locations, as well as the
12 fire plan that they would undertake in the event of an operation. And
13 the conclusion is that since the 4th Mixed Artillery Regiment drew up the
14 fire plan for the under-listed artillery pieces, that those artillery
15 pieces were part of the 4th Mixed Artillery Regiment.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, if you allow me to interrupt.
17 Galic transcript, page 11.774, 17th of July, seems to deal with
18 paramilitary formations, although not necessarily and immediately in
19 relation to a named unit. And I wonder if can I find it in two minutes,
20 Mr. Lukic, whether one of the members of your staff could not find the
21 same in two minutes, if we've got the dates of the transcripts.
22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you for your help, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
24 MS. HARBOUR: Just for clarification, and if it assists the
25 Defence, the witness testified on four days in the Galic case. The 5th,
1 10th, 16th, and 17th of July, 2002.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I looked only at the 16th and the 17th at this
3 moment because these were the dates given. And the page -- yes, I gave
4 the page reference already.
5 Perhaps your team could look at the other dates whether any
6 reference to paramilitary formations is there. If you would not mind,
7 I'll read to the witness what he said in relation to paramilitary
8 formations where Judge El Mahdi asked him the following:
9 "Did you find out about the relationship, if any, between the
10 corps and paramilitary forces?
11 The answer then was:
12 "The existence of paramilitary formations, to use that term, is
13 shown on the chart with the one example of a unit that I could not link
14 directly to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. And that is shown on the
15 right-hand side of the chart. Other organisations which had been termed
16 'paramilitary' were later shown or may have been incorporated within the
17 corps itself, that is, were no longer paramilitary, that is outside the
18 military, but were brought into the military and under the command of the
20 And then there's a further explanation about that one example.
21 This is, I think, the relevant part.
22 So if you would like to give it some follow-up or if the witness,
23 on the basis of what I just read to him, and it's -- again, it's not the
24 entire answer.
25 THE WITNESS: That passage I would, in a sense, give exactly the
1 same wording again if I could be so eloquent now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I hope you didn't lose too much of your
3 eloquence over the years, Mr. Philipps.
4 But please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Philipps, let us now focus on the personnel
7 composition of the SRK and by naming some names we're going to do that.
8 Let's start with Tomislav Sipcic. He was the first commander of the
9 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; is that correct?
10 A. On my charts, he is the first commander of the Sarajevo-Romanija
11 Corps during the period.
12 Q. Have you established when was it that he assumed his duties?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters are kindly asking Mr. Lukic to
14 wait for the B/C/S translation.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, a renewed request for you on the screen.
16 THE WITNESS: On my chart, based on a very limited number of
17 documents, I have Tomislav Sipcic as being in post in July 1992 but
18 possibly in post before that date, and in post in August 1992 and
19 possibly in post after that date. But I do not have the exact dates of
20 his appointment and the exact dates of his relinquishment of command.
21 Later we find documents with his name but not his signature, and
22 it may be that he relinquished command but his name was still being used.
23 Q. Let us look at document 03698. That's a 65 ter document.
24 Mr. Philipps, as we can see this document is from May 1992. And let us
25 look at the last page of this document. So it's a document sent from the
1 SRK command, and we can see the signature of Tomislav Sipcic. Would you
2 agree with me that Mr. Sipcic was at the head of the Sarajevo-Romanija
3 Corps in May 1992, i.e., before June 1992?
4 A. I can agree that I can see the name of Tomislav Sipcic. I don't
5 see a signature. But it being a military communication, I wouldn't
6 necessarily have expected a signature.
7 And, however, I also agree with you that if the document is dated
8 May 1992, then the chart could be amended to say May 1992 but would still
9 have the dash before it because all we've done is extend the date at
10 which we believe he is the commander. He may have been posted to that
11 position earlier. If I'd had this document it could have been added to
12 the chart and that date amended by one month.
13 Q. By looking at this document, would you agree that this is the
14 format of a dispatch?
15 A. Yes. Because of the typeface and the way that the document is
16 typed and the look of it. It looks like a document typed for
18 Q. Such documents were never signed, in fact; is that correct?
19 A. It's very rare for them to be signed. Very rare.
20 Q. In your work, did you come across information that
21 Tomislav Sipcic had left the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and that
22 Stanislav Galic had not assumed the position of the corps commander and
23 that, at that time, the only one who carried out any command duties was
24 Cedo Sladoje?
25 A. I will have to break that question down into parts. I came
1 across documents that showed when Stanislav Galic became the corps
2 commander relating to a meeting that took place in Jahorina in
3 September 1992. I did not find a document removing Tomislav Sipcic from
4 command, but his name continued to appear on documents up to
5 September 1992, but none of them were signed.
6 On my chart I show a dotted line between Tomislav Sipcic and the
7 hand-over to Stanislav Galic, and so it is quite possible that a
8 subordinate took over command of the corps in the absence of the corps
9 commander, as we discussed yesterday.
10 Q. Now I'm interested in the name of Veljko Stojanovic. He was in
11 the 1st Sarajevo Mechanised, or motorised, Brigade from May 1992 until
13 However, at the same time, in your chart, Mr. Veljko Stojanovic
14 is designated as the deputy commander in the 1st Infantry Brigade from --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Lukic please repeat the dates slowly.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to slowly repeat the dates
17 you mentioned.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. So, in your chart, Mr. Veljko Stojanovic is designated as the
20 brigade deputy commander in the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade from the
21 12th September 1992 until 10th January 1993.
22 My question is --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could we look at where we are in the chart because I
24 think earlier you said mechanized or motorised brigade and now you are
25 referring to the infantry brigade. Is that?
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Then we, I think -- yes, you said
3 something different in page 18, line 1 and 2. But now let's try and
4 find ...
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Would you agree with me that, indeed, in your chart this person
7 is occupying two posts and covering the same period?
8 A. Being based on documentary information, I have multiple documents
9 relating to Veljko Stojanovic as the deputy brigade commander of -- of
10 one organisation and as the brigade commander of another organisation.
11 I have, if you look at my alphabetical list, listed
12 Veljko Stojanovic twice, once with a prefix number 2 around his name. It
13 is impossible for me to conclude that these individuals are the same
14 person without direct proof that they are the same person. It is
15 perfectly possible with my documentation that Veljko Stojanovic was the
16 name of two people. I think it unlikely that they're two people, but if
17 I -- if I make conclusions that aren't based on documents, then I'm
18 leaping to conclusions and that -- that causes enormous difficulties.
19 That is why his name appears twice on the chart and appears twice in the
20 alphabetical list.
21 In reality, if we were to go through the documents in detail, we
22 might find that he occupied one position for a period of time, then
23 occupied another position, and then returned to his original brigade. I
24 can only think of examples where other officers in the
25 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps have moved from one brigade and one post to
1 another and their name will appear several times on the chart, and they
2 can often be shown to be the same person. In this case I have been
3 unable to prove that it's the same person, and so his name appears twice
4 in the alphabetical list.
5 Q. If it is the same person, that person could not have discharged
6 both duties simultaneously, at the same time; is that correct?
7 A. That would be correct. You could not be the brigade commander of
8 one brigade and the -- and the deputy commander of another brigade at the
9 same time. So the logical conclusion would that be it's one person
10 that's had two different posts, but without a document where I can
11 conclusively say they are the same person, then I can't join these two
12 sets together.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one thing in this context.
14 For Veljko Stojanovic, in his position as deputy brigade
15 commander, there's no indication whatsoever about the time. May I take
16 it that from the documents -- well, at least there must be some kind of a
17 time indication?
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. If I look at the -- the entry
19 for the documents relating to his post as deputy brigade commander, I can
20 see that the documents do have dates, and it would be possible to look at
21 those documents and extract the dates.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because nothing of the kind is found on the
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Whereas for his position as brigade commander, there
1 are -- there's a rather wide time range, May 1992 until December 1995.
2 THE WITNESS: 1996, I think it says on the --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Let me see. I have to enlarge that.
4 Yes, but I'm looking at the chart at this moment.
5 THE WITNESS: I -- 1996 --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Let me see whether I can find that. I
7 find on the chart for the 1st Sarajevo Mechanized, or motorised, Brigade,
8 Stojanovic, Veljko, May 1992 up to December 1995, and then again a dash,
9 which means that it could be for later, but -- yes. I've enlarged it on
10 my screen in such a way that even one of my colleagues confirms.
11 THE WITNESS: My --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's different in the Veljko Stojanovic, 2,
13 as a brigade commander, where it says 1992 to 1996.
14 THE WITNESS: My --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could I have -- I now need... oh. Are there various
16 versions? Is my electronic version different from the hard copy we
17 received, Ms. Harbour?
