1 Monday, 26 May 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
8 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 I do understand that there's no preliminary matter, although
11 there may be something raised when the witness is escorted into the
13 Mr. Usher, could you please escort the witness into the
15 I do also understand that the video that is still there to be
16 played is functioning well now.
17 Mr. Groome.
18 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to comment on something that was
19 raised last week in closed session or private session but I don't think I
20 need to go into that, it relates to GRM 127 and he's number 121 in the
21 Defence witness list. Mr. Lukic believed last week that he had testified
22 as both a Prosecution and a Defence witness in Karadzic. I can confirm
23 that that's not true, that he only testified as a Defence witness.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's hereby on the record -- well, it's a
25 mistake which surprises.
1 [The witness takes the stand]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Please be seated.
3 Before we continue, Mr. Mijatovic, I'd like to remind you that
4 you're still bound by the solemn declaration you've given at the
5 beginning of your testimony, that is, that you'll speak the truth, the
6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination.
8 Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: NIKOLA MIJATOVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, sir.
14 A. Good morning, Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: At this time I would like to try again to play the
16 video 65 ter number 1D358, which is queued up, and this will be the first
17 time playing it so I guess the -- the translation will come the second
18 time we play it through.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we play it twice.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 MR. IVETIC: Now I'd like to play the video a second time and
22 hopefully we'll get translation of the spoken word.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You have provided the booths with transcripts of the
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, I have.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's look at it again and we'll now receive
3 [Video-clip played].
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "At a check-point at Ilidza, in
5 trucks of the United Nations that had papers that they were transporting
6 humanitarian aid for the Muslims in Hrasnica, the Serbian army uncovered
7 24.500 bullets.
8 "Today at Ilidza, a convoy was stopped that had been transporting
9 humanitarian aid for Butmir and Hrasnica. During a routine inspection
10 conducted by members of the military police from Ilidza, it was
11 discovered that the containers carrying flour had a double floor and in
12 this enclosed space there were tin boxes. This was enough of a reason to
13 perform an inspection of the convoy. The members of the French Battalion
14 that were escorting the convoy were unable to tell us what was contained
15 in the enclosed space under the containers. The convoy was stopped and
16 representatives of UNPROFOR and UNHCR police were called in and in their
17 presence an on-site investigation was performed. The containers were
18 removed from the trucks and then, with a crane, the top part was
19 separated from the platform to which it had been attached.
20 "Mr. Popadic, from the inspection that was performed, can you
21 tell us what was discovered in the trucks that were transporting
22 humanitarian aid for Hrasnica?
23 "In the trucks that this morning at 9.45 left for Hrasnica we
24 discovered 12.7 ammunition, 5.000 bullets; 2.9 [as interpreted] sniper
25 ammunition, 19.540 bullets. These were found, as you can see, in an
1 enclosed space in a double bottom of the container. This is the second
2 time that in the zone of responsibility of the Ilidza Brigade we find,
3 among the humanitarian aid, that which is needed by the Muslim side,
4 weapons and ammunitions.
5 "Were you able to see whose ammunition it is and where it is
7 "All the ammunition is manufactured in Konjic and brought by air
8 to the airport in Sarajevo and, after that, by ground transport, this
9 time driven by the French, in the escort of the French forces, that is.
10 This amount of ammunition was discovered.
11 "We asked the respected gentleman from the UN for official
12 information but we were not able to receive the same due to the
13 explanation that they did not have authorisation to give information.
14 Unofficially, in conversation, the representative of the UNHCR claimed
15 their responsibility is just to transport the containers and that which
16 is contained in the containers is not of interest to them. The members
17 of the Foreign Legion apologised with comments that they were only the
18 escorts of the convoy. The UN police said it would investigate the
19 incident and inform us on time of the results. Who loaded the trucks at
20 the airport and where the ammunition was loaded is at present a secret as
21 far as we are concerned. We do not know how many such convoys have
22 passed, but once again UNPROFOR is red-faced and apparently while
23 distributing humanitarian assistance was also distributing ammunition to
24 the Muslims."
25 MR. IVETIC:
1 Q. Sir, we've all had a chance to look at the video and listen to
2 the commentary. Do the images displayed and the commentary that we heard
3 accord with your knowledge and recollection of this incident, wherein
4 ammunition was found in a UN convoy under French escort?
5 A. The comments fully correspond to the situation on the ground and
6 the specific situation. The gentleman who we see the most here is my
7 friend, the late Obrad Popadic, he was Chief of Staff before me while I
8 was chief of security.
9 Q. Thank you, sir.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender into evidence 1D00358
11 at this time.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, can Mr. Ivetic elicit some information
13 about approximately when this happened and I think the witness said that
14 he was present. Do we see him in the video? Can we perhaps inquire
15 about that?
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Sir, can you provide information as to your recollection of what
18 time of year or month or year this would have happened, this incident
19 that we've seen on the videotape?
20 A. To the best of my recollection, this is what happened: In 1993,
21 spring, it might have been the month of March, I am not in this footage.
22 I'm filmed elsewhere, though, when we stopped another UNHCR convoy and we
23 found Browning ammunition again and 7.62-millimetre ammunition as well
24 and some weapons were found as well. As for this specific footage, you
25 cannot see me. I know quite a few people from this footage. All of
1 these people are from Ilidza, from the time during the war.
2 Q. Thank you, sir.
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender the video into evidence
4 at this time, 1D00358.
