1 Monday, 19 May 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We are at the beginning of the Defence case at this moment.
12 Nevertheless, I'd like to deal with a few matters which are still
13 outstanding. I do understand that the Prosecution would like to raise a
14 preliminary matter, but I would not be surprised, Mr. Groome, if it shows
15 up somewhere in the agenda I have before me at this moment. If not, of
16 course you have an opportunity to address whatever.
17 I would like to start with some follow-up from the last week's
18 pre-Defence conference. The Chamber has not yet analysed a newly
19 submitted witness list which is filed by the Defence. I'm saying this
20 because the Chamber was informed that there had been a filing, although
21 it has not been distributed yet. So we expect that this would be the
22 witness list. We have not -- certainly not analysed what was filed, so
23 if there will be any problems, the Chamber will let the Defence know.
24 Second item, Rule 67 disclosure. The Chamber takes note of an
25 agreement which was filed by the parties setting out a plan for further
1 disclosure. There's thus no further need for the Chamber to become
2 involved in this respect at this time, and the Chamber appreciates that
3 the parties were able to find a practical solution and reach an agreement
4 in that respect.
5 The next item is on my agenda Defence preparations.
6 Mr. Lukic, is there any update on any possible further matters
7 which may negatively impact preparations for the Defence case, including
8 technical matters as we have seen them in the recent past several times?
9 Any problems to be reported there?
10 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I was just reminded that I should remind
11 Your Honours that there might be some delays in collecting the signatures
12 due to these floodings in Balkans, but that's the only technical issue I
13 can think of right now. For the technical issues inside the Tribunal, we
14 have to check all our passwords and the log-ins if they work, since
15 Mr. Ivetic was not able to check mine or Mr. Stojanovic's. But if there
16 is any problem, we will inform you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, as matters stand now, at least no problems, no
18 specific problems are reported.
19 Then of course the Chamber is totally unable to do anything about
20 the flooding and of course we are full of sympathy with those suffering
21 from these extraordinary circumstances in the former Yugoslavia.
22 If there's nothing else, I'll proceed. Yes, the next item on my
23 agenda reads: Rule 92 ter statements and tendering of prior testimony in
24 cross-examination. First, in relation to Rule 92 ter statements taken
25 for other cases, the Chamber notes that these statements sometimes
1 contain references to Rule 65 ter numbers or exhibit numbers of these
2 other cases. The Defence is invited to tender tables of concordance in
3 this respect should it want to rely on such references in its statements,
4 otherwise of course the Chamber will be unable to trace these exhibits.
5 Secondly, at the pre-Defence conference there was a short
6 discussion about the Prosecution's intention to, first, tender parts of a
7 witness's previous testimony in cross-examination and, two, receive clear
8 guide-lines from the Chamber on the procedure to be used when contacting
9 Defence witnesses in order to review such prior testimony.
10 Is there anything you'd like to bring to our attention,
11 Mr. Groome, in respect of these issues?
12 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. And as I said at the pre-Defence
13 conference that we were still -- our thinking on the subject was
14 evolving. So we've now spent several days looking at the issue very
15 carefully and we'd like to make a submission to the Chamber.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
17 MR. GROOME: So now I would like to thank the Chamber for
18 allowing me to address it in greater detail about our proposal for a way
19 in which we might save some time cross-examining Defence witnesses, by
20 relying on the Prosecution's cross-examination of these witnesses before
21 the Karadzic Chamber.
22 Given the fact that 122 witnesses on Mr. Mladic's list have
23 recently testified in the Karadzic trial, such reliance may result in a
24 significant savings of time. This opportunity for greater efficiency
25 arises because Mr. Mladic and Karadzic were originally charged on the
1 same indictment and the evidence of the common Defence witnesses is often
2 identical. This Chamber should be able to consider the examinations of
3 common witnesses conducted before the Karadzic Chamber.
4 In essence, the Prosecution's proposal and proposed procedure
5 would be as follows:
6 When the Prosecution receives a 92 ter application it will
7 evaluate whether some or all of the cross-examination in the Karadzic
8 case is relevant in this trial. If the Prosecution determines that there
9 would be a significant savings of time in relying on the examinations
10 conducted by our colleagues in the Karadzic case in lieu of asking the
11 same questions before this Chamber we will make an application to admit
12 the prior cross-examination under Rule 92 bis or in the alternative under
13 Rule 89(c) and (f). We will make this motion in our response to the
14 Defence's 92 ter motion and will attach those portions of the
15 cross-examination we seek admission of.
16 The motion would be conditional, that is, it would be conditioned
17 on the Chamber's decision to admit the witness' 92 ter statement. As a
18 general practice, we would not tender the entire cross-examination but
19 only those portions which remain relevant to this case. For example,
20 there may be some cross-examination that relates to specific crimes that
21 are no longer part of the indictment against Mr. Mladic; these would be
23 The Prosecution would include in its response the amount of time
24 the cross-examination in Karadzic took. This will enable the Chamber to
25 consider how to adjust its guidance regarding the time allotted for
1 cross-examination and ensure that this procedure yields tangible savings
2 of court time.
3 Given the unique relationship between the Mladic and the Karadzic
4 cases, there is no jurisprudence directly on point. There is also no
5 jurisprudence that I am aware of which would prohibit such an approach.
6 There is some jurisprudence from the Appeals Chamber which is
7 informative. In the Aleksovski case the Appeals Chamber dealt with a
8 somewhat analogous situation in their decision of the 16th of February,
9 1999, entitled: "Decision on the Prosecutor's Appeal on Admissibility of
10 Evidence." In that case, the Trial Chamber admitted the direct and
11 cross-examination of Defence Witness Admiral Domazet from the Blaskic
12 trial pursuant to 89(C) over the Prosecution's objection.
13 The Prosecution appealed the Trial Chamber's decision and it
14 asserted as one of its grounds that the Trial Chamber erred in ruling
15 that the Prosecution's cross-examination in Blaskic satisfied the right
16 to cross-examine the witness before the Aleksovski Chamber. The Appeals
17 Chamber rejected this ground and stated:
18 "It is common ground that the alleged events out of which both
19 men were charged took place in the same area, the Lasva Valley area, and
20 that two proceedings (which arose out of the same indictment) had much in
21 common in both their legal and factual aspects."
22 If the Appeals Chamber affirmed the admission of the
23 cross-examination of a Defence witness from another trial over the
24 Prosecution's objection, surely it can only be proper to do so upon the
25 Prosecution's motion.
1 Your Honour, I have prepared an example of what the package would
2 look like as well as a copy of that decision if that's helpful to the
3 Chamber. I'll ask the usher to assist me to distribute this to the
4 Defence and to the Chamber.
5 Your Honours, I'm ready to answer any questions you may have
6 regarding this. I conclude by saying that this procedure has the
7 potential to save a significant amount of time, alleviate the need for
8 witnesses to repeat testimony they have given to this Tribunal recently.
9 Obviously, a more expeditious trial is something that is in the interests
10 of everyone. And as the Aleksovski Appeals Chamber stated in its
12 "The purpose of the Rules is to promote a fair and expeditious
13 trial and Trial Chambers must have flexibility to achieve this goal."
14 The Prosecution submits that this procedure is fair and will
15 achieve a more expeditious trial.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
18 Judge Moloto has a question for you. Of course the Defence will
19 have an opportunity to respond but let's first listen to the question.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Groome, where you say the Appeals Chamber
21 ruled that if a Trial Chamber wants to use evidence from another trial,
22 it must do so over the motion of the Prosecution. I'm not quite sure how
23 this resolved the matter that was on appeal because my impression is that
24 the Prosecution was appealing the very ruling by the Trial Chamber. How
25 is one to understand the meaning of that Appeals Chamber ruling? Did
1 they rule in favour of the Prosecution or did they rule against the
3 MR. GROOME: It ruled against the Prosecution's position. The
4 Prosecution opposed the admission of the witness's testimony in one
5 Chamber to the Aleksovski Trial Chamber, but the principle that it used
6 in overruling or dismissing the Prosecution's appeal I think is
7 informative here, and that is that the right to cross-examination was
8 satisfied in another case when the case arose from the same indictment
9 and dealt with the same factual and legal questions. And I think that's
10 the situation that we essentially have here.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Even if the Prosecution in the current case would
12 like to add to the cross-examination of the previous case, would they --
13 would the Prosecution be precluded from doing so?
14 MR. GROOME: I'm not suggesting that we would be precluded. In
15 fact, Your Honour, as the Karadzic cross-examination in some ways focused
16 very much on Mr. Karadzic, we would not be asking that that be before
17 you, but we would be asking to have some supplement to our
18 cross-examination so that all of the issues can be brought before
19 Your Honours. And again to ensure that it really does yield in a
20 savings of time, the Prosecution would provide this Chamber with the time
21 that was used in the Karadzic. So I could imagine the Chamber would say
22 that in a case where the Prosecution introduced the entire
23 cross-examination and that took an hour before the Karadzic Chamber, that
24 the Chamber may say that the guidance which ordinarily gives two and a
25 half hours for cross-examination of 92 ter, the starting point would be
1 an hour and a half or whatever less.
2 Some of the cross-examinations in Karadzic are an hour and a
3 half, two hours, and I expect that there will be some substantial
4 savings, although it is difficult to say with some precision until we get
5 the 92 ter motions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MR. GROOME: And it if I could add maybe just one point is that
8 if the Chamber will have noticed in the agreement that we've reached with
9 the Defence, it seems that the general rule will be that the exact
10 Karadzic statement will be now the primary way of adducing a witness's
11 evidence. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Although the agreement does foresee the possibility
13 of an additional statement to be taken and to be presented.
14 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, and in those cases the
15 cross-examination I imagine would be limited to that new information.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, before I give an opportunity to
17 Mr. Lukic to respond, I also have one question, and I read from the
18 transcript: You said you will make an application to admit the prior
19 cross-examination under Rule 92 bis or, in the alternative, under Rules
20 89(c) and (f).
21 Your reference to 92 bis and not to 92 ter, is that -- because
22 Rule 92 bis starts by saying:
23 "A Trial Chamber may dispense with the attendance of a witness in
24 person ..."
25 Which means that the witness would not be there if you would
1 apply Rule 92 bis, whereas under Rule 92 ter the witness still would be
2 present. I understood the -- your reference to 92 bis to be for
3 witnesses who -- for whom statements have been presented by the Defence
4 under Rule 92 ter, so the witness is there to be cross-examined; and
5 therefore, I do not fully understand why you refer to 92 bis rather than
6 to 92 ter.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I can explain that.
8 I have considered that 92 ter would also be a vehicle for
9 tendering such evidence; however, we believe it is impractical. It would
10 require the witness to come some extra amount of time to The Hague and
11 listen to the audiotape of their testimony in Karadzic. Such a procedure
12 carries with it the risk that it may disrupt Defence preparations with
13 their witnesses. The proposal we've made also highlights an anomaly in
14 the rules and practices of this Tribunal. When Rule 92 ter is used to
15 adduce prior testimony before this Tribunal, the witness is ordinarily
16 asked to listen to it and make any amendments to his or her answers.