18 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, are you looking at the electronic
19 version in e-court?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes -- in e-court, no. I'm looking at the
21 electronic version as was provided to the Chamber as an annex to the
23 MS. HARBOUR: I sent an e-mail on -- last Friday --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MS. HARBOUR: -- noting that there had been -- we -- we noticed
1 that the previous version -- there was some formatting issues and lines
2 and names had been shifted, so sometimes --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll check that. But could someone
4 assist me in getting the right -- for 1992, 1994, the chart would have
5 e-court exhibit number?
6 MS. HARBOUR: It's exhibit number P451. And 1994 to 1995 is the
7 second page.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MS. HARBOUR: And, Your Honours, I will ask Ms. Stewart to send
10 the PDFs of these charts to Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll have a look at them. Thank you.
12 You may proceed, meanwhile.
13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Let us now focus on the documents shown to you
15 yesterday by the OTP.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we first have in e-court P457.
17 Q. By reading and discussing this document, you spoke about the
18 procurement of ammunition by the 1st SMBR, as it says here. And this
19 obviously refers to a brigade. And the request for ammunition is sent to
20 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps; is that correct?
21 A. Yes. This appears to be a combat report dated 14th of May, 1993.
22 Q. In this chain, is it possible that the Main Staff could feature?
23 Or perhaps you -- you did not address that issue at all.
24 A. As far as I can tell from this document, the Main Staff are not
25 involved in this document. It's a document -- yes, it's a document
1 from -- from the brigade to -- to the corps. Not involving the
2 Main Staff.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now we need P458, please.
5 Q. This is, again, the -- a document produced by the SRK command.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And can we please look first at the
7 penultimate page and then the last page in English and the last page in
8 the B/C/S.
9 Q. In the course of commenting this document, there was a dilemma
10 that arose with respect to something that we see on the penultimate page
11 in English, for example, concerning the Blazuj Brigade. Let's move now
12 to the last page in the English.
13 Now the dilemma created here was by the Trnovo Brigade. And the
14 dilemma was why these brigades were relocated by the SRK, whether they
15 were -- belonged to it.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now let's go back to page 1 in both
17 versions. And we need item 3. It's at the bottom of the page in
19 Q. This paragraph shows that involved in the action were parts of
20 Herzegovina Corps and the Eastern Bosnia Corps; is that correct?
21 A. Yes. In detail now that we can read this page, we see the
22 explanation of why the Trnovo Brigade is mentioned on the distribution
23 list and so that explains that the Trnovo -- Trnovo Brigade looks very
24 much from this possibly to be part of the Herzegovina Corps. That would
25 be an example of an unconfirmed dotted line to the Herzegovina Corps for
1 the Trnovo Brigade. But in a sense that's why the Trnovo Brigade doesn't
2 appear in any of my charts.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could we -- could we read the whole of paragraph 3,
5 so next page. You -- meanwhile, please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
6 At the same time, would this be a suitable time for a break.
7 MR. LUKIC: Would this be a good time, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it would be.
9 We take a break. But could the witness first be escorted out of
10 the courtroom.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 We take a break and will resume at 10 minutes to 11.00
13 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Philipps, we're not going to go on for very
20 long. We're just going to go through the documents that the Prosecutor
21 showed you.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have in e-court
23 P460. We're interested in paragraph 2 and 3.
24 Q. This is a document of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
25 dated the 12th of September, 1992, when it was headed by Stanislav Galic.
1 In paragraph 2, we see that Stanislav Galic insists that there should be
2 consolidation and command and control at all levels and that all forces
3 within the corps should be completely linked up.
4 As you reviewed documents from the previous period, did you get
5 the impression that, in the previous period, this had not been carried
6 out; that is to say, consolidation and the establishment of command and
7 control at all levels?
8 A. This document was produced just after the meeting at Jahorina and
9 General Galic had just taken over command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,
10 and it's the type of document that is frequently produced and a senior
11 officer when taking over an organisation; that is, he's trying to
12 establish the way he means to go on, the way he intends to command the
14 Frequently officers will make comments such as -- such as that.
15 And at an earlier line says, stop the weekend war and the habits
16 connected with it. What he is trying to do is improve the morale, the
17 organisation, and the training of the organisation. That is a common
18 type of document when a commander takes over. It's not necessarily a
19 criticism of the previous command. If we look at the history of the
20 formation of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, it would hardly be surprising
21 that in the months from May through to September they were trying to put
22 a corps together at the same time as fighting, so that's a very difficult
23 thing to do, to bring an organisation together at the same time as
24 fighting a battle. And that, the seeking to establish command and
25 control, continued throughout the period from May to September and then
1 onwards from September all the way through until the final -- until the
2 end of the conflict. There was -- there was a continual effort by the
3 commanders to gain and improve command and control throughout the corps.
4 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 3, we see that absolute agreement and
5 unity with the civilian authorities and MUP forces at all levels is asked
6 for and that no paramilitary units should be created. In your work, did
7 you deal with the consequences because of the disagreements -- or,
8 rather, the consequences of the disagreements with the civilian
9 authorities and the MUP?
10 A. No. My remit, really, has been to put together the structure of
11 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps so that we can understand the command and
12 control and the passage of information. But the political structures and
13 the political intrigues do not form part of my chart.
14 Q. Do you know what was in the hands of civilians and that had to do
15 with the military, including the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps? Did you study
16 that? Did you study the supply channels that were in place? Did you
17 include in your research the ministries of defence? And did you study
18 how crimes were prosecuted, or rather, did you study the military
19 judiciary? And did you know in whose hands military courts were?
20 A. Multiple questions there. No appears to be the answer to all
21 those. I came across information relating to these things, which I read,
22 and so I have some knowledge of them, but they did not form part of my
23 report, and I haven't written reports on that information.
24 Q. Thank you. In the documents that you reviewed, did you find any
25 reference to paramilitaries in the territory that was covered by the
1 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps? And what was the attitude of the command of
2 this corps vis-a-vis the possible existence of such paramilitaries?
3 A. I think we can see from paragraph 3 of the document that you've
4 shown me, which is that the theory put forward each time by the command
5 of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps is that they did not want paramilitary
6 organisations within their area. Paramilitary, by its definition, is
7 outside their control. Military units, such as the
8 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, need to control the military activity within
9 that area, and so paramilitary was not a helpful organisation to the
10 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have a look at
14 Q. In this document of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps,
15 there are references to a meeting that should be attended by military and
16 civilian representatives. I'm just going to ask you this: Was this
17 something unusual, that is to say, for military and civilian
18 representatives to meet? Does this kind of thing happen in other
19 countries as well?
20 A. I can only speak from the point of view of the British Army,
21 where it would be very rare for politicians to be involved in a meeting
22 where military decisions are to be made, except at the very highest
23 level. At corps level, at brigade level, it would be unheard of, if you
24 like, for politicians to be involved in military decisions. Politicians
25 are involved in establishing the aim of a military operation, but then
1 the actual activity is entirely down to the military commanders. So, for
2 me, this is an interesting example of relatively low-level military
3 commanders being involved with the political leadership.
4 Q. If supplies for the military were in the hands of civilian
5 organs, and if you were to know that, would you still find if strange or
7 A. I think it's fair to say that the set of circumstances
8 surrounding this meeting are strange and unusual. A civil war, or
9 whatever we want to call this war, is -- it's not a normal set of
10 military operations. It is out of the ordinary. And so events like
11 this, which are out of the ordinary, seem to occur often. And the
12 production of supplies, clearly, in any military context, is in the hands
13 of civilian factories.
14 Q. In relation to this, we are now going to look at document P462.
15 We just need the first page. The department for security-intelligence
16 affairs of the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps compiled an
17 Official Note on the 4th of August, 1995. It is evident from the
18 document that the corps commander is being criticised for carrying out
19 personnel changes in accordance with the wishes of the SDS, that is to
20 say, political wishes, rather than in accordance with the military values
21 upheld by a military commander.
22 Did you come across that? This is probably one of the documents
23 that you had been shown. Namely, that military commanders were appointed
24 in accordance with the wishes of those outside the military and under
25 pressure that they brought to bear?
1 A. The -- concluding that such an event took place from one document
2 that we have in front of us is a dangerous step. This is a document
3 written by a junior officer about a senior officer. It is -- it is rare
4 for a subordinate to write such a document about his commanding officer,
5 about his commander. It would be a -- a shocking thing for an officer to
6 do and to make it an Official Note, in such a way.
7 If we take the contents to be true - and that's an if - then it
8 would be a -- a very poor thing for an officer to make appointments based
9 on political decisions.
10 Q. Thank you. You say a junior officer criticizing a senior
11 officer. You studied the system of command and control of the
12 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. Isn't it a fact that the security organ, the
13 organ for security and intelligence as it was called, and this is
14 actually an officer who holds a junior rank, in actual fact?