5 MR. GROOME: No objection.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before we do that, I have one additional question
7 for the witness.
8 You say you can't be seen on this video. Were you present during
9 this event?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was not far away from there.
11 I was present.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: What do you mean by "I was not far away"? How
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, while all of this was
15 happening, I was between 10 or 20 metres away. As a matter of fact, I
16 was giving a statement. I know that journalists asked me whether convoys
17 would be banned from the Serb Ilidza, convoys of the UNHCR and UNPROFOR.
18 I remember that question very well, so I find this to be indicative. I
19 remember what I answered, that the higher command would decide on that.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I have one additional question in this respect as
23 Were you called from your office or where you were in order to
24 come and to see what happened? Or were you by any chance there at the
25 very moment that they started inspecting this convoy?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. At any rate, I was informed
2 and I was asked to come, but my superior was there, the late
3 Captain Obrad Popadic. According to rank and according to the post he
4 held, he was my superior at the time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so you travelled from where you were to this
6 place and then observed what we saw at a distance of approximately 10 to
7 20 metres?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maximum 20 metres, yes. There are
9 other colleagues of mine there. They were all with me and --
10 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered the question.
11 Madam Registrar, the number would be ...?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D358 receives number D472,
13 Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: D472 is admitted into evidence.
15 Mr. Ivetic, I think you --
16 MR. IVETIC: That completes --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- used most of your time if not all of it.
18 MR. IVETIC: That completes my direct examination, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. IVETIC:
21 Q. Thank you, sir.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mijatovic, you'll now be cross-examined by
23 Mr. Groome. You'll find Mr. Groome to your right. Mr. Groome is counsel
24 for the Prosecution.
25 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
1 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
3 Q. And good morning, Mr. Mijatovic.
4 A. Good morning, Mr. Groome.
5 Q. Now, Mr. Mijatovic, can you tell us what is your current
7 A. Right this moment, right now, I'm a pensioner.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that you lived in Alipasino Polje. Can
9 you tell us what year you moved into your apartment in Alipasino Polje?
10 A. It was 11 years before the war, so the war started in 1992, so
11 that would be, let's say, 1981.
12 Q. And did you return to your apartment after the war?
13 A. I did not return because none of the Serbs returned to
14 Alipasino Polje, where I had lived. I know my neighbours -- I mean, we
15 checked -- well, at any rate I didn't go back.
16 Q. Now, I have a lot of questions for you today and they will be all
17 very precise, so if I could ask you just to focus on the exact
18 information that I'm asking and limit your answer to that, then I think
19 we can move more efficiently. Okay?
20 Now, I want to begin my questioning of you today exploring in
21 general terms what types of weaponry the Ilidza Brigade had. So my first
22 question to you is: Is it true that the brigade had three T-55 tanks?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And the brigade had three APCs, armoured personnel carriers?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the brigade had howitzers; correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you remember how many?
4 A. At least two.
5 Q. And did you have a 105-millimetre cannon?
6 A. I think so -- actually, it's a 105-millimetre howitzer as far as
7 I can remember.
8 Q. And how about 155-millimetre gun, did you have 155-millimetre
10 A. 155? Whatever I would just say to you now I wouldn't be sure,
11 really, to tell you the truth because --
12 Q. I don't want you to speculate, so if you're unsure then that's --
13 A. We had a chief of artillery and all of that was in his hands.
14 Q. Okay. I'm just asking for what you might know. Now, did you
15 have 120-millimetre mortars?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are you able to tell us approximately how many?
18 A. At least two.
19 Q. And how about an 82-millimetre mortar, did you have any of those?
20 A. Yes, we did.
21 Q. Approximately how many?
22 A. Well, at least four.
23 Q. And then finally with respect to mortars, did you have any
24 60-millimetre mortars?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And approximately how many?
2 A. I think that every battalion had at least two. As far as I can
3 remember now it was, say, eight all together.
4 Q. Okay. Now would you agree that, at least in principle, mortars
5 are designed to be anti-personnel weapons?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And when I say that, we mean that they're very effective at
8 neutralising infantry, not so effective at destroying reinforced concrete
9 structures; correct?
10 A. Well, roughly it might be put that way, but there are exceptions.
11 These structures that you talked about, they can be reinforced to a
12 lesser degree or to a higher degree. If it's less, then a mortar could
13 be used or -- I mean destroying enemy nests. For instance, if mortars
14 are firing from them.
15 Q. Okay. Now, how many different heavy weapons positions were there
16 all together in the Ilidza Brigade? And I'm talking prior to the
17 exclusion zone coming into effect in February of 1994.
18 A. Well, heavy weapons, I think that we can include those three
19 tanks that have a 100-millimetre gun, then that could be three positions,
20 say, each and every tank is a position in itself. As far as I can
21 remember, we talked about these cannons that you asked me about a moment
22 ago and then we enumerated them. As far as I can remember, they were in
23 one spot, so one position respectively for those three tanks, and then
24 the artillery, the cannons, at a fourth one, so it's four positions at
1 Q. So your best recollection today is that there were four heavy
2 weapons positions in the Ilidza Brigade?
3 A. Let's be clear on this. If I understood this right, you asked me
4 about heavy artillery weapons. Do you include mortars in that? For
5 example, 120-millimetres and 82-millimetres, then they have their
6 positions too.