17 When 92 bis is used to adduce the very same evidence, the testimony is
18 considered to be self-authenticating. There is no need to have the
19 witness review and comment. Any dispute about what the witness said can
20 be resolved by listening to the official records of the Tribunal. It is
21 for these reasons that I believe 92 bis is the most appropriate
22 mechanism. Should the Chamber come to the view that 92 bis is not
23 appropriate mechanism, that in the context of unique and particular
24 parity that exists between the witness' evidence between the two cases,
25 that the Chamber should consider admitting the earlier cross-examination
1 pursuant to 89(c) and 89(f). 89(f) allows the Chamber to admit evidence
2 in writing where the interests of justice allow. Clearly, that test is
3 met by the simple fact that it allows Mr. Mladic's trial to proceed more
4 efficiently. And of course 89(c) is a broad grant of authority for the
5 Chamber to admit any evidence it deems to have probative value.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
7 Of course the attestation for Rule 92 bis, there is no specific
8 need -- if an audio does exist, then if it is a verbatim transcription of
9 the witness, so to that extent there seems not to be the major problem
10 whether the transcript reflects what the witness really said because
11 that's, I would say, relatively easy to verify. However, whether the
12 witness still stands by that testimony and whether he would give the same
13 answers, which of course is also part of the attestation, that's of
14 course a matter still to be considered, even under Rule 92 bis.
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, can I just add for your consideration,
16 we also imagine that in this proposal that we're making that should the
17 Chamber grant our application under 92 bis, the Defence will know that at
18 the time of our response and will have, I would imagine, an opportunity
19 to re-direct not only on the additional questions we ask but on whatever
20 transcript is brought in in lieu of cross-examination. So I think the
21 witness would have a fair opportunity to clarify any matter that they
22 wish to.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we would have to think about this in some
25 Mr. Lukic, any response at this moment on the suggestions made by
1 Mr. Groome?
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Of course we'll need more
3 time to prepare the full response. On this issue I know that we already
4 filed two motions on this issue objecting, and that's our position at
5 this moment, of course, that we object -- still object this proposition.
6 And what I want to emphasise now is that the Prosecution had even more
7 Karadzic witnesses in their case and we didn't have this tool. The
8 Prosecution is trying to change the rules in their favour after their
9 case. If they wanted to propose this, they were able to propose this at
10 the beginning of their case, not at the beginning of our case.
11 So we deem this to be unfair. They want to have more rights than
12 the Defence, and that would be the outcome if their request is granted.
13 So we strongly oppose to this proposition. We are not willing to give
14 the Prosecution more rights than we had during their case. And we will
15 file our response probably in a week we can do this.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, any problems as far as the Prosecution
18 is concerned to receive an answer in a week from now?
19 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. And if the Chamber authorises us,
20 we can do it in the context of a specific application such as the sample
21 that we sent up, the arguments can be equally presented in regards to
22 specific cases rather than in the theoretical absence of such.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you have a week to respond.
24 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: The matter is important enough to be very carefully
1 considered. However, your short response raises already one question,
2 and perhaps you could assist me in refreshing my memory. Did you ever
3 apply for using the transcript of previous testimony as a vehicle for
5 MR. LUKIC: No, we have never applied. It was proposed once by
6 the Prosecution and we did not -- did not go that way. We proceeded in a
7 normal way --
8 JUDGE ORIE: But --
9 MR. LUKIC: -- we never applied since it's not in the Rules and
10 it's not in the practice of this Tribunal.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll wait for your further response and --
12 but if I understand you well - and my recollection doesn't serve me in
13 detail on this matter - that the Prosecution where you say they're
14 seeking an advantage we did not have, that they offered at least to you
15 to be in a similar position.
16 MR. LUKIC: Only in one case.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, in one case you mean --
18 MR. LUKIC: One witness.
19 JUDGE ORIE: One witness.
20 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. We'll further consider the matter.
22 Then ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then a few other matters.
25 On the 12th of May of this year, the Defence informally requested
1 that Mr. Ivetic be granted permission to examine Defence witnesses. The
2 Prosecution indicated that it did not oppose this. On the 13th of May of
3 this year, the Chamber granted this request and informed the parties
4 accordingly through an informal communication. Mr. Ivetic is therefore
5 granted permission to examine Defence witnesses and to make
6 witness-related submissions throughout the Defence case, although only in
7 the presence of lead counsel or co-counsel.
8 A few other matters. The Chamber recalls its fourth decision on
9 Prosecution motion for judicial notice of adjudicated facts concerning
10 the rebuttal evidence procedure, a decision which was dated the 2nd of
11 May, 2012, wherein it encouraged the Defence to contribute to the
12 expeditiousness of the trial by clearly stating when it intends to
13 challenge an adjudicated fact during its presentation of evidence. And
14 the Defence is hereby reminded of this encouragement.
15 Among the miscellaneous, the following announcement: The Chamber
16 informs the parties that there will be a non-sitting week right after the
17 summer recess, hence there will be no court between the 18th and the 22nd
18 of August.
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer].
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to briefly move into private session.
21 [Private session]
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
2 Mr. Groome, my suspicion that the matter you announced as a
3 preliminary matter would be dealt with during my agenda items most likely
4 has become reality?
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. That's all the Prosecution had.
6 I thank the Chamber for that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Any other matter to be raised by the Defence?
9 Then is the Defence ready to call its first witness? No
10 protective measures, Mr. Stojanovic?
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours,
12 and the witness is here.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would then Mr. Sladoje be escorted into the
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Sladoje -- at least I presume you
17 are Mr. Sladoje. Before you give evidence, the Rules require --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- that you make a solemn declaration, the text of
20 which is now handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
23 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: MILE SLADOJE
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Sladoje. Please be seated.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sladoje, you'll be examined first by
4 Mr. Stojanovic. Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.
5 Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. I would kindly ask you to tell us your name for the record, your
11 first and last names.
12 A. My name is Mile Sladoje.
13 Q. Will you please tell the Court whether you provided a written
14 statement to the Mladic Defence team?
15 A. Yes, I provided a written statement and I signed it.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 65 ter
17 1D01612 in e-court. Let's look at the first page first.
18 Q. In a minute you will be able to see the first page of the
19 document in front of you on the screen.
20 Mr. Sladoje, do you see a document in front of you and do you see
21 a signature on the document?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Is this your signature?
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. And now let's look at the last page, page 7 in B/C/S version in
1 the same document. As it is stated in here, your statement has seven
2 pages all together and it contains everything that you stated. And there
3 is a signature below that. Mr. Sladoje, is this your signature as well?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 Q. Is this precisely the statement that you provided to the Mladic
6 Defence team?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Sir, if I were to put the same questions to you today, would you
9 provide identical answers after having made the solemn declaration here
10 in the courtroom?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. Would your answers represent the whole truth about the events
13 that you were questioned about?
14 A. Yes, only the truth.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at this point I
17 would like to tender Mr. Mile Sladoje's statement into evidence. It is
18 65 ter 1D01612.
19 MR. GROOME: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D1612 receives number D453,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: D453 is admitted.
24 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If the following is in keeping
1 with the procedure, I would also like to tender the documents that the
2 Defence team used while taking this witness's statement, and I'm talking
3 about three documents: 65 ter 1D02076, 1D02075, and 1D02074.
4 MR. GROOME: No objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D2076 receives number D454,
7 Your Honours. Document 1D2075 receives number D455, Your Honours. And
8 document 1D2074 receives number D456, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: All three are admitted into evidence.
10 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And with your leave,
12 Your Honours, I would like to ask you to allow me to read a summary of
13 this witness's statement.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so. You've explained to the witness the
15 purpose of it. It's not the evidence but it's not just to inform the
16 public on what the examination will be based on.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, and the
19 witness is aware of that.
20 Mile Sladoje was born in 1951 in Kalinovik municipality. From
21 1970 together with his family he lived and worked in Sarajevo. When the
22 war started, he was in his family house in Nedzarici, in Sarajevo. Due
23 to the inter-ethnic tensions and fear, the Serbian population from
24 Nedzarici organised guards around their houses. The first armed
25 conflicts started on the 8th of April, 1992, and the first attack was by
1 Muslim paramilitaries on the Nedzarici neighbourhood. The leader of that
2 attack was Dragan Vikic. That was the neighbourhood where he lived with
3 his family at the time.
4 Witness Mile Sladoje was a member of the Ilidza Brigade which was
5 part of the Sarajevo and Romanija Corps. In the Nedzarici Battalion he
6 performed a number of important duties starting with being the assistant
7 commander of the battalion for morale, religious affairs. He discharged
8 those duties from June 1992 to March 1993, and then from March 1993 to
9 October 1993 he discharged the duties as the commander of that battalion.
10 From October 1993 until the end of the war, he was the assistant
11 commander of the logistics battalion and then also the deputy battalion
13 Throughout the war, the battalion and the Nedzarici settlement
14 were almost completely encircled so that the forces of the BiH army were
15 both in front and behind the positions of his battalion and they were
16 almost in close contact. For that reason, the strategic position of
17 Nedzarici was extremely important because if Nedzarici was taken the
18 1st Corps of the BiH army would have had a complete link with the 3rd
19 Corps of the BiH army and that would have afforded it a major military
20 supremacy of the Army of Republika Srpska.
21 The positions held by the 1st Corps of BiH army were in civilian
22 areas of Sarajevo. Throughout the war these areas were inhabited by
23 civilians, and the official authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina did not
24 allow them to leave the city freely. There was no any part of the city
25 which didn't have a military formation or a military facility which was
1 used by the 1st Corps of the BiH army.
2 Throughout the war his battalion had a permanent, a standing,
3 order that fire could only be opened in response to enemy fire and only
4 on observed targets. All military activities were defence activities
5 because his battalion only on one occasion throughout the entire war had
6 an offensive activity against Stup hill in order to repair tactical
7 positions. He never received an order from his superior command nor did
8 he issue an order to subordinate units to attack a civilian facility.
9 That was always reiterated at regular briefings at the brigade command
10 and at briefings at battalion level.
11 He did not have an occasion to see General Mladic personally
12 during the war, nor did he ever receive any direct orders from him. On
13 one occasion General Mladic toured the positions of his battalion, but
14 the witness, Mile Sladoje, was absent from the unit on that particular
15 day. In the battalion command they received intelligence about the
16 facilities which were used by the 1st Corps of the BiH army and they
17 could also ascertain the accuracy of the intelligence by observing from
18 the front line and by observing artillery fire which was opened from some
19 of the positions by the BiH army. The artillery positions of the
20 1st Corps of the BiH army were very close to the civilian facilities.
21 Sometimes they were in the civilian facilities themselves. There were
22 also situations when they opened fire close to the facilities used by
24 When the witness's battalion responded by either opening infantry
25 or artillery fire on those positions, what would happen would be
1 complaints that the Serbian army was targeting civilian positions. In
2 logistical terms and in personnel terms, the battalion was understaffed.
3 Among the officers, they did not have any professionals or career
4 officers. The standing order from the superior command was to be careful
5 about the use of ammunition, i.e., that ammunition could be used only to
6 repel attacks.
7 On the right wing of the positions of his battalion, the BiH army
8 had dug out a tunnel under the airport runway. They received a lot of
9 intelligence about that. The tunnel was used until the end of the war
10 for the members of the 1st Corps to be supplied with the equipment,
11 weapons, and logistics. The witness told us more specifically about the
12 artillery weapons that his battalion had throughout the war. He also
13 told us more specifically about the positions where those weapons were
14 deployed, so one can tell exactly where the mortar shells that were
15 implied in the indictment G6 could have been fired from those weapons and
16 from the positions of his battalion. The witness claims unequivocally
17 that three mortar -- the three mortar shells that allegedly on the 22nd
18 of January, 1994, fell in Alipasino Polje under the control of the BiH
19 army were not fired from the positions of his battalion.