15 A. Yes, I think if we go to the signature page, is it
16 a Bukva --
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. -- the surname of the officer? And he has criticised the corps
19 commander. Was he a major, Bukva? That's from memory. If we could see
20 the next page we could further --
21 Q. [In English] Yeah, it is. Yeah, we can see the -- you are right.
22 He is. My question is whether it is always the situation that the
23 officer of a security organ is younger than the commander of the corps.
24 A. I -- I -- by junior I meant in rank.
25 Q. In rank?
1 A. In rank.
2 Q. All right. I'm -- I think the rank as well.
3 A. It's -- it would be unusual if the -- the officer in charge of
4 intelligence and security were a higher rank than the corps commander.
5 I've never known such an event.
6 Q. Exactly. So this is normal situation, actually, that he has to
7 criticise somebody who is above him, because it's his job.
8 A. My criticism is the method and the way that it is done. If he
9 had felt such a thing were occurring, it would be very strange to put it
10 into an Official Note. But we don't know the history. We don't know
11 what -- he may have tried to do this verbally. There's all sorts of
12 history. But to put it into an Official Note, to make it official, is a
13 very serious matter in this case. It would be rare for an officer to do
15 Q. [Interpretation] In paragraph 4, this officer also says:
16 "[In English]: "Therefore" -- it's in the middle of paragraph.
17 "Therefore, the current situation speaks of the SRK artillery
18 being under the party's direct supervision."
19 [Interpretation] During the course of your work, did you come
20 across anything like that?
21 A. No. This is -- this is the only document I've seen suggesting
22 that the artillery might be under a form of political control because the
23 officers in charge of that artillery were members of a party.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please have in e-court,
1 Q. You commented upon paragraph 6.2, I think, from this document.
2 Artillery support.
3 A. Yes. We saw this document yesterday.
4 Q. Mm-hm. I would kindly ask that we now take a look at
5 paragraph 1, where it says:
6 "An attack is expected by enemy forces, the strength of a corps
7 (Sarajevo), and by Tactical Group 2, Tactical Group 1, four independent
8 brigades, approximately, several detachments, and numerous special and
9 other units."
10 Further down, there is an assessment or, rather, an estimate of
11 the number of people who will be involved in these operations from the
12 enemy side. If we add all of that up, we see that an attack is being
13 expected from three sides of over 40.000 armed men.
14 Is it customary in such situations to ask for artillery support?
15 What is your opinion?
16 A. Well, clearly, in such an event the only means of stopping such
17 an attack would very possibly be the use of artillery and mortars and
18 small arms.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you make me the calculation for the
21 MR. LUKIC: Mm-hm. On the first page we have only for the first
22 BiH army corps 35.000 people, and 3.000 people as special units in the
23 second paragraph. Then third paragraph he's talking about --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see. Total strength of the forces in
25 Sarajevo is estimate at about 35.000. You mean they would all be -- you
1 understand them all to be included.
2 MR. LUKIC: Then we have separately, Tactical Group 2.
3 JUDGE ORIE: No. If you include the 35.000 --
4 MR. LUKIC: That's the estimate. Probably their estimate.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, what the strength of the forces. Yes. I was
6 just wondering whether --
7 MR. LUKIC: From the point 1 it says that they expect that the
8 whole corps would attack.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I see it. Thank you. You have clarified
10 the matter.
11 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. [Interpretation] And now, at the end, let us look at document --
13 let me first find it because it was not admitted. And it can be located
14 by ERN number, which is 0529248.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 [Defence counsel confer]
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That's 65 ter 28501.
18 Q. I suppose you have seen this document because the Prosecution
19 tendered it into evidence through you. This is a document from the
20 command of the SRK dated the 4th of January, 1995, and that's the minutes
21 of the meeting of commanders of brigades, regiments, and independent
23 I'm not going to read all of it. On page 2, and it starts on
24 page 1 in B/C/S, and page 2 in English.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour.
1 MS. HARBOUR: I only rise to clarify that the Prosecution did not
2 tender this document through this witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I think that was already indicated by Mr. Lukic.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. LUKIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
6 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed. You meanwhile re-read -- yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. On page 2 of the English, we can see that it reads [In English]
9 Stojanovic is speaking. [Interpretation] He is speaking, and I'm going
10 to paraphrase this in order to save time. He says that the soldiers were
11 not insufficiently trained - it's somewhere in the middle - for the use
12 of equipment in shifts. [In English] Insufficient training of
13 commanders, platoon commanders, in detachments and platoons. The brigade
14 command is manned up to 30 per cent of its capacity.
15 [Interpretation] Did you know, as far as the beginning of 1995,
16 which is the last year of war, that the problem of the lack of training
17 still existed among the troops, including platoon commanders, et cetera.
18 Were you aware of the fact that the troops of the SRK were
19 actually poorly trained soldiers?
20 A. I think it's fair to say they were relatively poorly trained.
21 But what is interesting is throughout the period of 1992 to 1995, the
22 commanders were striving to train and improve the training of those
23 soldiers and that training is part of the life of a soldier. When you
24 are not doing active service, you're training. And if you're not getting
25 fit in some way, you're training. And most soldiers will tell you that
1 they spend all their time training. And that is reflected, I think, in
2 these documents.
3 Having said that, of course, the level of training is another
4 matter, and most posts in the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, the posts for
5 commanders, were filled by officers who were junior in rank than that
6 actually required to fulfil the post. But, nevertheless, this is a good
7 example of the amount of work put in by the corps command and by the
8 brigade commanders to improve the training of the troops.
9 Q. Were you also aware of the information that the brigade command
10 and how widespread that was in the SRK and that they were only manned up
11 to 30 per cent of its capacity and what were the effects of that fact on
12 the troops?
13 A. There was clearly a shortage of senior officers and of trained
14 staff officers, not only at brigade level but at corps level. The effect
15 of that would be a breakdown in communication, a breakdown in supply, and
16 a breakdown in the command and control at some points of soldiers and
17 troops under command. But there were certain aspects of this warfare
18 that meant certain specialist officers were not required, fewer were
19 required. But nevertheless, 30 per cent is a low number to have in a
20 brigade headquarters.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Part of the question also was - but it was a bit of
22 a composite question - how widespread that was in the SRK. So apart from
23 the specific brigade discussed here, do you have any knowledge about
25 THE WITNESS: I think, really, at brigade command level and at
1 corps command level they were all undermanned. There were fewer officers
2 than would be required normally for a full command structure.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But for the specific brigade the number of 30
4 per cent is mentioned. Could you confirm that for the others?
5 THE WITNESS: I would have to look at the figures for the others,
6 but I would not be surprised if they were half or less of the number of
7 officers normally expected in a headquarters.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
9 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Also towards the end of this paragraph: A proposal is made:
12 [In English] "I propose" --
13 It's the last sentence, actually.
14 "I propose that MUP should be under army's command in the defence
15 areas where it is engaged at."
16 [Interpretation] Did you come across information that you
17 included that MUP forces were not resubordinated to the VRS even when
18 they were engaged in combat operations?
19 A. As my chart shows, I have no MUP shown as being directly under
20 the chart -- under the command of the -- the corps. Occasionally MUP
21 forces were used in specific operations where they might be placed under
22 temporary command. I think an example would be Lukavac 93, an operation
23 south of Sarajevo, where a MUP battalion was placed under the command of
24 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps for a temporary period of time.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Thank you. Towards the bottom of the page,
1 there's the speech by Lieutenant-Colonel Milorad Sehovac, and he says
2 that the average age of his troops is over 50. Did you have an
3 opportunity to confirm this through your research, that the age range was
4 as indicated here? Maybe not in all units, but in some, nevertheless.
5 A. I have certainly seen some combat reports where the entire age
6 range of a brigade would be broken down into percentages and numbers so
7 that one can see that the average age of a brigade and the age of the
8 soldiers was generally higher than that expected in combat units. So
9 people are not 18, 19, and 20, as modern soldiers often are, but in this
10 conflict they were frequently over 30 and sometimes over 50.
11 There are advantages and disadvantages in such a situation. In a
12 static warfare situation, if we look at the average age of soldiers --
13 for example, in the First World War, they were much older, and older
14 soldiers can be wiser soldiers, but they do not have the fitness or the
15 fighting capability of younger soldiers.
16 Q. On the next page, page 3 of the English version, we can see that
17 this commander, as well, is complaining - and you can find it in line 4
18 from the top:
19 "[In English] ... brigade is meant with officers only 30 per cent
20 of its capacity."
21 A. Yes, I --
22 Q. [Interpretation] So as you said yourself, there were such
23 instances in other brigades as well, that is to say that the level of
24 manning was up to 30, but in this same document we can see instances
25 where the level of manning was 70 per cent. Then on page 7 there's
1 reference to the level of manning of troops.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have page 7 in English.