7 Q. Well, in your direct evidence on Friday you mentioned heavy
8 weapons positions and I'm just trying to get an idea of your
9 understanding of how many heavy weapons positions they are. So please
10 ignore what I believe they are. Please tell us how many heavy weapons
11 positions were there according to your definition of that term?
12 A. Well, let's do it this way. I've already said three tanks; then
13 we had at least two howitzers of 105, that's five; then we said a minimum
14 of four 120s, if I'm not mistaken. Let it be -- I mean, it's four and
15 then over there five, then nine.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And then the 82s. Well, there must have been, say, 20 positions
18 like that.
19 Q. Okay. That's helpful.
20 Now, can you give us some idea of how many troops, how many VRS
21 soldiers would be stationed at each of these heavy weapons positions, if
22 you're able?
23 A. Well, about 60, 60 would be a minimum and even a bit more.
24 Q. So that would be 60 at each of the nine positions or 60 all
1 A. No, no. All together, all together.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you.
3 Now in paragraph 22 of your statement, which is now D468 in
4 evidence, you say:
5 "We had mortars deployed in Nedzarici. I saw an 82-millimetre
6 and a 120-millimetre mortar sometime in 1993 but they were in barracks in
7 Stupsko Brdo Street."
8 My question is: Do you still stand by that evidence about those
9 two mortars at the barracks?
10 A. Well, they were in this area. As for being in the barracks,
11 well, that's a question. I -- well, let me be specific. It's not clear
12 to me. You cannot fire a mortar from a building, from barracks; right?
13 Q. Perhaps it's a translation issue. Would you -- do you still
14 stand behind that there were two mortars in close proximity to the
15 barracks in Nedzarici?
16 A. Yes, it could be formulated like that, yes.
17 Q. I'd like to now change topics to --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME: Yes.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before you do that, I'm a little bit confused
21 about one of your questions. Perhaps you can check that with the
22 witness. On page 11, line 16 and 17, the witness answered:
23 "There must have been, say, 20 positions like that."
24 And then your second question after that was formulated:
25 "At each of the nine positions" --
1 MR. GROOME: Thank you for pointing that out --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps --
3 MR. GROOME: -- I misspoke and let me just make sure that we
4 affirm that.
5 Q. The Judge has pointed out that I misspoke the number of heavy
6 weapons positions. So let me summarise my understanding of your evidence
7 and see if you agree, that there were 20 heavy weapons positions and
8 there were approximately 60 soldiers stationed in all at those
9 20 positions; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, one could put it that way.
11 Q. And that would be an average of three soldiers per heavy weapons
13 A. Yes, right.
14 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour, for pointing that out.
15 Q. Now if we could turn to the issue of your evidence regarding
16 false information being provided to UNPROFOR by Bosnian government
17 troops. Now, you were speaking about the loss of electricity due to a
18 transformer that was shelled. Do you recall that portion of your
19 evidence from Friday? And there's no need to repeat it. I just wanted
20 to draw your attention to it. Do you recall that evidence?
21 A. Yes.
22 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that P5204 be brought to our screens.
23 Q. This is an UNPROFOR document recording the situation on the
24 13th and 14th of December, 1992. Now, this relates to the event that you
25 were discussing or the days that you were discussing. And when that's
1 brought up, I will read you what's at the bottom of the page where we see
2 the phrase "description of damage." It then reads:
3 "Two direct hits were reported on the Kosevo Hospital complex.
4 Shell fire heavily damaged three substations supplying power to the main
5 water pumping station installations in the western suburb of Bacevo" --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't have it on the screen right now. There
7 it is.
8 MR. GROOME: Okay. If we could have English. If we could go to
9 the first page.
10 Q. Okay. Now at the bottom of that page we can see "description of
12 Is this the event that you were referring to, shell fire heavily
13 damaging three substations supplying power to the main water pumping
14 installations in the western suburb of Bacevo? Do you understand my
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In B/C/S it's the third paragraph. It's the
17 third paragraph in the -- on the left side of the screen in the B/C/S
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand and I'm trying to find
20 a link between this because the Kosevo Hospital was 6 to 7 kilometres
21 away from us, the Kosevo Hospital compound. So I don't see absolutely
22 any connection between my brigade, which had no weapon that could reach
23 that far away, nor was there any need for us to target the
24 Kosevo Hospital and three transformers. This has to do with the event
25 that I talked about. This is the main transformer that supplies the
1 city --
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. So, sir --
4 A. -- with electricity so that these three transformers, this is
5 something that I'm not familiar with.
6 Q. So it's your evidence that this does not appear to be a reference
7 to the event that you discussed last Friday; do I understand you
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. GROOME: Okay. Let's take a look at another report from this
11 day and that's 65 ter 15896. And this is a daily situation report from
12 UNPROFOR covering the period from 13 December at 2130 hours to
13 14 December 2130 hours. Okay.
14 Q. I want to read you an entry from page 2 of this document.
15 MR. GROOME: So could I ask if we advance to the second page.
16 Q. And if I can draw your attention to number 3 where it says:
17 "Continuous affairs."
18 And there is a section in there on utilities. In that section we
20 "Due to damage at the Blazuj transformer station (inspected by
21 the Sector Engineering today) only 12 per cent of the city's water needs
22 will be available. This situation will prevail for at least three weeks.
23 PTT has no water again."
24 Is this the event that you were referring to last Friday or is
25 this the transformer that you were referring to last Friday?