20 And finally, the witness also said that they had two rifles with
21 optical sights; however, he also claims that the allegations from the
22 indictment, indicated as F9, are not correct with regard to the position
23 from which fire was opened. And finally he describes and identifies
24 specific positions of the BiH army from which artillery fire was opened
25 and the shells that fell on Alipasino Polje on 22nd January 1994 could
1 have arrived from there.
2 This was a short summary of the witness's statement,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could I correct you, it was not a short summary; it
5 was a very, very long summary. It takes three and a half pages in
6 transcript and that is for a statement in writing of seven pages is a
7 very long summary. The Defence is invited to indeed present short
9 Before we continue, Mr. Stojanovic, one thing is still a bit
10 puzzling me. You have tendered three associated exhibits. Now, if I
11 look at your motion, you announce that - let me have a look. In the
12 motion you say paragraph 14 there are a total of three associated
13 exhibits to this witness statement as set out in the table that is
14 attached at annex B. And in the conclusion you also seek to have three
15 associated exhibits identified in annex B to be admitted into evidence.
16 However, annex B says: "Associated exhibits which the Defence seeks to
17 tender pursuant to Rule 92 ter ...," and there I find four. The one
18 you've not dealt with is the map of incident F9. Now, was it your
19 intention not to tender that fourth exhibit or did you forget it or --
20 because your submissions are contradicting?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't mention it
22 at this point deliberately because I was thinking of going through the
23 document with the witness and then tender it. Perhaps in the technical
24 sense if it's more acceptable, then I would take 1D02307 and then we can
25 admit the document if this is preferable before I put any questions on it
1 to the witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's therefore not by mistake. At the same
3 time, it's not tendered pursuant to 92 ter but you still are considering
4 to tender it during the examination of the witness. Then please proceed.
5 We have another seven minutes before we take a break.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With
7 your leave I would like to look at 1D -- 65 ter 02307 in e-court, please.
8 And I would like to put some questions to the witness.
9 Q. Mr. Sladoje, we can see some markings in this image and I just
10 wanted to put some questions to you about the markings. The marking
11 showing the line of separation between your battalion and 1st and 2nd
12 Corps of the B&H army, is that a marking that you put in?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. The location of the incident marked as F9 in the indictment, the
15 location where a teenage girl was hit by a sniper marked as the crossroad
16 ss of the Adija Mulabegovic Street, is that also a marking that you
17 placed here?
18 A. I did not mark the street Adija Mulabegovic.
19 Q. And could you tell the Trial Chamber who marked that particular
20 spot, the spot of Adija Mulabegovic Street?
21 A. This was used in the Karadzic defence and perhaps somebody from
22 the defence did that, and what I did -- what I marked was the Institute
23 for Blind Children and the line of separation. As for the street, I
24 didn't mark that.
25 Q. Thank you. I wanted to clarify that and that is why I wanted to
1 go item by item. Another reason why I wanted to ask you the following is
2 this --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, one question first of all: This
4 also seems to be a projected map which is not projected at an angle of 90
5 degrees but in some way under a different angle which always distorts
6 whatever measurement you would like to make an a map. First of all,
7 could you confirm that this is a not-90-degree-projected map? And
8 second, would you have a better one so that we can use a map which can be
9 used in terms of distances?
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I confirm
11 that this is not a 90-degree-angle projection, but since we're not going
12 to be doing any measurements and that is not our objective I believe that
13 there would be no need for this because the questions will actually lead
14 us in a completely different direction.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, we'll wait for that. At the same time,
16 I would encourage all parties not to use these type of maps because they
17 distort what is usually found on maps. Please proceed.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Q. Mr. Sladoje, the building or the spot that you marked, the
20 Institute for the Blind, is it on the actual line of separation between
21 your battalion B&H army units?
22 A. Yes, it is exactly on the line of separation.
23 Q. If you remember, how big is this building? How many floors does
24 it have?
25 A. I think that it's a three-floor building, three-storey building.
1 I'm not sure but I think so.
2 Q. Did your unit at any point in time during the war - and I kindly
3 ask you to focus on 1994 in particular - in its combat disposition ever
4 had crews, battalion members, who had rifles with optical sights in this
5 particular building?
6 A. We just had fortifications and classic trenches in this building
7 or facility. We never had such rifles in this building.
8 Q. And the building behind this Institute for the Blind building is
9 the Oslobodjenje publishing and newspaper company?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And was that then at that time in the defence sector of the B&H
13 A. Yes, it was.
14 Q. During the war, and in particular during 1994, did you -- were
15 you exposed to fire from these positions?
16 A. A part of the Oslobodjenje building was already demolished so
17 there was no shooting from there, but there were other buildings nearby
18 that were 10- or 15-storey buildings from where there was shooting.
19 Q. All right. I'm going to finish with this document. I would
20 kindly ask you to tell us about this building in red which is a bit lower
21 in relation to the Institute for the Blind. I don't know if you're able
22 to see it. Do you know -- and this building is also literally on the
23 line of separation, do you know what this building is?
24 A. This is also a facility for the blind for adults who underwent
25 rehabilitation there. Before the war it was a clothing factory.
1 Q. And was that building also called Institute for the Blind?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I'm lost what building you are
3 referring to at this moment. You said -- you asked about the
4 Institute for the Blind. You have not invited the witness yet to point
5 at that in the map, and then you say a little bit further down there is a
6 building in red. I have no idea what you are talking about and I'm
7 surprised that the witness does. But could we invite the witness to mark
8 what he's talking about, what the Institute for the Blind is, and mark
9 what you refer to as another red building.
10 Would you guide the witness to do so so the Chamber knows --
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Sir, you were talking about the rehabilitation facility --
13 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, could we take out any marking which
14 you made on your own initiative. You are supposed to not mark anything
15 unless instructed to do that. So we have a clean map now again. Listen
16 carefully to Mr. Stojanovic and he'll invite you if any need to make
18 Mr. Stojanovic.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your
21 Q. Sir, I would like to ask you to place a circle around the
22 Institute for the Blind facility for adults, where adults underwent
23 rehabilitation and where they worked. Could you please mark that on the
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you the following. At any point
2 during the war did you have positions there from your battalion who used
3 rifles with optical sights?
4 A. We had normal infantry weaponry. We never had snipers or such
6 Q. And I'm going to finish with this question. Since you come from
7 that area, could you see the street Adija Mulabegovic from this
8 particular spot? Did you have a clear line of vision from that spot?
9 A. It was perhaps possible to see the very beginning of Adija
10 Mulabegovic, former Djure Jaksica Street, but then later on you couldn't
11 see it.
12 Q. I would just like to ask you to mark the circle that you drew
13 with the letters Z S, Zavod za Slijepe, Institute for the Blind.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would now like
17 to tender document 65 ter 1D02077.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we do so, what you've marked, Witness, is
19 that the Institute for the Blind of adults?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there were two
21 facilities for the blind within a distance of 100 metres apart. The
22 first one was the Institute for the Blind Children.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could you then -- if you just answer my question,
24 the answer therefore is most likely: Yes, what you marked is the
25 Institute for the Blind who are adults. Could you also mark the
1 Institute which is the Institute for the Blind Children. Could you do
2 that on this map. Or was that what you marked?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I marked just now and marked
4 with the letters ZS is the Institute for Blind Adults. Now I'm going to
5 mark the Institute for Blind Children.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that is the building which was already
7 marked in red before and that is the upper of the two markings where it
8 reads: "Zavod za Slijepe decu" or something like that, but where there
9 is text added.
10 Any objection against admission?
11 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, with the limitation that
12 Mr. Stojanovic has put on it, that distances -- it's not to be used for
13 distances, only for locations, given the projection.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, in the transcript I find the
15 number 1D02077. This is how it was interpreted. Perhaps you can check
16 if that is really the right number.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
18 just been warned the number is incorrect. So it's the 65 ter number
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And now in a version as marked by the witness.
21 Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours document 1D2307 as marked by the
23 witness receives number D457, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D457 is admitted. We take a break. We will first
25 ask the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break of half an hour, therefore we'll
3 resume at ten minutes past 11.00.
4 Mr. Stojanovic, until now you've used close to half an hour and
5 Your estimate was 45 minutes.
6 We take a break.
7 --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.
8 --- On resuming at 11.11 a.m.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
10 [The witness takes the stand].
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Could I just ask that we pull up in e-court the document which is
14 now marked D454.
15 Q. And I will ask you, Witness, to tell me. These locations that
16 are marked with these little circles were the positions from which you
17 say you were fired at. I'd like to ask you about the position which is
18 below the facility marked as Geodetski Zavod, the surveying institute.
19 What was there before 1992?
20 A. I believe it was a police station before the war and I believe
21 it is still a police station, it's still there.
22 Q. According to your information, the information you had as one of
23 the warring parties, was this building used for military purposes still
24 in 1994 and were you fired at from there?
25 A. It was used throughout the war as a military installation. We
1 suffered from artillery fire from that building.
2 Q. Right there is Gete street and that is connected with the
3 scheduled incident G6 that you speak about in your statement. Now, from
4 the position you marked, did you have any optical visibility? Did you
5 have a line of vision from Gete Street towards Alipasino Polje?
6 A. No, we did not, but Alipasino Polje was ahead of us and in the
7 last -- this is the last stage, a settlement called Alipasino Polje C.
8 Q. Thank you. I'll be finishing with this document. You mentioned
9 regarding the incident marked in the indictment as G6 that in your view
10 those three mortar shells could have arrived from the west, namely, from
11 the Sigma building --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, Gete Street, where are we supposed to find that?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's just before
15 this circle that the witness discussed, the square of independence,
16 Trg Nezavisnosti and Gete Street.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see something which can be spelled as
18 G-e-t-e-o-v-a. Is that what you are referring to?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I found it. And Now let's have a look at your
21 question again.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, I'll repeat the
23 last question.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Your question was: Did you have a line of vision
25 from Gete Street towards Alipasino Polje? And could you please then be
1 very clear on what you refer to exactly as Alipasino Polje, which seems
2 to be an area, and for a line of vision or a line of sight you need two
3 points to see whether you can see from one point the other point. I'm a
4 bit lost. And Mr. Groome is on his feet.
5 Even to confuse me more, Mr. Groome?
6 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour, I'm lost as well. Could I ask
7 since there are numerous circles on this, could Mr. Stojanovic please
8 have him mark the circle that means -- that indicates the police station.
9 It's unclear to me what we're talking about.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see -- what I understood, Mr. Stojanovic, is
11 that you referred to the circle which is just below the oval with the
12 text "Geodetski Zavod." Just below that there is a circle. Just above
13 where it reads "Prvomajska" that's what you're referring to?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I also -- but let me just re-read what the witness
16 said. One second, please. Well, where the witness said: We did not --
17 we did not, but Alipasino Polje was ahead of it. And in the last stage a
18 settlement called Alipasino Polje C, that's an answer which is for me at
19 least incomprehensible as to how to understand this. So could you please
20 put clear questions to the witness and seek to clarify whatever answer he
21 gives if it is not immediately comprehensible. Please proceed.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think
23 we had a problem in interpretation, but I believe the witness understood
24 me. I'll ask the question again.
25 Q. Witness, from the positions that you marked on this photograph
1 and the positions that you militarily held in 1994, did you have a direct
2 line of vision to the area of Gete Street?
3 A. From the line of separation and the positions we held, we had no
4 line of vision because there were tall buildings ahead of us and we
5 couldn't see through to there.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Stojanovic, I have a problem when you say from
7 the positions that you marked on this photograph. Now, there are lots of
8 markings on this photograph. I don't know from which position the
9 witness did not have a line of vision. I am also lost now. The question
10 was: "From the positions that you marked on this photograph and the
11 positions that you militarily held in 1994, did you have a direct line of
12 vision to the area of Gete Street?"