3 The timeline is 1245. This is a contribution by Captain Petrusic. And
4 then in line 3, it is said --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Lukic kindly provide a reference in
6 the B/C/S.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you're invited to provide a reference in
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S, we can find this on page 5
10 at the very top. It's 1246 hours, although in English it says 1245. But
11 I don't see that as a major mistake. And this commander also says that
12 in his unit the average age is between 42 and 45 years.
13 Q. Now my question is: Was it also the case that the level of
14 manning, in terms of regular soldiers, was below the requirement.
15 A. The level of manning of -- in this case anti-tank batteries, is
16 here listed as -- as 40 per cent of the complement. However, one has to
17 remember that a regular anti-tank battery will be moving from place to
18 place, almost continuously, in order to -- to fight, whereas this mixed
19 anti-armoured artillery regiment was mainly static. And although 40
20 per cent is only just enough people to fight with, it is nevertheless
21 sufficient to fight a battery with such reduced numbers provided it is
22 not moving continuously in the battle-field. So reduction in numbers in
23 the artillery is less serious in some respects because of the nature of
24 this warfare than it would have been in the infantry.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. And would you like me to comment on the average age?
2 The average age of artillery soldiers is generally higher, much
3 higher, than infantry soldiers due to the level of training required.
4 That's certainly the case in the British Army. Whether it is the case in
5 the SRK -- it appears that they are older in this case. 42 to 45 is a
6 high average age for artillery. There is a lot of physical work
7 involved. And as people get older they're less capable of performing the
8 very physical work of moving shells.
9 Q. Thank you. I'm going to read only one portion of this document
10 because I'm not sure that the translation is correct that we have on the
11 screen, so I'm going to read it in B/C/S.
12 "1410 hours, Lieutenant-Colonel Petar Tomic addressed the General
13 and pointed out to the fact that there is incorrect reporting coming from
14 your" --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Lukic, we don't have it on the screen. We
16 don't have it on the screen.
17 MR. LUKIC: I don't want to have it on the screen. I want
18 translation first. So the translators can translate what I'm reading
19 from the B/C/S.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it's helpful for them to see it on the
22 MR. LUKIC: If you want it that way, Your Honour, then it's page
23 10 of English version and page 6 of B/C/S version. The hour is 1410.
24 I will read again:
25 [Interpretation] "1410 hours, Lieutenant-Colonel Petar Tomic
1 addressed the General and indicated that the units are providing
2 incorrect reports ..."
3 I thank the interpreters. Because in the English translation, we
4 see the word "irregular" [in English] and that's exactly the difference
5 we wanted to point out.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Philipps, in your work did you have an
7 occasion to check to what extent the reporting, which is something that
8 is conducted along the chain of command upwards, was correct and how
9 consistent it was with what was actually happening on the ground? Did
10 you deal with these issues at all?
11 THE INTERPRETER: Would Mr. Lukic kindly switch off his
12 microphone when not using it, thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm to some extent guilty of having my microphone
14 now and then open when it should be closed.
15 THE WITNESS: Well, when I looked at the reports from units of
16 the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, one of the methods of establishing that such
17 a report is real, that is, it's not a forgery or it's not a later
18 production, is to compare the events mentioned in the report with
19 occurrences; that is, where weather events are described such as fog, and
20 one can check whether it was foggy on that day; where events such as
21 shelling incidents occur, one can compare that with other reports to see
22 whether such a shelling incident occurred.
23 So that was done really from point of view to check the
24 authenticity of the document. They had stamps. They were typed
25 correctly. They had signatures. But also they matched the events that
1 were occurring in Sarajevo which convinced me of their authenticity.
2 Furthermore, the reports were of different quality, so rather, as
3 Petar Tomic says, they did not always follow the correct format. Most of
4 them followed the correct format in requesting ammunition at the right
5 place, explaining what the enemy was doing, but many would be rambling,
6 some would be confused and be difficult for the staff to extract the data
7 that they required.
8 So the reports reflected the capabilities of the officers that
9 were writing them. Some were professional and some were written by
10 individuals who were in a rank or in a position that was higher than
11 their true capability.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Is it true that, at the very top level of the corps, and
15 especially in lower-ranking units, there were quite a few reserve
17 A. I think many of the posts were -- were manned by reserve
19 Q. Mr. Philipps, thank you. This is all I had, as regards the
20 questions that I had for you.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And I would like to tender into
22 evidence in this case the document that we have just looked at,
23 65 ter 28501.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28501 becomes Exhibit D94, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: May I take it that from the other exhibits, just as
4 the Galic transcript, that you have quoted to the relevant portion and
5 you do not need them to be admitted?
6 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, you are right.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Ms. Harbour, I'm looking at the clock. We'll take a break -- we
9 would normally take a break in approximately five minutes from now. How
10 much time would you need for re-examination?
11 MS. HARBOUR: Perhaps 20 minutes to half an hour, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think it would be wiser to take the
13 break first.
14 Could Mr. Philipps be escorted out of the courtroom.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
17 MR. LUKIC: With your leave, would be it possible if
18 General Mladic stays in the courtroom and inspect the maps while we're on
19 the break?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There's no problem with that. Then I take it
21 that the curtains will be down anyhow so that the courtroom is a private
22 place and the audience not to be there.
23 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes
25 past 12.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 11.47 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.15 p.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Harbour, if you are ready, you may re-examine
7 the witness.
8 Re-examination by Ms. Harbour:
9 Q. Mr. Philipps, yesterday, at transcript page 4717, Mr. Lukic asked
10 you a question about two units that did not exist simultaneously but both
11 of which appear on your chart. You responded, and I quote:
12 "That is correct. Because the chart covers a period of time, it
13 shows the passage of one unit to another, in the same way it shows two
14 corps commanders in the corps headquarters when, of course, there was
15 only ever corps commander at any one time."
16 Can you please explain what you meant when you said "there can
17 only be one corps commander at any one time"?
18 A. Any military organisation has a commander, and there can only
19 ever be one commander of a military organisation. My chart simply shows
20 the passage of command and control from one commander to another, and
21 that's why two are shown on the chart. There can only ever be one
22 commander of an organisation.
23 Q. Is there any name for this principle that you've described
24 whereby there can only be one commander at a time?
25 A. You hear various phrase used, singularity of command and such
1 phrase. So it's the fact that only one person can be in charge.
2 Q. As far as you know, from reviewing VRS materials, was this
3 principle followed by the SRK throughout the period covered by your
5 A. Yes. The SRK used JNA principles and JNA methodology and that
6 requires the -- the singularity of command; that is, one commander in
7 charge of an organisation with deputies and assistants, but he himself is
8 the only person that is required to make the decisions.
9 Q. Again, from your analysis, was this principle followed by the VRS
10 as a whole and by General Mladic during that period?
11 A. As far as I know it would very unusual for that to be not the
12 case. So as far I know, the whole of the VRS would have followed the
13 same JNA principles of one person in charge of an organisation.
14 Q. We've discussed exhibit number P458, which is a SRK order dated 7
15 June 1992. At the temporary transcript pages 22 to 23 today, in
16 reference to this exhibit, you mentioned that:
17 "This -- the explanation of why the Trnovo Brigade is mentioned
18 on the distribution list."
19 MS. HARBOUR: Could we please have 65 ter 3710 on the screen.
20 What will appear is a 6 June 1992 directive of the
21 then-Lieutenant-General Mladic of the VRS Main Staff. If we could turn
22 to page 4 of the English, and I apologise, I don't have the reference for
23 the B/C/S, but we're interested in the Herzegovina Corps, it's the very
24 last paragraph of the English version.
25 The very last sentence says:
1 "Form a strong tactical group in order to prevent the
2 breakthrough of the enemy from Ivan Sedlo and Konjic towards Kalinovik
3 and Trnovo using a portion of force co-acting with
4 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to deblock the communication Sarajevo-Trnovo."
5 As we --
6 JUDGE ORIE: It is page 3 in the B/C/S. I think it's -- yes. We
7 have it already, yes.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But we need the next page in English.
10 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please turn to the following page in
11 English to complete the sentence.
12 Q. As we saw in P458, the Trnovo Brigade was a recipient of an order
13 from the SRK command, the SRK commander, the next day. What does this
14 indicate about command and control from Mladic in the VRS to the corps
15 level and to the brigade level?