1 A. I can't really -- this is not telling me anything. I don't think
2 it's telling anything to anyone, this section of the text, when this may
3 have happened. I said on Friday, if you remember, that on numerous
4 occasions transformer stations were shelled, but now which one refers to
5 which, there's insufficient information here for me to be able to give a
6 precise answer.
7 Q. The one that you were referring to in your evidence Friday, when
8 did that occur? When was the date or the approximate date of that one
10 A. Why do I remember the incident that I talked about and why so
11 well? Because that was the greatest quantity of oil that leaked from one
12 of the transformer station --
13 Q. Sir --
14 A. -- around 30 tonnes --
15 Q. Do you recall --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please, Witness, carefully listen to the
17 question and answer that question. And I think Mr. Groome took you back
18 to your testimony of Friday. When talking about the transformer station,
19 you said -- when I asked you:
20 "This transformer station, was it situated in an area controlled
21 by the Bosnian Serb army or by the Bosnia-Herzegovina Federation army?"
22 Your answer was:
23 "It was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska. It
24 was on our territory, on Serb territory, in the area of Blazuj, that was
25 the precise location ..."
1 So Friday - and that's what Mr. Groome takes you back to - you
2 specified as the exact location as the -- of the transformer station you
3 were talking about to be the area of Blazuj, close to the Bosna River
4 source. And that's what Mr. Groome brings back to your memory.
5 Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. So my question is limited now to one item of one fact: When did
8 this occur?
9 A. I couldn't say exactly because, as I told you, Mr. Prosecutor,
10 there was a number of such incidents and this one is peculiar, the one
11 that I talked about, because of the quantity of the oil that leaked from
12 the transformer station, 30 tonnes, that was a rare occasion.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following: Are you aware of
14 more than one hit or damage to the Blazuj transformer? Did this happen
15 to that same transformer once or several times? If you don't know, tell
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I know that and I'm trying
18 all along to explain that to Mr. Prosecutor that there were several such
19 occasions and it's difficult to tell which incident happened when. No
20 one could do that. Several times, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Several times the Blazuj transformer or other
22 transformers? I'm just asking you now about the Blazuj transformer,
23 whether that was hit and damaged more than one time, not other ones, this
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] More than once. That particular
1 transformer station in Blazuj was targeted and hit not just once but
2 several times.
3 JUDGE ORIE: How many times approximately?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, at least
5 three times. That's the least that I can claim.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Can I draw your attention back to this report that we have in
9 front of us, 65 ter 15896. Will you agree with me that there is no
10 mention here that the -- at least on this occasion, that the Bosnian
11 government is blaming the Serb army for this event? Do you agree that
12 there's no mention of that?
13 A. Will you please help me. Where can you read that, that the Serb
14 side is accused of this?
15 Q. That's my point, sir. On Friday you said that the Bosnian
16 government was providing false information to UNPROFOR regarding the
17 destruction of the transformer in Blazuj. And my point here is that
18 there is no mention of that in this document, is there?
19 A. But this document does not have to mean that that wasn't the
20 truth. I told you --
21 Q. Sir --
22 A. -- in view of --
23 Q. -- the question's very simple: Will you agree that there is no
24 mention of the Bosnian government blaming the Bosnian Serb army for this
25 event? The document doesn't do that, does it?
1 A. But this document doesn't have to say that, but it was so. I
2 told you, the members of UNPROFOR who went out to the scene told us what
3 I told you --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, whether true or not, the only thing
5 Mr. Groome has established at this moment that it at least does not
6 appear in this document. And I took it from your answer that you did not
7 disagree with Mr. Groome in this respect.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. I'd like to now move to the topic of modified air bombs, and you
10 discuss this in your statement starting at paragraph 18. I want to ask
11 you some questions about this munition. Do you agree that a modified
12 air bomb is a very powerful weapon that carries a minimum of 100 kilos of
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And some modified air bombs carry up to 250 kilogrammes of
16 explosives; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And do you agree that even the smallest modified air bomb, the
19 one with 100 kilos, has the potential destructive -- has massive
20 potential destructive power?
21 A. Yes, that's undisputed.
22 Q. And the -- you agree that modified air bombs are propelled with
23 rocket motors; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you agree that the distance of the target of the -- aiming
1 the modified air bomb is a function of how much rocket fuel that's in the
2 rocket, so that when the fuel runs out, the bomb then drops?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And now, in paragraph 18 of your statement you say:
5 "The trajectory of the bomb was predetermined and could be
6 controlled ..."
7 I want to read you what you said in the Karadzic case, and you
8 said at Karadzic transcript 30750:
11 Pages 21501-21503 redacted.
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:
3 Q. I want to now move to a discussion of the number of military
4 targets in Sarajevo. Do you recall on Friday you gave evidence that
5 there were 1.000 military targets in Sarajevo?
6 A. Yes, counting the commanding positions and heavy weapons of the
7 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so this is a theoretical assumption.
8 Q. So when you gave evidence that there were a thousand military
9 targets, you are now saying that was a theoretical assumption; is that
11 A. For the number of commanding positions and their pieces of heavy
12 weapons, yes, because I think -- and let me tell you, if I were to say
13 one number, number one or number two, and be very precise, that would be
15 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I see we are at the time of the break.
16 I want to show a document to the witness. Perhaps we can do that after
17 the break.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We can do that after the break. However, I would
19 like to briefly revisit a matter about the transformer station.