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. To
14 clear this up completely, the question was, just as we see this marking
15 in the bottom left corner --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which markings? Let the witness show us the
17 marking --
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] -- the line of separation.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- where from -- the position from where he was.
20 Can you show us which marking you are talking about.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave then we can ask
22 the witness to mark the position that he held together with his battalion
23 in 1994.
24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Witness, this line which makes an angle of approximately 90
2 degrees and which breaks at the Institute for Blind Children, what does
3 it represent?
4 A. Those were the positions we held, the positions we controlled.
5 It happened to be this shape.
6 Q. And what is the feature that you encircled, what is this street?
7 A. This is Gete Street and the building behind is the police
9 Q. Thank you. I'll finish with this question. You mentioned in
10 your statement the Sigma building. Where was it relative to Gete Street?
11 A. It was to the west of Gete Street.
12 Q. In 1994, were you targeted by artillery fire from the ABH
13 positions near the Sigma building?
14 A. Yes, from the Sigma building and another feature which was
15 actually the agricultural complex of Butmir.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, if you want the Chamber to
17 understand where the Sigma building is -- I mean, "west" gives us 40.000
18 kilometres from the position you indicated. So therefore, try to take us
19 by the hand and tell us where the Sigma building is or ask -- invite the
20 witness to tell us where the Sigma building is, rather than leaving us
21 with 40.000 kilometres to guess.
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will do that.
23 Q. This agricultural complex and the Sigma building, how far were
24 they -- how far are they, as the crow flies, from Gete Street?
25 A. The distance to the Sigma building and the agricultural complex
1 is approximately 2 and a half to 3 kilometres as the crow flies.
2 Q. Thank you. From what type of mortar were you fired at from that
4 A. The 82-millimetre and 120-millimetre mortars.
5 Q. Thank you, Witness, for answering my questions. I have nothing
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would appreciate
8 your instructions. This document has been admitted as D454, and now the
9 witness added some markings. Do we need to give a new number to the
10 document now?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Has this been admitted as D454? Oh, without the
12 marking. Yes, then we should -- if you please would tender it now as a
13 map marked by the witness.
14 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
15 But, Mr. Groome, any objections?
16 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please, Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document D454 as marked by the witness receives
19 number D458, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With
22 your leave, if I could consult with my client.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
24 And perhaps we'll wait for a second before you start your
25 cross-examination, Mr. Groome, so that Mr. Stojanovic has an opportunity
1 to consult.
2 Meanwhile, I already can tell you, Mr. Sladoje, that you'll be
3 cross-examined soon by Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Sladoje.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. Before I ask you other questions, I just want to clarify what we
13 see now in D458 in front of us. The blue circle that you drew in
14 Alipasino Polje, that's simply a mark to locate a particular street; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Approximately.
17 Q. So where all the other circles on this map that you prepared for
18 Karadzic case, this particular -- those circles refer to places you
19 believed to be military targets. This particular blue circle does not
20 indicate the existence of any military target there; correct?
21 A. You're right. All these elliptoid circle markings used to be
22 agricultural buildings converted into military facilities during the war
23 and this Gete Street was populated by civilians. There was only a police
24 station nearby, so we did not identify it as a military installation.
25 Q. Okay. Now, I may want to show this, your diagram, to another
1 witness. So could I trouble you to please perhaps with the red pen just
2 mark the English letters or -- for the abbreviation police station, the
3 letters P and S next to the circle where you say the police station was.
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. And maybe put the letter P and the letter S next to that.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Thank you very much, sir.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I ask that that be now admitted
9 into evidence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, with another marking, a marking in red added by
11 the witness to the previous exhibit.
12 Madam Registrar, it would now receive number?
13 THE REGISTRAR: Document D458 as marked by the witness receives
14 number P6507, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you some general questions about your
18 command. Am I correct in saying that the barracks of your battalion was
19 in Nedzarici; is that correct?
20 A. It was in Nedzarici.
21 Q. And the headquarters of your battalion was in the barracks at
22 Nedzarici; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, you've referred to a location that you've referred to as the
25 Institute for Blind Children. Am I correct that that location is
1 approximately 300 to 350 metres from your barracks?
2 A. Thereabouts. You're probably right.
3 Q. Now, in your statement that's now D453 in evidence at paragraph 7
4 you talk about the faculty of theology. Am I correct that the faculty of
5 theology was approximately 150 to 200 metres from the barracks compound?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Now, at the end of 1993 did the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Battalion of
8 the Ilidza Brigade, were they combined to form a single battalion?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And the headquarters of this combined battalion was located on
11 Kasindolska Street; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the area of responsibility of this combined battalion also
14 included Nedzarici?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Did it include Aerodromska Naselje?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did it include Kasindol?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, can you please estimate the total number of
21 mortars that were fired by your battalion over the course of the three
22 years of the conflict? I'm just looking for a general approximation.
23 A. I wouldn't be able to answer your question. I don't know, not
24 even approximately.
25 Q. Is that -- is that because so many mortars were fired that you
1 have difficulty approximating a general number?
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. That's not the reason.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, what's the objection, Mr. --
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The way the question is
7 structured. The previous question was whether he could provide a general
8 approximation and the witness said that he could not even give an
9 approximate -- a general approximation. And then the question was
10 whether it was due to the fact that so many mortars were fired. The
11 witness, however, didn't say either "many" or "few." He could not give
12 any kind of information to that effect.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That is what is suggested in the question and that's
14 what makes it a leading question and that is permitted in
15 cross-examination, Mr. Stojanovic. So therefore -- Mr. Mladic apparently
16 wants to consult with you, but meanwhile Mr. Groome may proceed.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Sir, are you able to tell us, is it in the hundreds? Is it in
19 the thousands?
20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I told you that I could not give you even an
21 approximate number. I didn't count mortars because it was not just us
22 but also the enemy who fired mortars. So really, one couldn't say who
23 fired what and how many. I was not in charge of that. That's why I
24 don't know. If I could give you an approximation, I could, I could tell
25 you 50 or 50.000, but whatever I gave you at this point would not be
1 relevant information because I don't have any relevant information to
3 Q. So would it stand to reason if I asked you about how many mortars
4 were fired on a particular day, let's say the 8th of August, 1992, would
5 it be correct that you would be unable to assist me with the number of
6 mortars fired on that day as well?
7 A. I wouldn't know, but I don't know which incident you have in
8 mind. I don't know what may have occurred on the 8th of August. It's
9 really not something that I could objectively know.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 Now, in March 1993 you succeeded Radivoje Grkovic as commander of
12 the Nedzarici area; correct? I see you nodded your head, but we need to
13 hear your answer for it to be recorded.
14 A. No, no. I seem to have "1992." Is that what you said? But that
15 was in March 1993, so I don't know whether I misheard or whether you were
16 misinterpreted or whether you misspoke.
17 Q. Well, now the record is clear that it was in March 1993; correct?
18 Were you replaced by Svetozar Guzina who took the post of
19 battalion commander when the three battalions were combined into one?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, I want to call before you an exhibit that you marked in the
22 Karadzic case and that is 65 ter 30629, and it's a variation of the map
23 that Mr. Stojanovic has been working with today. Now, in the bottom
24 right-hand corner am I correct in saying that that bears your signature
25 and the date of the 27th of November, 2012?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, can I ask that we focus on the left-hand side of the
4 In the lower left-hand corner of this exhibit we see a green
5 line. Am I correct in stating that this green line marks the perimeter
6 of the area of responsibility of your battalion?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that was drawn by you; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So that the area above the green line and onto the red line was
11 within your responsibility; correct?
12 A. The area of responsibility of the newly established battalion is
13 what I marked in red and then something was added in green, and the rest
14 was the enemy's side outside of the lines that are -- have been drawn
16 Q. Correct. So that the space above the green but below the red,
17 that's area under your control?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, if we look at the red rectangle on the left-hand side of the
20 page, it approximates the location of the barracks where the Nedzarici
21 Battalion headquarters were; is that correct?
22 A. Well, it is marked here.
23 Q. And I just want to confirm these markings. So that is where the
24 barracks is located?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And we can see the letters KP and the fork in the road just
2 beyond the airport. Was this the location sometimes of a check-point
3 that was within your area of responsibility?
4 A. That was not a classical check-point. We did not have any troops
5 there. However, in view of the fact that the Muslim side was in
6 Stupska Street and that they -- that UNPROFOR soldiers also passed along
7 that way, there was some containers there, there was some sandbags there,
8 and the UNPROFOR unit was known as Sierra 4. This is marked as a
9 check-point because in the Karadzic case Mrs. Edgerton asked me whether
10 there was a check-point there. That's why I actually marked this
11 position at K5.
12 Q. Now, in paragraph 27 of D453 you describe an event in which flak
13 jackets were confiscated from French forces. Am I correct that where
14 you've marked KP is the location where this happened?
15 A. You are right. You see, we had information --
16 Q. I'll ask you about that --
17 A. -- that --
18 Q. -- in a few minutes. I just want to make sure we orient
19 ourselves to the locations --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could you also seek clarification for
21 the reference to K5 which I have not found yet.
22 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, can Your Honour direct me to a line
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, page 41, the line 5, last word -- 4: "That's
25 why I actually marked this position at K5."
1 Or did you intend to refer to KP, Witness?
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. The transcript recorded you as saying "K5," but were you
4 referring to "KP," what's marked on the map?
5 A. Not "K5" but "KP."
6 Q. Thank you.
7 Now, just above that KP mark we see a small red circle. Am I
8 correct in saying that your battalion had between four and five mortars
9 located here?
10 A. Very close by. Some hundred metres away from the school of
11 theology in the residential area itself.
12 Q. Now, could I ask you to look for the location of the theological
13 seminary and if you can find it, can you please circle the location and
14 place the letters TS next to it. Perhaps if we use the colour red since
15 I think blue has been used with the witness with the Defence.
16 A. No. The theological seminary is marked in red.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You are invited to mark where the theological
18 faculty is which you said was at a distance of some hundred metres from
19 where the mortars were. So could you indicate where the premises of the
20 theological faculty is and could you please mark that.
21 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. And you've marked that with the letters TF. Now, were mortars
24 located at this location throughout the course of the war?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would tender 65 ter 30629 with the
2 additional markings made by Mr. Sladoje.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar -- no objections, Mr. Stojanovic?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No objection.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 65 ter 30629 as marked by the witness
6 receives number P6508, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And yes, what I should say is that "additionally
8 marked by the witness," because the original one was already a document
9 marked by the witness, so additionally marked and is admitted into
10 evidence as P6508.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. Now, I'd like to return to the incident involving the flak
13 jackets. In paragraph 27 of your statement where you talk about
14 confiscating those flak jackets belonging to French forces, you say:
15 "Towards the end of 1994 we stopped a convoy of the French
16 Battalion because we had information that they were transporting weapons
17 and equipment for the Muslim forces."
18 And then you go on to describe stopping the convoy and
19 confiscating the jackets. Now, my question is the following: Where you
20 stopped and confiscated the jackets, that was just outside the airport;
21 is that correct?
22 A. Some 200 metres away from the airport.
23 Q. And the information that you had about the French transporting
24 weapons, that was from your brigade command; is that correct?
25 A. Not from the commander but from our intelligence service.
1 Q. You did not find any weapons, did you, just flak jackets?
2 A. Only flak jackets, 126 pieces all together.
3 Q. So my question to you is whether the information you received
4 about what the French had, was that incorrect? Or have you perhaps made
5 a mistake in your recollection about the information you were provided?