16 A. The -- this order shows the formation, interestingly enough,
17 again of a tactical group for a specific purpose. So we see again a
18 temporary tactical group being formed by the order of General Mladic, and
19 he's using a brigade from another corps, from the Herzegovina Corps,
20 based on Trnovo, that is the Trnovo brigade, and this brigade is being
21 put at the disposal of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps as a tactical group
22 to -- along with other troops to enable a specific purpose to be
23 fulfilled. And we see from this that really the VRS, particularly
24 General Mladic, has the ability to -- to reassign and -- and organise the
25 corps in such a way that they can redistribute troops from one corps to
1 another for a temporary purpose.
2 Q. Could I tender this into evidence?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Document 3710 becomes Exhibit P474, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
6 MS. HARBOUR:
7 Q. At temporary transcript page 10 today, Mr. Lukic asked you the
8 following question: --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, is the B/C/S complete? I'm
10 looking at page 3. In English it ends with Commander
11 Lieutenant-General Ratko Mladic, and then to who it was sent -- oh, there
12 we have it. Yes.
13 Yes, thank you. Well, it's not complete to the extent that the
14 last portion, apparently, is missing there. The last line where, of
15 course, it would be interesting to see whether it was also sent to the
16 Trnovo Brigade. But if you would have a better copy then that would be
18 Please proceed.
19 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, we will look for that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so. And meanwhile continue.
21 MS. HARBOUR:
22 Q. At page 10 today, the question was put to you:
23 "Do you remember that you mentioned that platoon Vasko's
24 Battalion and that you determined that it was a paramilitary formation?"
25 In the Galic case, I'd like to read a portion of your testimony
1 from that case to you. On the 10th of July, 2002, at transcript page
2 T-11564, while discussing the VP numbers of the Vasko and other platoons
3 and units, you said:
4 "The fact that any of these units, including Vasko's Platoon,
5 have a VP number, 7491, shows them to be part of the organisation of the
6 Ilijas Brigade and, in addition, the number 20 indicates it to be a
7 separate unit of the Ilijas Brigade."
8 You then pointed out that "there are several, several documents
9 referring to that platoon." In light of that prior testimony, would you
10 agree with Mr. Lukic's characterisation of your prior testimony in court
12 A. If by that you mean that Mr. Lukic suggested that I called
13 Vasko's Platoon a paramilitary formation, then I have not called
14 Vasko's Platoon a paramilitary formation because it has a VP number. And
15 I'm -- by my prior testimony in Galic, I hope it's clear that it's not a
16 paramilitary organisation and is part of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
17 Q. At transcript page 4729 yesterday, you were asked if the
18 Main Staff had artillery weapons. And today, at transcript page 21 to
19 22, regarding Exhibit P457, which is a report by the 1st SMBR to the SRK,
20 in which the brigade requested ammunition, Mr. Lukic asked you:
21 "In this chain, is it possible that the Main Staff could feature?
22 Or perhaps you -- you did not address that issue at all."
23 And you did respond that as far as you could tell from the
24 document, the Main Staff were not involved in that document.
25 I would like to look at exhibit -- or 65 ter number 12103. This
1 is from the SRK command to the command of the Ilidza Brigade. The first
2 sentence says that a 128-millimetre Oganj VBR was in that unit's
3 possession. The next sentence states that this weapon could not be used
4 effectively in the Ilidza Brigade's area, so the corps command had
5 informed the Main Staff of the VRS.
6 In the next paragraph, we see that the Main Staff ordered the
7 Ilidza Brigade to immediately return this multiple rocket-launcher to the
8 4th map unit of the SRK. Then we read that the Main Staff would inform
9 the Drina Corps, from which the weapon came to the Ilidza Brigade, that
10 it would be placed at the disposal of the SRK. What does this document
11 indicate about the VRS commander's ability to control ammunition and
13 A. Well, we should understand that the Main Staff itself did not
14 have its own artillery. It did not have artillery units directly
15 attached to it. The artillery that it was able to use were attached and
16 part of corps units. So the corps controlled the artillery either in
17 artillery regiments or they passed that artillery down to the brigades,
18 to the brigade commanders to have command of. But the VRS retained the
19 ability to redistribute that artillery between brigades and to different
20 corps depending on the military situation. This is an example of the
21 Chief of Staff of the Main Staff ensuring that a rocket-launcher that is
22 in a particular unit of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps is returned back to
23 the mixed artillery regiment so that it can be used.
24 So it's an example of the chain of command: The VRS passing an
25 order through the corps commander and the corps command passing that down
1 to the brigade commander so that the artillery is in an appropriate
2 position for it to be used for the military purpose.
3 Q. As you just stated, the VRS retained the ability to re-direct the
4 artillery between brigade and to different corps, and in light of your
5 recent comments about singularity of command: When you refer to the VRS
6 is that -- can you be more specific?
7 A. In this case it actually mentions the Chief of Staff of the
8 Main Staff. He would have been directed by the commander of the VRS,
9 Main Staff, that is, General Mladic, for any particular action. The
10 Chief of Staff was merely fulfilling the orders of the general in charge.
11 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to tender this document into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12103 becomes Exhibit P475,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence. Since I hear from
16 left and right different comments on the number, Madam Registrar, would
17 you carefully verify that it's the right number.
18 Meanwhile you may proceed, Ms. Harbour.
19 MS. HARBOUR:
20 Q. Today at transcript -- temporary transcript page 36, you were
21 asked about the role of the MUP with respect to the SRK, and you said
22 that occasionally MUP forces were used in specific operations where they
23 might be placed under temporary command.
24 If we could turn to 65 ter 3986, please.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 MS. HARBOUR:
3 Q. This is a 15th of December 1993 order from the SRK commands to
4 the commands of all brigades and others. If you could read the first
5 paragraph to yourself, I would like to understand how this order fits
6 into your prior comments regarding the MUP -- MUP forces.
7 A. This is the example I think I was referring to earlier on
8 relating, I believe, to Operation Lukavac 93. I'd have to see the next
9 page to be sure of that. But this particular operation shows that
10 various units are passed to the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps such as, for
11 example, we see one brigade from the 1st Krajina Corps and one brigade
12 from the Herzegovina Corps, as well as in this case mentioned MUP forces
13 up to a strength of one battalion. And then it says 500 people, 500
14 personnel. And also mentions VJ special forces up to 120 people and a
15 helicopter squad.
16 So this is an example of the formation of additional units being
17 passed to the corps for their use for a specific operation for a specific
18 purpose. There's no reason to believe that these troops would remain
19 under the command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. At the end of the
20 operation, at the end of the tasks that were carried, then those brigades
21 would be returned to their appropriate corps, and the MUP, as we've
22 heard, returned to its own command structure outside the
23 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
24 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to tender this document, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The witness asked to see the second page.
1 Could it be shown to him.
2 MS. HARBOUR: There is no second page, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: There is no second page. Then we hereby decide that
4 it will not be shown to him.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, before I do that I would just
8 confirm that previous document, as it was told, is 12103 is P475.
9 And the next document 65 ter 3986 becomes Exhibit P476,
10 Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P476 is admitted into evidence.
12 MS. HARBOUR:
13 Q. You discussed with Mr. Lukic the document that is now admitted as
14 Exhibit D94 which were the minutes of a meeting on the 4th of January,
15 1995, at the SRK command.
16 MS. HARBOUR: If we could please pull up D94. And I would like
17 to turn to General Milosevic's comments, which start on page 10 in the
18 English, but if we could just go directly to page 11 and to the last page
19 in the B/C/S version.
20 Q. General Milosevic states, among other things, in item 6:
21 "As for the training, the order, instruction will soon be issued,
22 which should be implemented."
23 In item 11:
24 "Issue of moral strengthening, we must work on lifting the level
25 of moral," which may be morale, "among the soldiers."
1 Item 12:
2 "Brigade commanders must define what needs to be done to improve
3 the level of combat readiness plan."
4 Number 14:
5 "Reporting must be correct and timely."
6 And you can review the remaining points. What do these comments
7 indicate about this meeting regarding the command and control system?
8 A. At this meeting all the brigade commanders were present, and as I
9 remember from what we saw earlier each of them at a specific time gave a
10 detailed report on the structure and capabilities of each brigade. And
11 from this has come a series of conclusions from the commander, and the
12 commander then gives those directives verbally, and later probably in a
13 requirement form, as a directive to each of the brigade commanders to
14 ensure that the level of training he requires is being met, that the
15 reports that they are writing match the requirements of the logistics
16 organisation so that he can resupply them as required. This is a good
17 example of a commander talking to his troops directly, that is, his
18 commanders of his brigades, directly so that he can establish a -- a good
19 level of training and improve the morale and fighting capability of the
21 MS. HARBOUR: If we could turn to Exhibit P338, please, and turn
22 to page 9. Your Honours, I have a quote from this page. I wanted to
23 direct you to it. I can't seem to locate it on the page right now.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you slowly read the first three words, then we
25 might be able to find it. If it's on this page.