20 Witness, if I understand your testimony well, you said: Well,
21 whether the document that was just shown to you, the UNPROFOR document,
22 transformer station Blazuj being damaged and it would take at least some
23 time to repair it, might not be the same as you talked about yesterday,
24 where in D471, reference was made to the damage to a transformer station.
25 You remember the issue, that you said it could have been a different
1 incident? You remember that evidence?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but I will tell you because
3 there was a number of incidents that the other one required longer time
4 for the repair --
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just asking you whether you remember your
6 testimony in this respect. Do you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in the one document - and I do not know the --
9 your language, but perhaps we could ask the interpreters for
10 assistance - it says the "Vrelo Bosne," where it happened. Now, "Vrelo,"
11 could you tell us what that word means in your language?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is the closest location
13 to the transformer station if we want to link it to another place because
14 there were a number of transformer stations. And the Vrelo Bosne means
15 the source of the Bosna River.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's the source of the Bosna River. Now,
17 the one report, your report, D471, about the transformer station being
18 hit and being damaged dates from the 13th of December, 1992. It talks
19 about this exact position and the report by UNPROFOR where, as we and you
20 together with Mr. Groome established, there's no question of blaming a
21 party for being responsible for that shelling, also talks about a
22 transformer station in Blazuj and it dates the 14th of December, the day
23 after that. Would you agree with me that it would be a great coincidence
24 that two transformer stations situated at the same place would have been
25 hit and that that damage would have been reported on the 13th and on the
1 14th and nevertheless not being the same transformer station? That would
2 be surprising as a coincidence, isn't it?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what is your specific
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, my question is that where you in your answers
6 left open the possibility that the report in D471, that is, your internal
7 report about the transformer station being hit, could be about another
8 hit, other damage than the one reported the day after that same location,
9 same type of facility reported by UNPROFOR. What I'm seeking is whether
10 there's any explanation for such what would be a major coincidence.
11 People would be inclined perhaps to believe that it was about the same.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, the log-books
13 from transformer stations would provide the most precise answer because
14 they kept records of all incidents that had to do with transformer
15 stations on a daily basis.
16 JUDGE ORIE: This may be very helpful for the parties if they
17 want to further pursue the matter on whether it was one or two hits to
18 this one -- to one transformer station located near the source of the
19 Bosna River in Blazuj.
20 We take a break. Could the witness first be escorted out of the
21 courtroom. We'll wait for a second.
22 If you wait for a second so that the usher returns and escorts
23 you out of the courtroom.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: And we will resume at five minutes to 11.00.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: No loud speaking, Mr. Mladic. Mr. Mladic, I said no
6 loud speaking. I think you heard me.
7 Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
8 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Could I ask that we bring 65 ter 30696 to our screens. It is a
10 proofing note dated the 21st of May.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Mijatovic, I want to return to the number of military
12 targets in Sarajevo, and you have told us just a few minutes ago that
13 your figure of 1.000 was based on a theoretical assumption. I want to
14 take a look at what you said last Wednesday when we received a note of
15 Mr. Ivetic's conversations with you in preparation for your testimony.
16 The note is dated the 21st of May, less than a week ago.
17 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we go to e-court page 6.
18 Q. Now, unfortunately we do not have a translation, but I will read
19 the precise passage that I want to put to you and if you listen carefully
20 it will be translated for you. Looking at paragraph 9.
21 Now, this document includes a note about what you told Mr. Ivetic
22 about the number of military targets in Sarajevo. The note from last
23 Wednesday reads:
24 "Given the number of ABiH brigades that were in Sarajevo and the
25 number of battalions, if we just compute the headquarters of the same, we
1 come to a number of 400 legitimate military targets for a zone the size
2 of about 60 square kilometres."
3 Do you acknowledge that you told Mr. Ivetic last week that there
4 were 400 military targets in Sarajevo?
5 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honours. It misstates the document
6 and misstates what's just been read.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: Perhaps Mr. Ivetic could tell me how I've misstated
9 what the document says.
10 JUDGE ORIE: May I try to see whether I noticed -- the second
11 line reads:
12 "... if we just compute the headquarters of the same ..."
13 Which I take it Mr. Ivetic considers a limitation in the type of
14 military targets the witness refers to.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Sir, do you acknowledge that last week you told Mr. Ivetic:
17 "... just computing the headquarters of the same, we come to a
18 number of 400 legitimate military targets for a zone the size of about
19 60 square kilometres."
20 Do you acknowledge that that is what you said?
21 A. It has to do with the command posts of these units.
22 Q. Did you -- do you acknowledge that you did not tell Mr. Ivetic
23 about these 600 additional military targets which you've told us about
24 last Friday, to get to a total of 1.000?
25 A. Yes. I spoke of both. That is a fact. I mentioned the command
1 posts of units and the positions of heavy weapons possessed by those same
3 Q. Is it still your evidence that the command posts for units, that
4 there were 400 of them?
5 A. Yes, and I even clarified. It starts from the level of companies
6 up to battalions, and to brigade commands. These are the command posts I
7 had in mind: Company, battalion, brigade.
8 Q. Now, Dragomir Milosevic testified in the Karadzic case. Would
9 you agree with me that he might have some relevant information on the
10 number of command posts of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
11 A. I think he should.
12 MR. GROOME: Okay. Can I ask Ms. Stewart's assistance. Can we
13 please go to the Karadzic case transcript 33124 to 25.