6 A. We received information about weapons and flak jackets were being
7 transported. The French Battalion was deployed at the airport. They
8 didn't have any units in the town, so it would have been illogical if
9 they transported things for somebody else and there was no need for them
10 to be supplied by anybody else. That's why we confiscated everything.
11 Q. Just to make the point that the information you received was
12 incorrect with respect to weapons?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, I want to show you a series of photographs to
15 help the Chamber understand your testimony.
16 MR. GROOME: Can we please have 65 ter 30633. It's a panoramic
17 photo from the theological faculty.
18 Q. You'll see that photograph in a few minutes or a few seconds.
19 Can I ask you to look at it, orient yourself. And then my question is:
20 Does it fairly depict the area around the theological seminary?
21 A. The school of theology is being renovated. This was not taken
22 during the war. And the houses that you see in Nedzarici is where we
23 were and where we lived.
24 Q. So this does fairly depict the area surrounding the theological
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, can I draw your attention to the -- where the truck that we
3 see in the right-hand side of the photograph, is this where the mortars
4 were located, the four to five mortars that you've mentioned?
5 A. They were located there at the beginning of the war and later on
6 they were next to the green meadow, that's where they were deployed.
7 Q. Can I ask you to put the letter M to show us -- maybe a circle
8 where the mortars were located and the letter M?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, at the beginning of the war or where
10 they were located later?
11 MR. GROOME: Good point, Your Honour.
12 Q. Can I ask you to put M1 for the beginning of the war and M2 for
13 this later period.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And then -- okay, I see both.
16 Now, can we see the development of Alipasino Polje in this
18 A. From the positions where the mortars were deployed you mean?
19 Q. No, no. From this photograph, can you mark the towers, can you
20 see the apartment towers of that apartment complex?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can I ask you to put the letters AP just above them to indicate
23 where they are.
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. And finally, can you give us the approximate date when the
1 mortars were moved from this first position to this second position.
2 A. I believe that that was in late 1992.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, could I tender at this stage 65 ter
4 30633 with these markings made by Mr. Sladoje?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30633 receives number P6509,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 Again, if there's no clear objection, I will usually ask
10 Madam Registrar to assign a number even without explicitly having asked
11 for whether there are any objections. I expect the parties to act on
12 their own initiative under those circumstances.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we now take a look at 65 ter 30630.
15 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, I'm going to show you some close-ups of this
16 panoramic photo and these are ones that you made markings on in the
17 Karadzic case. I am simply going to ask you to confirm what your
18 markings mean.
19 MR. GROOME: So we could perhaps zoom in on the photograph.
20 Q. Now, in 30630 we can see the letter M circled in the centre of
21 that photograph? Am I correct that this represents the area Mojmilo?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And we can see a VP circle to the left. Am I correct that this
24 represents Vojnicko Polje; correct?
25 A. Vojnicko Polje, military field.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. GROOME: Could I ask now that we see 65 ter 30631.
3 Q. And this is another close-up of this photo. And my question to
4 you after you have had a chance to look at this, am I correct that when
5 you marked this photo D1, you did that to indicate the location of the
6 residential apartment complex known as Dobrinja 1?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You also marked D5 to indicate the location of Dobrinja 5;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And both of these were large apartment complexes where many
12 people lived; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this stage I would tender
15 65 ter numbers 30630 and 30631.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You want them to be one exhibit or two exhibits?
17 MR. GROOME: I think perhaps two exhibits, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: That perhaps makes it easier.
19 Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30630 receives number P6510 and document
21 30631 receives number P6511, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Both admitted.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Now, sir, I'm going to now ask you about different portions of
25 your statement. Your statement has been admitted into evidence and the
1 Chamber has read it. There is no need to repeat what's in the statement,
2 but perhaps just focus on the additional information that I am
3 requesting. Okay.
4 Now, in paragraph 3 of your statement you said that in 1991 a
5 Muslim colleague asked you to sell him ammunition; correct?
6 A. No, just the opposite, to buy ammunition.
7 Q. Okay. He wanted to buy ammunition from you?
8 A. No, he wanted to sell ammunition to me.
9 Q. Oh, I see. Let's just take a look at that. Your -- I'll read
10 you how your statement has been recorded, and if we need to correct it or
11 if you need to correct it, please let us know. Paragraph 3 reads:
12 "In the course of 1991 one of my Muslim colleagues asked me if I
13 was interested in selling ammunition ..."
14 Is that correct?
15 A. That may be so written; however, you need to read the entire
16 statement. If he said if I was willing to sell ammunition and then I go
17 on to say that already in 1991 Muslims had been prepared for war. So I
18 had no reason to sell ammunition. He actually offered me to buy
20 Q. He wanted to buy ammunition from you?
21 A. No, no, he wanted to sell ammunition to me.
22 Q. Okay. Okay. I think that's clear.
23 MR. GROOME: Now, could I ask the court officer to bring up P3 in
24 e-court, page 37 to our screens. Your Honours, this is page 32 in the
25 Sarajevo map book.
1 Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to your evidence regarding a
2 shelling which occurred on the 22nd of January, 1994, in which six
3 children were killed and five people were wounded. You provide evidence
4 about this event at paragraph 30 of your statement. I want to read you
5 an excerpt of that paragraph and then ask you a question.
6 "In connection with the allegations that the shell was fired from
7 the west, I should point out that the shell was fired from behind the
8 lines from the western side, that is, from the Sigma building, i.e., from
9 positions controlled by BH army forces."
10 Do you still maintain that the shell that killed those children
11 was fired from the Sigma building in the BH army position? A simple yes
12 or no.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you accept that according to your evidence that shelling an
15 area where children were playing was a crime?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. So you acknowledge that what happened was a crime. Your evidence
18 is that the shell that fell on the children or the shells that fell that
19 day was from the BH army. Do I understand your evidence correctly?
20 A. Precisely.
21 Q. Now, I direct your attention to the map in front of you. I want
22 you to simply make a note, a mental note of where G6 and that green dot
23 next to it is. That's the precise location of where this -- these shells
24 fell. When you've made a note of that, let me know and I'm going to
25 change the exhibit.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could you assist me in the green dot,
2 that is just under the word "Polje"?
3 MR. GROOME: That's correct, Your Honour --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. GROOME: -- to the left of G6.
6 JUDGE ORIE: If I could say to the south-west of G6, close to it.
7 Yes. Please proceed.
8 MR. GROOME: Now if we could call up I believe it's P6507.
9 Q. This is your map of the same area.
10 MR. GROOME: And if we could focus in on the "Alipasino Polje."
11 Q. Now, am I correct that during the course of the war your evidence
12 now at this point is that you never knew there to be any military targets
13 or personnel at the location that we've just seen in the previous map,
14 the place where the shells landed on the 22nd of January, 1994?
15 A. I stand by the fact that there was no building there because I
16 think you couldn't really put anything there.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you were the commander at this time. Would you agree
18 that there was no military objective to be achieved on this day by
19 shelling the location of G6 where that green dot was?
20 A. Could you please tell me the date. I'm not quite sure which
22 Q. 22nd of January, 1994.
23 A. Well, it's not that important. I wasn't the commander at the
24 time, but I was in the battalion. You insist that it was not a military
25 facility and I understand you, but I can also respond by saying that we
1 did not have a line of sight there. We couldn't have known that children
2 were playing there or anything like that. We couldn't see it. We never
3 did anything like that in any cases during the war. During combat some
4 incidents could happen, but I think that there was no case when anything
5 like that was done deliberately.
6 Q. So to your knowledge, on the day that I'm concerned with, you
7 know of no military object that was actively there, do you?
8 A. That is correct, there was no military object there.
9 Q. Now, there was a series of three mortars that landed in this
10 group of apartment buildings around the same time. Would you agree that
11 such an event would likely instill feelings of terror among the people
12 living there?
13 A. Instilling terror is a very serious term. In combat there is no
14 terrorising because there was a police station nearby, the
15 Geodetski Institute was there. So when responding to fire the civilians
16 here --
17 Q. Sir, I'm talking about this specific event on this very specific
18 day. What I'm asking you is whether you agree it would be likely that
19 the children playing there, their parents in the apartments, that they
20 would have experienced this event - three mortars landing where the
21 children played - they would have experienced that as terror?
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection. The witness is being
23 asked to speculate about how other people and children could have
24 understood shelling in war time and this is something that the witness
25 cannot know.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, do you agree with Mr. Groome that it would
2 be very scary for children playing there where three mortars fell?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's scary for any normal person,
4 but there are other indications.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Indications of what?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There are indications by the
7 Prosecutor that this is terrorism, there is insistence upon it, and I am
8 absolutely asserting that that is not the case and that's why I say that
9 there are other things.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I invite the English interpreter to move a
12 little bit closer to the microphone because it's quite ununderstandable
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Now with respect to your conclusion that the mortar was fired
16 from the Sigma building, am I correct that you did not yourself
17 personally see the mortar when it was fired?
18 A. No, I did not see it.
19 Q. You did not go to where the mortar landed and conduct any type of
20 investigation, did you?
21 A. I couldn't -- Prosecutor, sir, I couldn't even go and see the
22 place because it was under Muslim control. It was far away from me, so I
23 couldn't go there.
24 Q. I know it was an obvious question, but I want to establish that
25 you did not participate in any investigation of any kind related to this
1 event; correct?
2 A. No, no.
3 MR. GROOME: Could we see 65 ter 30634 on our screens. This is
4 the witness's 92 ter statement for the Karadzic case. It was signed by
5 him on the 25th of November, 2012. And could I ask that we please go to
6 e-court page 5 where the witness provides evidence of this event.
7 Q. Now, you speak about this event in paragraph 26 of your Karadzic
8 statement which is quite similar but with respect to this particular
9 event you have left out a sentence. The sentence you left out was:
10 "It has been explained to me that on 12 July 1993 an incident
11 occurred in Spasenije Cane Babovic Street and that according to the
12 findings of the Muslim police the area from which the projectile was
13 launched was Nedzarici.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour.
15 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, if I could repeat the question. I read
16 from the wrong paragraph. I'm sorry.
17 Q. It's paragraph 27 that I want to direct your attention to. And
18 the sentence -- just one second, please. The sentence that has been left
19 out is:
20 "It has been explained to me that on 22 January 1994 an incident
21 occurred in Klare Cetkin Street and the Cetinjska Street and that
22 according to the findings of the Muslim police the projectile was
23 allegedly fired from the Nedzarici sector/the Home for Blind Children."
24 Do you acknowledge that that sentence has been left out? Is this
25 my statement in the Karadzic or in the present case?
1 Q. The statement before you now is from the Karadzic case. That
2 sentence does not appear in D453. Do you acknowledge that or would you
3 like me to call up D453?
4 A. This is what I said and I stand by it because that's how it was.
5 That's how it was in the preparations. I don't know how it came about
6 that this sentence was left out of the statement.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I see we're at the time for the
8 break --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are. And the last break was longer than we
10 usually have. I have to get back to the daily routine again. So now we
11 take a break of 20 minutes. Could the witness be escorted out of the
13 [The witness stands down]
14 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at half past 12.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.11 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: I think it might be fairer to the witness if I'm
21 going to be comparing to the two statements that he have access to both
22 at the same time. So I have a copy of his -- hard copy of the Mladic
23 statement, I've shown it to Mr. Lukic and he has no objection that the
24 witness have it before him.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ask the assistance of the usher once he has
1 returned with the witness.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you please assist Mr. Groome giving
4 a document to the witness. There's no need to show it to the Defence
5 first. Yes.