1 MS. HARBOUR: "The involvement of different Main Staff bodies in
2 the brigades and other units yielded particularly good results."
3 THE WITNESS: I've got paragraph 2.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph 2, yes.
5 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Your Honours, and Mr. Philipps.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The word "de" is the last word on that line, seventh
7 line of the second paragraph.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. I'll start from the beginning:
10 "The involvement of different Main Staff bodies in the brigades
11 and other units yielded particularly good results because, in that way,
12 directives, commands, and orders reached those who were who execute them
13 in the fastest possible way and the planned concerted action was
14 relatively quickly performed."
15 And there is from an analysis of the combat readiness and the
16 activities of the VRS in 1992.
17 If we look further down the page, it states:
18 "Irrespective --"
19 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please provide the reference
20 for the original in the B/C/S.
21 MS. HARBOUR: That is something I'm unable to do at the moment,
22 Your Honours. Perhaps the Defence could assist.
23 MR. LUKIC: I think we need page 9 in B/C/S. Second-last
24 paragraph from the bottom.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And I think, in English, it's page 9 as well, of
1 this document.
2 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
3 That -- was that -- that is the reference for the first
4 paragraph. If we could turn to page 10 in the B/C/S for the next
5 reference, which is the very last sentence on page 9 in the English. It
6 is two paragraphs below the bullet points.
7 And I will read:
8 "Irrespective of the aggravating circumstances and factors which
9 adversely affected the morale of fighters and units, we stress that, on
10 the whole, it has been good and stable," and if we could turn the page in
11 English, thank you, "despite the difficulties imposed by the war so that
12 control and command echelons can count on it for the execution of pending
14 Q. Mr. Philipps, what conclusions can you draw from this document
15 regarding the overall functioning of the VRS during this period?
16 A. This document is a very comprehensive and detailed studies of the
17 capabilities both in terms of fighting and logistics of the VRS. And it
18 shows the attention to detail required for the level of training,
19 preparedness of soldiers. Morale issues, keeping the level of morale
20 high, interestingly enough, in the earlier paragraph we mentioned direct
21 action by the Main Staff within brigade units. And that's an unusual
22 circumstance where it does appear that there has been a -- a change in
23 the chain of command where the VRS Main Staff has directly given orders
24 to a brigade. That's what I -- my implication from the previous
1 And that would be a very unusual situation, and I think the
2 reason it's mentioned is because it's an unusual occurrence. But they
3 have found that it's speeded things up. Specifically mentioned. So
4 that's one of the most unusual things that I see from this document. And
5 the rest of it appears to cover the types of problems that you'd expect
6 in any large organisation that requires a high level of training, and
7 they're continually looking for what courses people need to do, what
8 level of training they require.
9 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours, on the 30th of October, 2012, the
10 Chamber indicated that where an issue was challenged on
11 cross-examination, the Prosecution might tender the underlying documents
12 of an expert report via a bar table rather than discussing them on
13 re-direct. Several such topics came up during the cross-examination of
14 this witness, which I think could be clarified simply by the documents
15 being available to the Chamber. However, the Chamber specifically asked
16 about -- well, including the -- the Chamber -- the issue of Cedo Sladoje
17 and his position as chief of the operations and training organ. I would
18 be happy to use that vehicle. However, with respect to Cedo Sladoje,
19 since the Chamber specifically asked about it at transcript page 4730, if
20 the Chamber would wish or prefer that I address that with the witness, I
21 could do so.
22 And the same goes for the lengthy discussion on cross-examination
23 of the Vogosca Tactical Group or Operational Group. If it would assist
24 the Chamber, I will use -- discuss these issues with the witness.
25 However, I will leave that in your hands.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Harbour, since the matter was discussed,
3 and, therefore, there's a chance that it's not merely looking at some
4 documents, but therefore the Chamber would prefer if you would raise that
5 with the witness. I do not know how much time that would take.
6 MS. HARBOUR: Are you referring to the issue of Cedo Sladoje or
7 to the Vogosca?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Both.
9 MS. HARBOUR: Both. Okay.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And how much time would that take approximately.
11 MS. HARBOUR: Perhaps ten more minutes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ten more minutes. Then you have ten more minutes to
13 do that. I already inform the parties that today we will finish at 2.00
14 and not 2.15 for very practical reasons.
15 Please proceed.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Turning first to the matter of Cedo Sladoje, if we
17 could please have 65 ter number 12097.
18 Q. Yesterday there was quite some discussion between the pages of
19 4724 and 4730 in the transcript of Cedo Sladoje's position as -- and the
20 existence of the operations and training organ. And here, if we turn --
21 this -- if we look at this document, which is from 5 November 1993, a
22 regular combat report, from the SRK command to the VRS Main Staff, if we
23 look at page 2 in the English and the first page in B/C/S, the very last
24 paragraph of page 2 -- actually, I will let you read that, and if you
25 could give us any comments, any additional light that you could shed on
1 the issue of Cedo Sladoje and his role.
2 A. This was a daily combat report from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
3 dated, as you say, the 5th November, 1993. And it's one of the documents
4 I used -- documents I used to place Sladoje in the operations and
5 training area of the staff. And we can see that he is named there
6 Colonel Cedo Sladoje as being assistant to the chief of operations and
7 training, PNONO. And also we later see mentioned, for example,
8 Captain First Class Bukva who was the individual who wrote the critique
9 of the politicisation of the corps by the later commander.
10 Q. As you said, this is one of the documents underlying your chart.
11 MS. HARBOUR: And I would tender this into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12097 becomes Exhibit P477,
14 Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
16 MS. HARBOUR: Turning to the --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There may be a little bit of a translation
18 issue with the coma between PNONO and Colonel Cedo Sladoje. There
19 appears a coma whereas in the original it appears there's a full --
20 there's a dot, apparently, serving to indicate that it's an abbreviation.
21 So these are not in the translation. You could not exclude that one
22 person was mentioned by function and then one person by name. But it
23 seems that in the original it's "puk," and then full spot. Pukovnik, I
24 take it, but abbreviated. Therefore, the coma after PNONO seems to be
25 not accurate. But it could that be -- I'm not a B/C/S speaker, so --
1 but, Mr. Lukic, if you would agree with that.
2 You see that, Ms. Harbour, that there's a comma --
3 MR. LUKIC: I'm trying to see it myself. It's on the bottom of
4 the page.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It says "PNONO puk. Sladoje." Now in the
6 translation a comma is introduced which seems not to be there in the
7 original and which --
8 MR. LUKIC: Probably they want just in the translation to make it
9 more clear which rank belongs to which --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But if -- in the way it is translated, it is
11 ambiguous as to whether the PNONO is the same person as
12 Colonel Cedo Sladoje. It's ambiguous. I'm not saying ...
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 MR. LUKIC: Well, to be honest with you, I don't know what PNONO
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's explained in the translation, the
17 assistant to the chief of operations. I think we have seen that word
19 Could we invite the witness, what I just said and looking at the
20 screen, Mr. Philipps --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- any further comment to what I said?
23 THE WITNESS: Each individual is referred to, first of all, with
24 his post and then with his rank and then with his name. And then that
25 would mean that the comma is merely a confusion that's been added later.
1 So it's the Chief of Staff, Colonel Milosevic; the assistant to the chief
2 of operations and training, Colonel Sladoje; and then we have the
3 security organ, Captain First Class Bukva. So it seems that there's
4 the -- the post of the individual and then their rank and then their name
5 followed by a comma.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Although it's not consistently done because
7 of -- because of [indiscernible].
8 MS. HARBOUR: Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MS. HARBOUR: I believe "puk" - and Mr. Lukic can confirm - "puk"
11 is the abbreviation for "colonel."
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. No, I'm just saying that where there appears a
13 dot to explain an abbreviation, which is not used in the translation,
14 there the word is spelled out in its entirety. That's one.
15 And the second is that the comma has been added which may create
16 some confusion but as far as I can see should not be there.
17 Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: The problem that on our page in B/C/S I cannot
19 Kosovac at all. Probably --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But that's because there we have to go the --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You see for Kosovac no position is explained.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes. There is no position.
25 JUDGE ORIE: But I would like to focus on Sladoje because that
1 was our subject matter. It seems that no one disagrees. Let's proceed.
2 MS. HARBOUR: I had tendered the document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MS. HARBOUR: Did we already receive a --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No, I don't think we did.
6 Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: We did. It was assigned number P477.
8 MS. HARBOUR: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P477.
10 No loud speaking, mister -- Mr. Mladic. Mr. Mladic, no loud
11 speaking. No.
12 Madam Registrar, the document is admitted into evidence.
13 MS. HARBOUR:
14 Q. Let's turn now to the issue of the Vogosca Tactical Group or
15 Operational Group. We discussed this yesterday at transcript page 4742
16 and again today from temporary transcript pages 5 to 7. And you said
17 yesterday that the Vogosca Tactical Group or Operational Group, that
18 these two groups were likely not the same thing and it may have been
19 disbanded and reformed.