14 Q. And I'll read you what Dragomir Milosevic said:
15 "So let's talk about these military targets you referred to" --
16 "So let's talk about these military targets you referred to
17 because you talked about them in different ways" --
18 A. I don't have it in front of me.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no text referred to.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- that's true because it only exists in the English
22 language. That's the reason why Mr. Groome will read it slowly so that
23 you can hear the interpretation. And if you want to hear it again, then
24 we will read it again to you.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. "So let's talk about these military targets you referred to,
3 because you talked about them in different ways in your testimony in
5 "First of all, you talked about command posts ... at transcript
6 page 32553 you said:
7 "'The number of command posts within Bosnian-held Sarajevo was
9 "So my question to you is: Is it your evidence that that's the
10 case throughout the war?"
11 And Dragomir Milosevic said:
13 So having heard Dragomir Milosevic put the number of command
14 posts at 275, do you still maintain that there were 400 command posts in
15 Sarajevo? Or was that a theoretical assumption?
16 A. I don't know how it came to be missing from the transcript. I
17 was clear. I used the information used by the commander of the
18 1st Battalion of the Bosnia-Herzegovina army who testified here. He said
19 there were some 25 brigades in Sarajevo. You know that each brigade has
20 four battalions on average, so if you multiply that you get to 100. Each
21 battalion has four companies and that brings us to the figure of 400 men.
22 Those are the facts I based my theory to you here --
23 Q. So, sir --
24 A. -- as for general, I don't know where he got that number.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, if I could take you back to Friday's
1 transcript. First of all, the question was about potential targets, not
2 existing targets. And it was then clear to the witness calculated what
3 the targets were, not saying, for example, whether two command posts
4 might have been in the same location or anything like that, but it was
5 just -- and to avoid any confusion there, I then said to the witness:
6 "I do understand your explanation. Mr. Ivetic, I'm also looking
7 at the clock." I'm always doing that. "Apparently what the witness
8 tells us is that he deduces the number of potential military targets by
9 analysing the number of troops and the way in which they were organised
10 and then draws his conclusions" still about potential targets.
11 Now, perhaps the expression "potential target" is a bit confusing
12 in itself. Is it a target which you may engage and then what a potential
13 target is becomes a target in engaging it? Or is it a theoretical
14 calculation of what number of headquarters you could possibly expect to
15 exist? It seems that -- and there may be some -- I -- of course the
16 Chamber has not seen the evidence of Dragomir Milosevic beyond what you
17 read to us, but if he's talking about existing targets, then he's talking
18 perhaps about something different from what I understood at least the
19 witness to talk about last Friday.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps the confusion is in line -- the
21 original question given to the witness.
22 Q. So let me read you the question that you were asked and which you
23 gave the answer about a thousand. And begins at line 13 on 21478:
24 "One last question for you, sir: Based on your knowledge, how
25 many potential military targets would you have known to have existed on
1 the part of the territory controlled by the Army of Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina in Sarajevo and what do you base that assessment on?"
3 The question was: How many targets would you have known to have
4 existed? How many targets do you personally know to have existed in
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Again he's misstating the question. It's potential
8 military targets. We've been through this time and again, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But he's now asking how many targets there are.
10 MR. IVETIC: But he's misrepresenting the question that I asked
11 in presenting it to the witness, Your Honour. It's causing confusion.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you please look at page 33,
13 starting line 20, compare it with page 21478 and tell me where
14 Mr. Groome, as far as I could follow, was literally reading the
15 transcript, where what he read is different from what the original
16 transcript says.
17 MR. IVETIC: Right where I intervened, Your Honour, at line 25,
18 on this temporary transcript page 33, where he's saying: "The question
19 was: How many targets would you have known ..." And that's misstating
20 the question that we just went through.
21 JUDGE ORIE: At least part of the question --
22 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, perhaps I can just get to the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: But let's get to the point --
24 MR. GROOME: [Overlapping speakers] --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's clear that there are two ways of
1 approaching a target. The one is what theoretically may have existed and
2 what was known in fact to have existed. And that is now what Mr. Groome
3 apparently is asking the witness.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Sir, let's dispense with theory, let's dispense with calculations
6 done in the witness box. How many military targets were you personally
7 aware of during your time in the Ilidza Brigade?
8 A. One could also include information mentioned at briefings and the
9 figure mentioned there was around 300 --
10 JUDGE ORIE: What -- I stop you --
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did tell you what I based my
12 conclusions on.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I stop you there. What to your personal knowledge
14 is the number of targets that existed?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, during the war I learned
16 information from my superior commands, specifically from -- also from
17 General Milosevic himself who commanded a corps. And I heard from them
18 that there were some 300 targets, only when it comes to command posts.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And that is hearsay, not personal knowledge of the
20 existence, but rather what you learned from your superiors; is that well
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is well understood.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Groome, if I can just say something about a
25 small correction which doesn't make much difference.
1 At page 32, line 17, you said:
2 "Each battalion has four companies and that brings us to the
3 figure of 400 men." Did you want to say "men" or did you want to say
4 "400 commands"?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is that a question for
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 400 command posts.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. That's what I meant. Thank you, sir.
10 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Sir, in December 1992 you became the assistant commander for
12 morale, religious, and legal affairs in the brigade; correct?