6 Witness, you'll be provided with a hard copy of your Karadzic
7 statement --
8 MR. GROOME: Karadzic is on the screen and Mladic is in hard
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, Mladic is in hard copy. So that you're able to
11 read them in comparison.
12 Yes, please proceed, Mr. Groome.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. Mr. Sladoje, I just want to confirm that you understand the hard
15 copy, the typed version in front of you is your statement that was
16 tendered in this case, and the one that we have on the screen is the one
17 that was tendered in the Karadzic case. Okay? So if I can pick up where
18 we left off, so if you look on the screen paragraph 27, this is your
19 statement in the Karadzic case, the sentence, first sentence:
20 "It has been explained to me ..."
21 And it continues on. That sentence has been dropped in the
22 statement for this case. So my first question regarding this is: Who is
23 it that explained details about this event to you? Who is the person who
24 did that?
25 A. No one explained it to me. There's nothing that needed to be
1 explained to me. I explained it and it was in this statement but it's
2 not in this statement here. I don't know how that happened, but this is
3 the statement and these are the facts that you and I can talk about.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could I just -- you just told Mr. Groome
5 that you were not there. So whether an incident occurred in those
6 streets you couldn't know it from your own observation. Therefore, the
7 question is: Who told you that this happened there? Or how did you
8 otherwise learn about this event?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, which incident are we
10 talking about, 27?
11 JUDGE ORIE: We are talking about what is in your statement
12 incident G6, which is found in the statement in this case in paragraph 30
13 of your statement and which you see on your screen in paragraph 27 of the
14 Karadzic statement. Explosion, children playing, Klare Cetkin Street,
15 Cetinjska Street. That's what we are talking about. 22nd of January
16 1994. Could you tell us how you learned about it?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found out about it from the media
18 after a few days because the TV reported about it and this happened later
19 during preparations for the Defence of Dr. Karadzic. This was presented
20 and based on that I provided the statement as you see it there.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so it's from the media that you learned about
22 it or --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And did you also learn from the media that it was
25 fired from the Sigma building?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because this is something that
2 was reported by the Muslim side.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I leave it further in your hands.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. So you've just said in reference to the Karadzic statement:
6 "This was presented and based on that I provided the
7 statement ..."
8 Are you saying that the statement was presented to you?
9 A. No, the statement was not presented. The incident when we were
10 working on the basis of the indictment, when we were working down that
11 list, I said what I said and what is presented here in my statement.
12 Q. So when -- again when it says "it has been explained to me," was
13 it explained to you by a member of the Karadzic team or by Mr. Karadzic
14 himself? Was that who explained the information to you?
15 A. I don't know this term "explained." Perhaps I misused it at a
16 certain point, but nobody explained anything to me. There was no need
17 for anyone to explain anything to me. I know what happened on the basis
18 of fact. That's -- the most important thing here is that it was not
19 possible to fire the shell from the Institute of the Blind because there
20 were no mortars there throughout the whole war and that is the gist of
21 this whole matter here.
22 Q. Would it have been possible, just possible, to have fired at this
23 location from the locations you've marked, M1 and M2 on the picture
24 from -- taken at the theological faculty?
25 A. It's possible but it was not so.
1 Q. Okay. Now, there's another notable admission from your version
2 of the evidence in the Karadzic case and here. Now, if I could ask you
3 to look at paragraph 30 on the copy that's on your desk and paragraph 27
4 on the screen. The following sentence that you have in the Karadzic
5 statement has been deleted in this case.
6 "I also affirm that no one from our command had ordered the
7 shelling of the place where the incident allegedly occurred ..."
8 My simple question at this stage is: You agree with me that that
9 sentence is not in your Mladic statement?
10 A. It's true it's not in the Mladic statement because that statement
11 was given one year later and we were not copying anything, but the gist
12 is that it relates to same incident, only it was added --
13 Q. Let me ask you -- so that sentence, you agree, was removed. Now
14 my question is: Was that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- that's not what the witness said. The
16 witness said it's not in there.
17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it was removed or not is a different matter.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. That sentence is no longer there. Is it true that that sentence
21 was deleted because you can no longer affirm under oath that your command
22 did not order the shelling that killed the six children? Is that why
23 that sentence is no longer there?
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. In
25 paragraph 30 of the witness's statement in the Mladic case, the beginning
2 "There is no order to open fire ..."
3 It's exactly the same in content as the sentence that was deleted
4 because otherwise it would be a repetition.
5 JUDGE ORIE: It's not exactly the same, but Mr. Groome is invited
6 to rephrase his question.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, Your Honours,
8 let me just point out to paragraph 18 of the statement this witness gave
9 to us in the Mladic case where he said the same thing explicitly. So I
10 did not feel the need to repeat the same thing three times.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have to explain how you drafted this
12 statement. That is argument which comes later.
13 Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. Mr. Sladoje, you've heard Mr. Stojanovic's explanation as to why
16 the sentence is no longer there. Is that -- do you agree with that
18 A. Yes, I can, and it says here too: "There was no order to open
19 fire." There was no mortar at the location of the Institute for Blind
20 Children. And I confirm what you just said. It's explicitly said here
21 that there was no order.
22 Q. Now, when I look at the two statements it's also noticed that
23 there are some assertions in the Mladic statement that were not in the
24 Karadzic statement, and I want to deal with them now. And again at
25 paragraph 30 in your Mladic statement you write:
1 "I should point out that the shell was fired from behind the
2 lines from the western side, that is, from the Sigma building, i.e., from
3 positions controlled by the BH army forces."
4 Now, my first very simple question is: Do you acknowledge that
5 that sentence does not exist in your Karadzic statement, that that's a
6 new assertion?
7 A. I agree.
8 Q. So now in the context of this case you have signed a statement
9 more than 20 years after the event in which you assert for the first time
10 that BH forces fired the shell on the 22nd of January, 1994, from the
11 Sigma building, an area under their control? This is the first time that
12 you are giving that as evidence; correct?
13 A. In the Karadzic case I asserted - and that's the point - that the
14 shell was not fired from the Institute for Blind Children. That was the
15 point. And perhaps this is put too strongly here when it says I
16 emphasise that the shell was fired from the west from the position of the
17 Sigma building. I cannot be sure. It's my assumption because it came
18 from the west. I know that they had mortars in that location and in the
19 location of the Butmir agricultural complex.
20 Q. And that was -- that's the point I want to get at. You accept
21 that that's an assumption that you've included in this statement that was
22 not in your Karadzic statement?
23 A. Yes, I accept that.
24 Q. Now, sir, when I first started asking you questions, I was asking
25 you about the approximate number of total mortars and I asked you about
1 whether you recalled what might have happened on the 8th of August and
2 you were unable to do so. Is it fair to say that you have no specific
3 independent recollection of what happened on the 22nd of January, 1994?
4 A. I've already told you that I did know what happened on the 22nd
5 of January, 1994. It was publicised because children were the victims.
6 That's how I found out. I didn't know about the 8th of August. I knew
7 about the other incident and that's why we are discussing it today.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, just in order to avoid whatever
9 misunderstanding, we are not discussing events. We are exploring your
10 personal knowledge about these events, just for you to be sure.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. And you accept that you have no personal direct knowledge of this
13 event. What you are able to do is tell us what you read in the media,
14 what you may have heard from other sources, but you yourself do not have
15 any personal, direct knowledge about what happened; is that correct?
16 A. No, I don't have any direct knowledge nor could I have.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, Witness, one other question. You
18 tell us now that this new element in your statement which reads that it
19 was fired from the Sigma building, that it's an assumption, nothing more,
20 nothing less. Did you tell the Defence that it was an assumption?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But they wrote it down not as an assumption but as a
23 statement of fact and you signed it. Could you explain why you sign a
24 statement stating that it was fired from the Sigma building, where you
25 had told those interviewing you that it was your assumption that this had
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I stand by my opinion that it
3 was fired from the Sigma position, but I cannot be absolutely sure
4 because I'm neither an expert --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, in your statement it does not appear as
6 an opinion but it appears as a statement of fact. And to be quite
7 honest, opinions are not what we are seeking primarily from witnesses.
8 We are seeking from witnesses their knowledge based on their personal
10 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I at this point put a question to the
13 Where have you been on the 22nd of January, 1994?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I can't say. It was
15 22 years ago. It would be abnormal if I remembered that moment. I was
16 somewhere around, probably going about some task I had at the time.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
18 MR. GROOME:
19 Q. I want to switch now to the other incident that is contained in
20 your statement in this case at paragraph 30. It's captioned incident F9.
21 To discuss this case -- this particular incident with you, could I ask
22 that P3 be brought to our screens. It's the Sarajevo map book. And
23 could we go immediately to e-court page 20, a photograph of the
24 neighbourhood where this took place.
25 Now, when you can see the photograph before you, I want you to
1 take your time and make sure you orient yourself. And when you feel you
2 know what's depicted, maybe let me know and then I'll ask you a few
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Mr. Groome, you are recorded as dealing
5 with F9 at paragraph 30 --
6 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, that's F9 -- that was
7 paragraph 30 in the Karadzic statement and it is in this particular case
8 it's paragraph 31.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 MR. GROOME: I apologise for that confusion.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. Okay. It's now on our screens so let me know when you've had a
14 chance to study it and then when you have tell me: Do you recognise the
15 neighbourhood that's depicted here?
16 A. This is a part of town called Vojnicko Polje, soldiers field, and
17 Alipasino Polje, and what is marked here is the separation line. So
18 these were the positions controlled by the Army of Republika Srpska.
19 Q. Okay. Now, let me ask you now some very specific questions and
20 we'll go one by one so there's no confusion. The high-rise apartment
21 buildings that we see in the background at the top of the picture,
22 that's Alipasino Polje; correct?
23 A. Yes, yes. This is Alipasino Polje and Vojnicko Polje is a bit
24 further below.
25 Q. Now, if I can draw your attention to the middle bottom of the
1 photograph, we can see a compound of several buildings that has a red
2 line around it. And my question to you is: Today at transcript page 23
3 you refer to a location called the Institute for Blind Children and line
4 of separation. Am I correct that's what's contained in that box marked 1
5 is this area that you've referred to as the Institute for Blind Children?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, you refer to another building that -- another facility that
8 catered to blind adults. Can you see that building on this diagram or on
9 this photograph?
10 A. This is a more recent picture. It was made later. I cannot
11 quite see it on the photograph, but I know the exact juxtaposition. I
12 remember what it looked like before this photograph was taken.
13 Q. So you would be unable to identify it on this photograph although
14 it may be here; is that your evidence?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, would you be able to mark the confrontation line on this
17 photograph? And please don't do anything till I give you a specific
18 instruction. Is that something you would be able to do?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: So can I ask what colour we're in? Red.
21 Q. So you have a red pen now. Can I ask you to trace the
22 confrontation line as it passes through the area depicted by this photo.
23 A. Maybe I got it wrong.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If you want to delete what you marked, please ask
25 the assistance of the usher and you could start again.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Now, I see that you've drawn a red line right in front of the
3 compound marked as number 1. Where does the confrontation line go from
4 there? You've kind of stopped.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Which way does it go? Where does it go from there on the
7 left-hand side?
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And now you've drawn another red line that's going down the side
10 of that compound marked number 1; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I would tender P3 -- the version of P3,
13 e-court page 20, that's now been marked by Mr. Sladoje.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Page 20 of Exhibit P3 as marked by the witness
16 receives number P6512, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P6512 is admitted.