20 If we could now look at some of the documents underlying your
21 index, the first one is 65 ter 12048, which is on your index as
22 Y000-0947. This is a 15 September 1992 order establishing the Vogosca
23 "Operations Group."
24 If we look down at the second paragraph, under item 2, we read:
25 "Preparations have been made for activities along the Bare-Stupska Petlja
1 stretch and partial moving of the line with the aim of improving tactical
2 positions. The Rogarica," which may be Rogatica, "Brigade engaged in
3 active combat. From the units of Ilidza, Ilijas, Igman Rajlovac, and
4 Vogosca brigades, we ... form an operations group. We have appointed
5 Colonel Vukota Vukotic as the commander of the group and his command post
6 will be in the area of Blazuj."
7 If you could please comment on this Mr. Philipps.
8 A. This is it clearly a report from the corps command up to the
9 Main Staff of the VRS giving details of the formation of this
10 Operational Group. So it's a very clear document putting each of those
11 four brigades, at that particular in time, the intention to form an
12 Operational Group on that date. How long that group lasts and when it's
13 disbanded is not clear, but that's the intention from this document,
14 quite clearly.
15 Q. If we could now turn to 65 ter 3806, which is Y000-3262 on your
16 index. And if you could please indicate what this document is and focus
17 on item 1 under the order, and pay specific and particular attention to
18 the names of the brigades.
19 A. Here we have an order by Colonel Dragan Marcetic for the
20 formation of a Vogosca Tactical Group at this time, and this time
21 composed of a subtly different set of brigades; Ilijas, Kosevo, Vogosca,
22 and Rajlovac brigades, and under a different commander. This time
23 Dragan Josipovic is the commander. So here we have the formation of a
24 tactical group that -- because it contains elements of that what was
25 previously in the operational group, one might assume that the previous
1 operational group had been disbanded and this is new tactical group
2 that's been formed with some of the previous brigades and now some
3 additional brigades. So we can see that is the type of organisation that
4 comes together, comes apart, and is put back together in different ways
5 entirely dependent on the situation, and in this case with a different
7 MS. HARBOUR: I would like to tender those last two documents,
8 65 ter 12048 and 3806.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 12048 becomes Exhibit P478,
11 Your Honours.
12 And document 3806 becomes Exhibit P479, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P478 and P479 are admitted into evidence.
14 Ms. Harbour.
15 MS. HARBOUR:
16 Q. And just very quickly, if we could look at 65 ter 28534. This
17 was tendered in --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is that your last document?
19 MS. HARBOUR: This is my last document.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MS. HARBOUR: This relates to the same issue. It was tendered in
22 the Galic case as Defence Exhibit D142.
23 Q. And, in fact, when you were being asked today by the Defence
24 about certain responses that you gave in the Galic case, those responses
25 were having looked at this document. That's just to orient you.
1 You were asked today at temporary page 5 -- or, rather, at
2 temporary page 5, Mr. Lukic quoted to you something that you said in the
3 Galic case where you were asked:
4 "If from this report we could conclude that the Ilijas and
5 Igman Brigade were not part of the Vogosca Tactical Group? Here a
6 reference to the Ilijas and Igman Brigade that you mentioned with regard
7 to the first document I showed you today."
8 And your answer was:
9 "Yes, that would be a conclusion from this document on that
11 Is there anything that you would like to add to the conversation
12 you had with Mr. Lukic this morning?
13 A. Looking at paragraph 2, it appears to list various units and they
14 appear to be a list and therefore are exclusive, by which I mean it
15 mentions TG Vogosca and then Ilidza and then the Igman Brigade which
16 implies from that that they are three separate organisations and that the
17 Igman Brigade and the Ilidza Brigade on a particular date are not part of
18 the Tactical Group Vogosca that has been formed, which links into the
19 previous document that we've seen as well. And really this is -- this is
20 Major-General Galic informing the Main Staff of what's occurred.
21 MS. HARBOUR: I have no further questions for this witness,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: You do not want to tender it, Ms. Harbour? This
1 document. I mean, it's only a partial translation so --
2 MS. HARBOUR: Yes. Your Honour, in fact, since we received this
3 or since it was tendered by the Galic Defence and I'm unable to determine
4 anything about its authenticity, I wanted to show it to the witness for
5 clarification but don't desire to tender it.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Just to resolve a very practical way, I would just
9 like to read the relevant portion of this document into the record, that
10 those who are studying the transcript later better understand.
11 It is a document dated the 7th of July, 1993, coming from the SRK
12 command and addressed to the Main Staff of the VRS, title: "Regular
13 Combat Report With the Situation at 1700 hours." Item 2, relevant in
14 this respect reads:
15 "All the units are in full combat preparation and TG 'Vogosca,'"
16 Vogosca between quotation marks, "Ilidza,s and Igm," abbreviation
17 apparently for Igman, "Brigades are in preparation for conceivable
18 interventions [sic] on direction of the enemy's attack."
19 It is -- the author is mentioned, although there seems to be no
20 signature, Major-General Stanislav Galic, and there is a stamp on the
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There is a signature, and it says "signed for
24 him, Milosevic," with a round seal.
25 The Chamber has no further questions.
1 Mr. Lukic, any questions triggered by the re-examination?
2 MR. LUKIC: We don't have anything further for this witness, Your
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
5 Mr. Philipps, this concludes your testimony in this Court. I
6 would like to thank you very much for coming and for having answered all
7 the questions that were put to you by both the parties and the Bench. I
8 wish you a safe return home again. You may follow the usher.
9 [The witness withdrew]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness
11 after the break?
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we take a break, and we'll resume at 27 minutes
14 to 2.00 and we'll continue only until 2.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 1.13 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.34 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And if could take this
19 opportunity to introduce to the Chamber a new member that has joined the
20 team, it's Mr. Milbert Shin and he will be taking this next witness,
21 Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Shin.
23 Yes. Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
24 MR. SHIN: Your Honours -- good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
25 afternoon, counsel.
1 As the witness is being led in, the Prosecution notes that in
2 light of the Trial Chamber's rulings on adjudicated facts, it will not
3 lead evidence that has been covered by adjudicated facts 858, 871 -- I'm
4 sorry, 861 through 871, 893 through 895, and 1007 through 1026.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Shin.
7 Good afternoon, Mr. Sivac.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence the Rules require that you
10 make a solemn declaration. May I invite you to make that solemn
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: NUSRET SIVAC
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sivac. Please be seated.
17 Mr. Sivac, you will first be examined by Mr. Shin. Mr. Shin is
18 counsel for the Prosecution.
19 You may proceed, Mr. Shin.
20 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examination by Mr. Shin:
22 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Sivac.
23 A. Good afternoon.
24 Q. Could you please state your full name for the record.
25 A. Nusret Sivac, born on the 19th of August, 1947.
1 Q. What is your current occupation?
2 A. Currently, I work as a freelance journalist and writer.
3 Q. Thank you. Mr. Sivac, you have testified here at the Tribunal
4 previously in five cases, including the Milomir Stakic case; is that
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. And your evidence in that case was on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of
8 July, 2002, and also on the 1st of August, 2002, and the 13th of July,
9 2003; is that correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Among your prior testimony, you also testified in the
12 Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin case on the 16th and 17th of August,
13 2010; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. Mr. Sivac, in preparing to give evidence here today, did you have
16 a chance to review an audio-recording of your testimony in the Stakic
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you also have an opportunity to review certain portions
20 of your transcript in the Stanisic/Zupljanin case through the assistance
21 of an interpreter?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Having had an opportunity to review that prior testimony, are
24 there any corrections or clarifications that you wish to make? And just
25 yes or no at this point, please.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. SHIN: And, Your Honours, the Prosecution will be going
3 through these issues with the witness. In connection with this, we have
4 provided an English version of the proofing note with these corrections
5 or clarifications on Tuesday evening to the Defence.
6 Q. Mr. Sivac, did one of those corrections or clarifications relate
7 to a delegation visit to Omarska camp in July 1992?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In your testimony from the Stakic case, you described the visit
10 of Bosnian Serb officials to Omarska camp while you were a detainee
12 MR. SHIN: And, Your Honours, if I may, if the Court Officer
13 could please put up the 65 ter 28478 and have page 51 of the e-court
14 placed on the screen, please, for your reference.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is what page in the transcript?
16 MR. SHIN: In the transcript that would be T-6640.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 MR. SHIN: And I will prepared to provide the transcript page
19 number or the e-court number, as is more convenient, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you would also provide the transcript page.