13 A. For information, morale, legal, and religious affairs, yes.
14 Q. And you held that position until approximately July of 1993;
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And in this capacity you reported directly to the brigade
18 commander; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And this is a senior position in the command staff of the
21 brigade; correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, we have been unable to find any document written by you
24 providing legal advice on the use of artillery in Sarajevo. Is it
25 correct that during the five to six months you held that post, you never
1 gave written advice to the command or any battalion commander with
2 respect to the laws of war?
3 A. Well, not only did I provide advice to them, but we also received
4 information from superior commands, from the Main Staff, from Mr. Mladic
5 himself. We received, for example, instructions on abiding by the
6 Geneva Conventions and respecting the laws of war. I don't know why you
7 don't have those documents. I think one needs to say -- in being in my
8 shoes, something that is useful for the Serb side. But I wonder why
9 those documents are missing. It is quite indicative, if I may say so.
10 Q. Let me draw your attention to something you said when you
11 testified in the Galic case.
12 MR. GROOME: This is at Galic T 16790. I would ask Ms. Stewart's
13 assistance in bringing that to our screens.
14 Q. You were asked the following question and gave the following
16 "Q. So that we can be clear, are you telling us, Witness, at no
17 time did you provide advice to the brigade commander about criminal law
18 or criminal legal issues; is that right?
19 "A. I do not recall such a situation."
20 And my question to you is: Do you still stand behind what you
21 said in the Galic Chamber, that you did not provide advice about criminal
22 law or criminal legal issues?
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is not absolutely correct. He said:
24 "I do not recall such a situation."
25 MR. GROOME: Sorry.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. That is what I wanted
2 to say at the time.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Can you recall any now?
5 A. Well, I might. You put questions asking me to say yes or no, but
6 for example, I have to tell you the following. We were lucky enough, so
7 to say, to have trained officers. I'm trying to go back and remember. I
8 think all of them were educated, trained officers. What does it mean?
9 It means they went through all the schools up to the highest level of war
10 school --
11 JUDGE ORIE: This is not an answer to the question. You are not
12 invited to say just yes or no. The question was whether you can recall
13 having given -- provided advice about criminal law or criminal legal
14 issues. Now, before Mr. Groome asks you then what kind of advice you
15 gave, we first want to know whether at all you did so. Because if you
16 never did, there's no need to ask any further questions. So apart from
17 whether there was any need to give it, that's a totally different
18 question. Whether there was any need is a different question. The
19 question put to you was whether you ever gave advice about criminal law
20 or criminal legal issues. Did you or did you not?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fairest answer would be to say
22 that I don't remember. I would now have to try and recall it all. I can
23 neither exclude that nor confirm.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's a fair answer.
25 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. During your time in this role, was there any system in place in
3 which artillery commanders were required to have targeting decisions
4 evaluated by you or other legal advisers to determine if the targeting
5 decision and choice of projectile complied with the international laws of
7 A. Could you please clarify the question for me.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, perhaps you split it up because it's a
9 rather compound question.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. So my question is: Was there ever a procedure or was there a
12 procedure in place in which targeting decisions were reviewed at the
13 brigade level to ensure that they complied with the laws of war?
14 A. In any case, there was always that consideration and it was --
15 made sure that borders are implemented and that the Geneva Conventions
16 were respected. We never targeted randomly. No one from the command or
17 from the artillery branch chose targets randomly. We exclusively
18 responded to firing positions, opening fire on us.
19 Q. Sir --
20 A. It is legitimate --
21 Q. -- my question is whether there was any procedure in place where
22 the decision taken by subordinate commanders to target a specific
23 location was reviewed by you or anyone else at the brigade level to
24 ensure that it complied with the laws of war?
25 A. Definitely, yes, to put it in the most simple way.
1 [No interpretation].
2 Q. I don't believe the last portion of your answer was translated.
3 Could I ask you to repeat the last portion of your answer; it wasn't
4 translated for us. Say your answer again, please.
5 A. We always made sure that we abided by the Geneva Conventions and
6 the customs of war throughout the war, wherever I was. So the shortest
7 answer to your question would be yes.
8 Q. What was the procedure that was in place in which you or others
9 at the brigade level reviewed the targeting decisions of subordinate
10 officers? Describe that process or mechanism to us.
11 A. A subordinate unit or an observer sent information to the command
12 in terms of positions opening fire on the area of responsibility of our
13 brigade. Then the commander or person standing in for the commander,
14 although it was a commander for the most part because they were present,
15 made decisions once they analysed the situation. They decided which unit
16 and which firing position would respond to enemy fire. Then the
17 commander used a telephone line or a Motorola to issue an order to the
18 particular crew, to the particular piece, which was the closest and which
19 could respond to that fire in the most efficient way possible. In short,
20 that was the procedure.
21 MR. GROOME: Can we now go to 65 ter 30696 and if we can go to
22 e-court page 6.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question.