18 MR. GROOME: Can I now ask that we go to e-court page 22 of P3.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Sladoje, this is a photograph taken from this compound
20 that's marked number 1 in this photo. Just give us a moment to bring
21 that to your screen. So again, this is a picture taken from the building
22 marked as number 1, and the red circle in front of you shows you the
23 location where Sanela was shot. My question to you is: Isn't it a fact
24 that at this distance with this line of sight it would be possible to
25 distinguish between a fully grown soldier in uniform and a 16-year-old
1 girl in civilian clothing?
2 A. I don't know this photograph, but you are right in saying that a
3 soldier can distinguish between a grown soldier and a girl. But this
4 photograph does not mean anything to me. I can't identify anything.
5 Q. Okay. Now, would you also agree that a soldier trained with an
6 ordinary rifle would be able -- at this close distance would have a
7 reasonable possibility of hitting his target?
8 A. He could.
9 Q. So an optical scope would not be required for firing at a target
10 this distance; do you agree?
11 A. Yes, but I can't agree about only one thing. I can't agree that
12 there was a sniper's nest here. I say with full responsibility that
13 there was never a sniper's nest here, and you say there is only one
14 incident scheduled in the indictment relating to this place. It's
15 impossible that there was only one incident if there had been a sniper's
16 nest through four years of the war. My question is: What was the girl
17 doing at the separation line? I suppose that the incident never happened
18 or perhaps it was a stray bullet that hit the girl.
19 Q. So what is your evidence then, that the incident never happened
20 or you believe a stray bullet hit the girl?
21 A. I maintain that there was never a sniper's nest at the school for
22 blind children. I don't know about this incident. I can't say whether
23 it happened or not, but I know that there was never an order given to
24 shoot at civilians. And in the four years of the war there was never an
25 incident directly in the vicinity of the separation line.
1 Q. Now, will you concede that during the conflict there were
2 soldiers that used that school for blind children? Let's forget about
3 snipers for the moment. Were soldiers -- did soldiers ever occupy and
4 use that facility?
5 A. What do you mean "used"? During the war or before the war?
6 Q. During the war were soldiers in your battalion ever present in
7 that school for blind children?
8 A. Yes, and I said in my statement that there was a position there.
9 Q. Now, you've just said:
10 "I don't know about this incident ..."
11 So am I correct in understanding that, just as with the shelling
12 we've talked about, you have no personal or direct knowledge about this
13 girl being shot at this location?
14 A. None.
15 Q. I want to move to a different topic now. In your statement,
16 D453, in paragraph 14 you say the following:
17 "There was not a single neighbourhood without an enemy unit or
18 military target in it."
19 I want to ask you several questions about this statement. First,
20 when you say there was not a single neighbourhood without a military
21 target in it, are you referring to neighbourhoods in your area of
22 responsibility or are you talking about the entire city of Sarajevo?
23 A. We can talk about the whole city of Sarajevo because all the
24 features that could be used were used by the military and they turned
25 them into military installations and they mixed with those civilians and
1 that's why collateral damage occurred in incidents involving exchange of
2 fire. I know what you mean. You are trying to say that we claim every
3 part of the city was used for military purposes, but the greatest part of
4 the city was used for military purposes and troops were mixed with
5 civilians. In my own neighbourhood, civilians were mixed in with
6 soldiers and they were collateral damage in every exchange of fire.
7 Q. I want to read something you said to --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I seek clarification.
9 You said in your own neighbourhood civilians were mixed in with
10 soldiers and they were collateral damage in every exchange of fire. Are
11 you referring to your neighbourhood, the Serb side or the Muslim side?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the part of town
13 where my unit had its area of responsibility. The civilian population
14 lived side by side by my own troops.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That clarifies your answer.
16 Please proceed.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Now, I want to read you something you said before the Karadzic
19 Chamber and ask you whether you still maintain this and I'm reading from
20 transcript page 30574 in those proceedings. You said:
21 "It is not possible for us to fire at military objectives only
22 without jeopardising the civilian population because they were there and
23 very often civilians were used for that kind of thing."
24 My question to you is whether you believed every time your
25 battalion took some action with respect to the city there was a chance of
1 civilian casualties?
2 A. I believe that was so but we had to respond to fire because our
3 positions were in jeopardy. Our troops were in danger, so we had no
5 Q. Did you consider it a significant chance -- that there was a
6 significant chance of civilian casualties when you took action against
7 the city?
8 A. We did not think that way. We didn't think there would be major
9 casualties. We didn't always know what the disposition was and the
10 civilians were supposed to seek shelter during military action. I cannot
11 tell you in those terms. We had to think about other things, how to
12 defend our positions. Of course we were supposed to have civilians in
13 mind and we tried to minimise civilian casualties, but if they were there
14 then they had to suffer.
15 Q. Would you agree with me that shelling or sniping into Sarajevo
16 neighbourhoods that was not in response to specific fire coming out of
17 those neighbourhoods was not militarily justifiable?
18 A. We did not take action if our lines were not jeopardised. I said
19 that in my statement. And we received orders from our superior command
20 to act that way. If some renegade shooter did that, I couldn't control
21 it, we couldn't control it. It's impossible to control.
22 Q. I want to draw your attention to paragraph 15 of your statement
23 where you say the following:
24 "The permanent order from my battalion was that we could open
25 fire only in response to enemy fire and only at observed firing targets."
1 Is it your evidence that there were never any orders to fire upon
2 built-up civilian areas absent there being targets which you could
3 observe were firing at your positions?
4 A. Never. There was not a single order to target civilians. It's
5 absolutely inconceivable, unfathomable. It's outside all civilian and
6 human norms. I don't see any reason why we would open fire if there had
7 been no fire from there.
8 Q. So you've kind of mixed up my question now. I wasn't talking
9 about an order to specifically target civilians. I'm asking you about
10 what you've said here that the only -- your standing order was that you
11 were only to engage targets in the city if there was observable fire
12 coming out.
13 A. It didn't always have to be observed, but if there was fire, and
14 we couldn't always see who was shooting from where, but you can assume,
15 you can estimate, and in those cases we received and gave out orders to
16 open fire. And the story about the civilians is a separate story. We
17 never issued or received orders to target civilians. But civilians did
18 suffer in exchanges of fire but that's a different problem.
19 Q. So it's your evidence that you never received an order to take
20 action against the city -- well, let me ask -- sorry, strike that. Let
21 me ask another question.
22 Did you ever receive an order to take action against the city
23 because of something that was happening elsewhere in Bosnia far away from
25 A. No.
1 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we see 65 ter 30636. It's an order
2 signed by Dragomir Milosevic on the 21st of July, 1995.
3 Q. Now, sir, that's on your screen now. It's an order signed by
4 Dragomir Milosevic on the 21st of July and it's addressed to several
5 subordinate units of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, including the Ilidza
6 Brigade, the Sarajevo Infantry Brigade, and the Sarajevo Mechanised
7 Brigade. My first question to you is whether the stamp and the document
8 itself appears authentic to you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, the first paragraph talks about some problems the VRS
11 military is experiencing in several locations. The first thing I want to
12 do is ask for your help in helping the Chamber understand where these
13 locations are. Am I correct that the locations of Cardak, Celina, and
14 Hum are places in the vicinity of Trnovo?
15 A. Yes, Kragujevac, Cardak, and Hum, yes. Celina is on Trebevic.
16 And as for Trnovo, I don't know.
17 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we see -- I'm sorry, I'll dispense
18 with that.
19 Q. Would you agree that the distance between Trnovo and Ilidza is
20 approximately 28 kilometres?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The order also talks about Mount Treskavica. Would you agree
23 with me that that's about 45 kilometres from Ilidza?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. The order also talks about events in Gorazde. Would you agree
1 with me that that's approximately 82 kilometres east of Ilidza?
2 A. Well, yes.
3 Q. Now, it may seem like an obvious question but I just want to be
4 clear: You had no type of artillery or other weapon that could give any
5 kind of direct support to the locations mentioned in this order, did you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. So now the paragraph continues:
8 [As read] "Our forces on the Trnovo axis who have a lot of
9 problems, (Kragujevac, Cardak, Hum, Celina have fallen). On top of all
10 other difficulties our defence on Mount Treskavica also has a lot of
11 problems. The Turks have probably moved the main focus of attack towards
12 Gorazde. In order to relieve our forces on the Trnovo axis and to link
13 up the forces and deceive the enemy, I hereby order ..."
14 In this order Milosevic is referring to troops well outside
15 Sarajevo that are experiencing problems; correct?
16 A. I have to tell you something. It may go beyond some fears.
17 However, do you know what? When it comes to tactics, when an area is at
18 risk, the focus of war activities is moved to another area. That's why
19 General Milosevic issued that order. You have to know that Gorazde was
20 connected via Trnovo and Treskavica and supplies were done through there.
21 So if you wanted to succeed, you had to open a new theatre of war, you
22 have to open fire in another place, hence that order. So that order was
23 not only with a view to getting to Treskavica or if Ilidza or Trnovo or
24 Gorazde were at risk, the commander of that unit issued an order in order
25 to launch an offensive and to relieve pressure on them as a result of the
1 enemy supremacy.
2 Q. Now that you've seen the order, do you remember this order, do
3 you remember being ordered to do this?
4 A. I've not received this order. It was received by the brigade.
5 As a battalion we may have been in receipt of that order but it would
6 have been pointless. We were engaged in defence. We did not have enough
7 troops to protect the positions that we held and that I marked on the
8 maps that you presented to me previously.
9 Q. Okay. Now, I want to remind you again of what you've said in
10 paragraph 15.
11 "The permanent order for my battalion was that we could open fire
12 only in response to enemy fire and only at observed firing targets."
13 The first specific order states -- starts:
14 "The brigade command shall independently plan, prepare, and carry
15 out an attack or a show attack against the city of Sarajevo ..."
16 My question for you is: The phrase "the brigade shall
17 independently plan ..." indicates that the attack on Sarajevo that's
18 being ordered by Dragomir Milosevic is not one that was co-ordinated
19 between the brigades surrounding Sarajevo; correct?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour, for a
21 simple reason. In paragraph 15 which my learned friend is reading from,
22 the witness says very clearly: A permanent order for my battalion ...
23 and what he is being shown is an order for the brigade, and the witness
24 answered that he never received such an order from the brigade.
25 JUDGE ORIE: He didn't say so, as a matter of fact. I'll remind
1 you what his evidence was, Mr. Stojanovic. He said that it would not
2 have made sense. Mr. Groome asked him: Do you remember this order. He
3 said: I've not received the order was received by the brigade --
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please. We may have been in receipt of
6 that, therefore it's unclear whether the witness ever received this
7 order. And could I invite you to be short in your objections and not to
8 make objections argumentative.
9 Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
10 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
11 Q. So if I can return to my question. The phrase:
12 "The brigade command shall independently plan ..."
13 This indicates that the attack on Sarajevo that's being ordered
14 in this document was not one that was co-ordinated between the brigades
15 surrounding Sarajevo; correct? They were doing it independently?
16 A. I've tried to explain what this is about. I don't know what else
17 could I say? When I --
18 Q. Sir --
19 A. -- was talking about the deployment of units and the refocusing
20 of their activities -- go ahead.
21 Q. We've heard that evidence and we understand it. My question is
22 simply: According to this order, there's no requirement for the
23 different brigades that could engage Sarajevo to co-ordinate. They're
24 all left to independently plan an attack on Sarajevo; correct?
25 A. You're saying that they were allowed to act independently, but
1 I'm telling you that my battalion did not receive this order from the
2 brigade command and we did not act. So what were we to do in that case?