21 MR. SHIN: Okay.
22 Q. Mr. Sivac, in that testimony, you mention the following people in
23 the delegation, and I will read them -- I will read them out.
24 MR. SHIN: And Your Honours I will be beginning at line 10.
25 Q. These names are: Simo Drljaca, Milorad Vokic, Radislav Brdjanin,
1 Mico Kovacevic, Milomir Stakic, Srdjo Srdic, Simo Miskovic, Milan Andzic,
2 and Radmilo Zeljaja.
3 In addition to those names just listed, were there any others
4 that you recognised in that delegation?
5 A. Well, no. I just recognised my journalists who were reporting on
6 the occasion of this visit.
7 Q. If -- if I could just ask, Mr. Sivac, were there any other
8 members of the delegation who are not named, whom I did not name in that
9 question, that you recall at this point having seen?
10 A. You mean the political leadership from Banja Luka? Who came
12 Q. Yes. That -- that is the delegation that I am referring to.
13 A. [Previous translation continues]... delegation of politicians who
14 came from Banja Luka, this delegation was headed by Radoslav Brdjanin;
15 there was also Radoslav Lukic [as interpreted], president of the SDS for
16 Banja Luka; then Predrag Radic, the Mayor of Banja Luka; and Stojan
17 Zupljanin, the chief of the centre of security services in Banja Luka.
18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sivac. And I note that the transcript shows the
19 name Radoslav Lukic as the president of the SDS for Banja Luka. Is that
21 A. No. Radoslav Vukic. It's spelled with a V.
22 Q. Mr. Sivac, in addition to that delegation visit, did you wish to
23 make corrections or clarifications relating to the organisation of
24 Omarska camp?
25 A. Yes, very briefly. Whenever I gave statements, I was asked about
1 the internal organisation of the Omarska camp. As for the in-depth
2 security of Omarska camp, it consisted of members of the Army of
3 Republika Srpska. Now were they from the 5th Kozarske Brigade or the
4 43rd Brigade, they were peasants who were mobilised from the area around
5 Omarska and they comprised the external security of Omarska camp in two
6 circles, and there was a minefield between the two circles.
7 Q. And were there any other individuals that you recognised that you
8 believed to be part of the army in the camp?
9 A. Well, the internal security had a mixed composition. Members of
10 the active-duty police, the reserve police, and mobilised soldiers of the
11 Republika Srpska.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, could you then give us the transcript page
13 references so that we can follow the ...
14 MR. SHIN: Yes. Your Honours, this -- this clarification would
15 relate to several points within the -- within the transcript the.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you give the range that's okay as well.
17 MR. SHIN: Okay. I may need to point to certain specific areas.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you intended to do that anyhow, then I'll not
19 interrupt you any further.
20 MR. SHIN: That's okay. Maybe this would be a good opportunity
21 to do that. If you would just bear with me for one minute, please.
22 I would refer Your Honours to page 6634, page 6627, page -- in a
23 related vein, page 6639 through 6644. And that relates to the delegation
24 visit as well. Those aspects that I have referred Your Honours to relate
25 to elements of the security, but as the witness has explained these are
1 clarifications to those issues.
2 May I continue?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please.
4 MR. SHIN: Thank you.
5 Q. Mr. Sivac, in addition to the changes and clarifications you have
6 explained to the organisation of Omarska camp, did you also wish to make
7 corrections or additions relating to the provision of security at
8 Trnopolje camp?
9 A. Well, when I testified before, I said that the Trnopolje camp was
10 secured only by soldiers of Republika Srpska. Among the guards, I
11 recognised only two former policemen. The commander of the camp was
12 Major Slobodan Kuruzovic and his assistants were military policemen, the
13 Balaban brothers. The guards who guarded the camp of Trnopolje were
14 acquaintances of mine from Prijedor, and they had been mobilised into the
15 so-called city battalion of the Army of Republika Srpska. At guard post
16 number 1, there was a guard who was a colleague of mine, Boro Grubic, a
17 journalist, who sat in the same office with me ten years before that. We
18 reported together. I reported for TV Sarajevo and he reported for the
19 "Oslobodjenje Daily." Together with him at guard post 1 there was
20 another acquaintance of mine, Zoran Knjeginjic. Around the camp of
21 Trnopolje there were also the following guards: Aco Ostojic, his son
22 Roman, his son Igor, and they all belonged to this city battalion of the
23 Army of Republika Srpska.
24 MR. SHIN: And in this instance, Your Honours, I would refer you
25 to transcript page 6753. And I note that I should have referred to that
1 page as well in regard to the previous clarification, regarding the
2 organisation of Omarska camp.
3 Mr. Sivac, in addition to those clarifications, in the course of
4 reviewing your testimony in the Stanisic/Zupljanin case, did you also
5 notice that a certain brigade of VVRS [sic] was sometimes incorrectly
6 noted in the English transcript, as translated to you, incorrectly noted
7 as the 34th Motorised Brigade or the 34th Brigade in the English?
8 A. Yes, I noticed that. Whenever I gave statements I spoke about
9 the 43rd Motorised Brigade, and a mistake was made in the transcript.
10 The transcript said the 34th Brigade.
11 Q. And, Your Honours, I would refer you to two instances in the
12 proffered transcripts. Closer towards the end, transcript pages 13257
13 and 13258.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. SHIN:
16 Q. Mr. Sivac, apart from the corrections and clarifications you have
17 provided here today, if you were asked the same questions about this
18 material, would you provide the same information, in substance?
19 A. Yes, I would.
20 Q. Now that you have taken the solemn declaration, do you affirm
21 that you provided that information in accordance with the truth?
22 A. Yes, that's right.
23 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 28478,
24 pursuant to Rule 92 ter, as a public exhibit.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know yet who to look at.
1 Mr. Lukic? Yes.
2 Madam Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28478 becomes Exhibit P480,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: P480 is admitted.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, I would also now tender the associated
8 exhibits to the proffered transcript, which is now P480, and I will take
9 them in turn.
10 65 ter 07103.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document will receive number P481, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P481 is admitted.
14 MR. SHIN: 65 ter 07126.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P482, Your Honours.
17 MR. SHIN: 65 ter --
18 JUDGE ORIE: If you would allow me to admit it first.
19 MR. SHIN: Yes. Sorry, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. SHIN: 65 ter 10880.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P483, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
1 MR. SHIN: 65 ter 10894.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P484, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
4 MR. SHIN: 65 ter 13477.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P485, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
7 MR. SHIN: 65 ter 13497.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P486, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
10 MR. SHIN: And 65 ter 14169.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Will receive number P487, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
13 MR. SHIN: Yes, I'm sorry. And one additional note:
14 Your Honours, I note that 65 ter 22471A has previously been admitted into
15 evidence already as P280.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's in evidence.
17 Mr. Shin, I'm looking at the clock. If would you have two or
18 three questions to start with, then it's okay, but we have to conclude
19 today at 2.00.
20 MR. SHIN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. If I may, perhaps I
21 could read the summary of this witness's evidence and then go into my
22 fairly few questions tomorrow.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
1 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, this the brief summary of Mr. Sivac's
2 written evidence -- I'm sorry, his testimony evidence.
3 Mr. Sivac is a Bosnian Muslim who until 1989 worked for the
4 security service in Prijedor and in 1992 was working as a television
5 cameraman in the same area. He provides an overview of the armed Serb
6 take-over of Prijedor in April 1992 and the Serb attack on the area and
7 consequent ethnic cleansing.
8 He describes the persecution of non-Serbs and the destruction of
9 non-Serb religious buildings and property. He was arrested by Serb
10 police on the 10th of June, 1992, and taken to Keraterm and Omarska camps
11 but released the same day. He was arrested again on 20 June 1992 and
12 sent to Omarska.
13 He describes the brutal and inhumane conditions for large numbers
14 of non-Serbs imprisoned there, including himself. The prisoners were
15 beaten, tortured, and killed, and women were brutally abused.
16 In July 1992, Mr. Sivac saw a delegation of Bosnian Serb
17 officials he recognised visit the camp, among them, Radoslav Brdjanin,
18 Milomir Stakic, and Radmilo Zeljaja. He was transferred to Trnopolje
19 camp on 7 August 1992, where he remained until the end of August.
20 Your Honours, this concludes the summary of Mr. Sivac's
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Shin.
23 Mr. Sivac, we'll conclude for the day. Tomorrow, there will be
24 more questions for you to answer because we'd like to see you back
25 tomorrow morning at 9.30. I also want to instruct you that you should
1 not speak with anyone about your testimony or communicate in whatever
2 other way, and whether that's testimony given today, which is not much
3 yet, but also testimony still to be given.
4 You may follow the usher.
5 [The witness stands down]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow,
7 Friday, the 9th of November, at 9.30 in this same courtroom, III.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of
10 November, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.