3 Q. Let me just ask you from an experienced, career soldier, when you
4 read what Dragomir Milosevic has ordered, am I correct in understanding
5 that the brigades were not to co-ordinate the attack; they were simply to
6 engage -- to commence an attack on the city of Sarajevo for the reasons
7 you've described, for tactical reasons related to areas outside of
9 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not a professional soldier. My occupation is
10 different. However, I was forced to be what I was in the war. And now
11 as to what the General wrote, it was his right and it was his duty as the
12 unit commander to defend the positions that were held by the Army of
13 Republika Srpska. If your view is somewhat different, there is nothing I
14 can do about that.
15 Q. Sir, this order isn't an order to defend territory. This is an
16 order to attack the city of Sarajevo; is that not correct? Am I
17 misreading this order?
18 A. It says here that the city of Sarajevo should be attacked, but it
19 was not meant literally, but rather that fire should be opened on the
20 separation lines or that it should be faked in order to refocus the
21 activities. I don't see anything in dispute in this order from the
22 military point of view. I don't know how you see things yourself. I
23 can't be the judge of that.
24 Q. Well, sir, doesn't it contradict your evidence in paragraph 15 --
25 I'm sorry, I thought I heard something.
1 Doesn't this contradict your evidence in paragraph 15, that you
2 could only open fire in response to enemy fire and only at observed
3 firing targets? Doesn't this contradict your evidence on that point?
4 A. No, there's no contradiction at all because units were threatened
5 at other front lines, which means that fire was opened somewhere, maybe
6 in Nedzarici or maybe somewhere else. And this means that our units had
7 to react. When fire was not opened first, I never received an order nor
8 did I issue an order either as commander or as deputy commander to that
9 effect. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Let me try to cut this short. What Mr. Groome is
11 putting to you is the following, that on the one hand side you have
12 testified that you would -- you were ordered to fire exclusively if fire
13 was opened at you, and Mr. Groome reads in this order that apparently
14 brigades were ordered to fire even if they were not fired at but because
15 something had happened at a distance. And he's trying to seek your
16 comment on what he considers an inconsistency in what you stated and what
17 is found in this document. Could you briefly in one or two lines say
18 whether you wish to add anything; if so, please do. If not, we'll move
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that anything should
21 be added to this. I stick by what I said in paragraph 15. This is all I
22 need to say at this point.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll move on but only after we have taken a
25 MR. GROOME: I only have about two more questions --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Two more questions. Let's --
2 MR. GROOME: Well, just very short. Very brief.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you think we could finish in, well, let's say
4 five to seven minutes then --
5 MR. GROOME: I think so.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps it's preferable to move on.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Sir, you've just said there's no contradiction at all because
10 units were threatened at other front lines, which means that fire was
11 opened somewhere, maybe in Nedzarici or maybe somewhere else. Aren't you
12 agreeing or aren't you saying right now that you considered it proper to
13 open fire in your battalion because of something that may have been
14 happening at another front line perhaps as far away as Gorazde?
15 A. When we talk about that, I know what your standpoint is; however,
16 as I've already told you, war is not waged only in one territory. The
17 complete territory where war is waged has to be covered. And people have
18 to adjust to the goings-on everywhere, and this is according to all
19 military doctrines. I can't say anything differently. I can't
20 contradict military doctrines that have been in place for thousands of
21 years, so I don't see what may be in dispute here.
22 Q. And just my final question then: Is your understanding of what
23 you've just described about the war in all the areas and its
24 justification for action in Sarajevo, was that a common understanding
25 among the rank and file of soldiers in the VRS?
1 A. I apologise. Would you please repeat your question?
2 Q. This concept that you have just explained, the justification of
3 action taken in Sarajevo being something that happened --
4 A. Very well.
5 Q. -- perhaps far away, my question to you is: Was that a common
6 understanding of your colleagues, of your subordinates, of your superiors
7 in the Army of Republika Srpska?
8 A. That's what they had to do, but not within the same context that
9 you have in mind. You are focusing on the attack on Sarajevo. There
10 were attacks from Sarajevo on our position. There was a war going on.
11 Now, there is a discrepancy in the way --
12 Q. Sir --
13 A. -- you think and the way I think together with the Defence --
14 Q. This order requires an attack to commence on the city of Sarajevo
15 on the 22nd of July, 1995. What was -- was there any conflict that you
16 were aware of or any operation by Bosnian forces in Sarajevo on that date
17 that you can tell us about now?
18 A. Mr. Prosecutor, would you allow me to read this and then I will
19 answer? [As read] "The command of the brigade will independently plan,
20 prepare, or carry out the attack or demonstrate an attack on the city of
21 Sarajevo," but there is a difference there. I was talking about a
22 tactical term, faking fire, so this is not an explicit order to attack
23 the city of Sarajevo or demonstrate an attack on Sarajevo. This is
24 exactly what I'm reading here.
25 Q. So you're saying that this order is not a real attack on the
1 city; it's simply a show attack. That's your evidence?
2 A. If this is what it says here, that's what it is, either to carry
3 out an attack or fake an attack.
4 Q. Can you explain to us how you fire a shell into a built-up area
5 such as Sarajevo and it not be an attack?
6 A. And who is it who says that it was ever fired? Who says that it
7 was fired in this case? I don't know that it was fired.
8 MR. GROOME: I have no further questions, Your Honour. I'll
9 raise it with another witness. Thanks.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
11 I suggest that we take a break first.
12 Could you tell us how much time you would need for re-examination,
13 Mr. Stojanovic?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Some 15 minutes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And then we'll see whether there will be enough for
16 finalising the testimony of the witness.
17 MR. GROOME: I'm sorry, Your Honour, could I ask that that
18 exhibit be MFI'd, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30636 receives number P6513,
21 Your Honours, MFI.
22 JUDGE ORIE: P6513 is marked for identification.
23 We take a break after the witness has been escorted out of the
24 courtroom and we'll resume at ten minutes to 2.00.
25 Mr. Mladic, no loud speaking in the courtroom, as you are aware
2 Mr. Sladoje, that's the way out, not there.
3 [The witness stands down]
4 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we'll resume at ten minutes to
6 --- Recess taken at 1.30 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.51 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before the witness enters the courtroom, I'd like to
9 briefly address Mr. Mladic and the Defence. There should be no standing
10 up. There should be no greeting. There should be nothing when a witness
11 enters the courtroom. There should be no loud speaking and we'll be very
12 strict in this respect at this stage of the proceedings. Similarly, the
13 Defence is invited to instruct the witnesses that they appear here in
14 their role as a witness not as acquaintances of the accused or being
15 loyal to the accused, whatever. So it should be void of any personal
16 element. That's how we expect witnesses to behave and that's how we
17 expect Mr. Mladic to behave and we'll be strict on it.
18 The witness may enter the courtroom.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Sladoje, there's no need to seek eye contact
21 with the Defence or with the accused. Would you please keep that in
23 Mr. Stojanovic, you may proceed.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 Could we please look at D457 in e-court, please.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Stojanovic:
2 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, do you remember this photograph that
3 you marked, the building that you marked, the Institute for the Blind?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What I would like to ask you after showing you this image, is
6 this: Your battalion at the line that you marked as the confrontation
7 line, did it at any point during the war -- was it at any point during
8 the war exposed to sniper fire from ABiH positions?
9 A. [Overlapping speakers]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer? They were
12 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, you were overlapping.
13 Mr. Groome --
14 MR. GROOME: I don't recall -- I object to whether it was raised
15 in cross. I don't recall touching upon this topic.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the photograph
18 admitted from the Prosecution, I think that Mr. Groome did deal with the
19 line of confrontation near the Institute for Blind Children. It's not
20 this precise image but it is a topic that Mr. Groome dealt with, and I'm
21 putting this question to the witness because I would like to put another
22 question to him that has to do with this particular image and that
23 question is as follows --
24 JUDGE ORIE: To the extent Mr. Groome dealt with confrontation
25 lines, it was in response to what was raised by the Defence in the
1 examination. If you have another question for the witness, the witness
2 already I think said something about being exposed to fire from the other
3 side, but please put your next question to the witness.
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. Your Honour, if you
5 allow me, I would like to look at document D454 in e-court, please.
6 Q. Witness, sir, there was a question put to you about markings, or
7 rather, what was in the circle that you see below the building of the
8 Geodetski Institute. You said that it was the police station. Now, what
9 I would like to ask you is this: According to your best recollection,
10 how far is the police station from the middle of Gete Street?
11 A. Not even 100 or 150 metres. I wasn't in that area very often but
12 I did pass by there, so let's say it was between 100 and 150 metres.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document
15 65 ter -- this is the last Prosecution document, 30636.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is now P6513.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think
18 that's the identification number if I can recall that correctly.
19 Q. Mr. Sladoje, the first thing I want to ask you is this: Are you
20 aware that in April, on the 26th of April, 1995, the B&H army launched an
21 operation to deblock Sarajevo?
22 MR. GROOME: I think that's a leading question, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: It certainly is.
24 Could you rephrase the question, Mr. Stojanovic.
25 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Mr. Sladoje, could you please look at the second paragraph of the
2 introduction to the -- of the document where it says:
3 "In order to ease the pressure on our forces on the Trnovo axis,
4 link up our forces, and deceive the enemy I order ..."
5 So is the Trnovo axis the area that was defended by the
6 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. According to what you knew about the disposition of units of the
9 Army of Republika Srpska, the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, and the 1st and
10 4th Corps of the B&H army, would a breakthrough of the ABiH army along
11 the Trnovo axis lead to your brigade being surrounded?
12 A. Absolutely, yes.
13 Q. If the forces were to be linked up from the Trnovo axis, the ABiH
14 army units, would your battalion in that case find itself completely
15 encircled by all the positions in relation to positions of the Army of
16 Republika Srpska?
17 A. It was already encircled but had this happened, then it would be
18 encircled even more --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Just that these are leading questions, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they are.
22 And apart from that, they are beyond the point raised in
23 cross-examination. In cross-examination the issue was raised whether the
24 statement of the witness saying that they would fire only in response of
25 fire directed against themselves, whether that was consistent with what
1 is in this document.
2 Now you move far away from all that, Mr. Stojanovic, and you do
3 it by putting leading questions to the witness. Well, the witness has
4 answered the question, let's move on and let's try to avoid this to
5 happen again.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand, Your Honour, and I
7 am trying not to put leading questions here.
8 Q. Sir, I'm going to put one more question to you relating to
9 paragraph 15 of your statement to the Defence. Are you able to tell us
10 if in July 1995 you had any type of order from the brigade command which
11 would deviate from orders up until that time about the manner that fire
12 should be utilised?
13 A. No, we did not.
14 Q. Mr. Sladoje, thank you very much.
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions for
16 this witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojanovic.
18 Mr. Groome, any further questions?
19 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: This then concludes your testimony, Mr. Sladoje. I
21 would like to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for
22 answering all the questions that were put to you by the parties and by
23 the Bench, and I wish you a safe return home again. You may follow the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: No greeting. Instruction should be clear for the
3 next witnesses.
4 I'm looking at the clock. I don't know whether it makes much
5 sense to start the examination of the next witness. Perhaps it's better
6 to adjourn for the day.
7 Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: We agree with you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then unless there would be anything any of the
10 parties would like to raise, we'll adjourn for the day and we resume
11 tomorrow, Tuesday, the 20th of May, at 9.30 in the morning in this same
12 courtroom, I.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.04 p.m.,
14 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of
15 May, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.