24 Although not being a part of the question, you again and again
25 refer to engaging targets from which fire was opened at your positions.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, there may be not that much dispute that at
3 least a firing position qualifies as a target, irrespective of what
4 weapon you would use to engage that target. But what about targets at
5 moments that you are not just simply returning fire to the origin of fire
6 you had been subject to? What about other targets? Or is it your
7 position that, during the whole of the war, the only thing that happened
8 is that you fired back at positions from where you were fired at and you
9 never engaged ever any other target?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, never during the
11 war were civilians targets engaged or religious facilities --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, no, no, I'm not asking that --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- exclusively military targets --
14 JUDGE ORIE: That was not my question. Carefully listen to my
15 question. Military targets not being the origin of fire that engaged
16 your positions, so not a mortar, mobile mortar, or a tank, or whatever,
17 or a sniper, but other targets, I'm not saying that they were not
18 military targets, but I'm asking you what the procedure was to decide to
19 engage such other target and by what means and how that decision was
20 taken and perhaps then reviewed by the higher -- by a higher level in the
21 chain of command. That was my question. You are always responding to
22 questions that are not put to you, at least often you make that the focus
23 of your answer. So other targets. Could you tell us whether -- how that
24 procedure was?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I haven't heard of a
1 single case of it being asked to target any other targets except for
2 military targets that had already fired at us, if I can put it that way.
3 I do not know of a single different case.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You are telling us that there were 300 command
5 posts. Now, usually firing doesn't take place from the command post
6 itself, I wouldn't exclude that but that's not the common thing you would
7 expect. They are -- were all potential targets for you. Who did
8 determine -- were they never fired at, command posts? Were any troop
9 movements ever being fired at? Was there ever any fire at -- well,
10 whatever other military target there may have been? Or did that never
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know - I cannot claim
13 that this kind of thing never happened - but as far as I know, we only
14 responded to fire with fire, that is to say, those targets that had
15 already targeted us with their fire. That's what I know.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that's what I can remember now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If that's your -- if that's your testimony,
19 therefore, Mr. Groome, please proceed.
20 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Sir, now I'm going to draw your attention to again this proofing
22 note, Mr. Ivetic's notes about your conversations with him last week.
23 MR. GROOME: And it's 65 ter 30696, and if we could go to e-court
24 page 6.
25 Q. Let me read you what paragraph 6 of this proofing note states:
1 "The Witness recalled that during his time in the Brigade, he
2 caused 200 Serb soldiers to be detained and arrested for infractions of
3 army discipline and crimes of larceny. The witness was a strong believer
4 in enforcing military discipline ..."
5 Now, my question to you is whether you personally initiated
6 investigations and punishments of 200 soldiers?
7 A. Well, most of this I did personally. As a result of that, that
8 is to say, these constant efforts to exercise discipline and to have full
9 responsibility, thank God the Serb Ilidza did not have a single war
10 crime, not a single rape case. I'm proud of that, and I thank my Serb
11 brothers who showed in this way as well their character and their honesty
12 in waging war. But this had to be disciplined locally. I mean, soldiers
13 had to be disciplined locally. You know what a war is and you know what
14 a war situation is. If you're not in a position to discipline people,
15 they're going to do all sorts of things.
16 Q. Sir --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would you now please answer the question that was
18 put to you. The first part of your answer was about war crimes. You
19 were not asked about war crimes. The second part of your answer was that
20 if you are not in a position to discipline people, that they're going to
21 do all sorts of things. The question, however, was whether you
22 personally initiated investigations and punishments of 200 soldiers, a
23 question which is clearly linked to the detention and arrest for
24 infractions of army discipline and crimes of larceny.
25 Did you investigate and follow-up for those 200?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most of this I and my commander, I
2 mean this number two man who replaced me as chief of security and so on,
3 so it has to do with the brigade so that was in the brigade. Now, how do
4 I put this? I personally dealt with quite a few of these, actually
5 carried this through.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. What's your best recollection of the number that you personally
8 dealt with?
9 A. Well, close to this number, let's say over 100 for sure.
10 Q. Now, you're aware that there were allegations pertaining to the
11 conduct of soldiers on all sides of the conflict, allegations that all
12 soldiers on all sides had committed infractions of international law?
13 You're aware of that, aren't you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you're aware --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I have to intervene for a second. You
17 are moving away from the internal discipline and that to international
18 violations of international law. You should be clear in announcing that
19 you move to another aspect of criminal law, that is, violations of
20 international law. Because where earlier the witness started saying that
21 thank God no one ever committed a war crime, I said that was not the
22 question. So at that moment you were dealing with a different type of
23 misbehaviour compared to what you introduced now, and that should be
24 clear to the witness.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Witness, if it's not clear that I'm talking about violations of
2 international law, I'm now asking you about that. Okay? And you've just
3 confirmed that there were allegations of violations of international law
4 made against all parties to the conflict; correct?
5 A. Well, what I saw and heard -- well, yes, that's true. Saw it on
6 television, heard about it, things like that.
7 Q. Are you aware of any investigation into an allegation of a
8 violation of international laws of war within your brigade?
9 A. Within my brigade, as far as I know, no, there weren't any such
11 Q. Are you able to recall --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I -- you say: "... there weren't any such
13 things." Do you mean to say there was --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean to say that there were no violations or
16 that there were no investigations?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, by virtue of the fact that
18 there were no violations of international public law, there was no need
19 to start investigations.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If I could just briefly tell you --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm talking about
22 what I know.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. What I am -- you are giving a kind of logic in
24 your answer by saying if such violations have not been committed, of
25 course there's nothing to investigate. However, in real life, perhaps
1 things have a different causal relationship, that is, you can only
2 establish that a violation has been committed or has not been committed
3 after you have investigated any allegations of such crimes or such
4 violations being committed. I just put it to you that my logic may be
5 slightly from yours and your answer was to some extent depending on logic
6 rather than on factual observations.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Sir, I'm asking you to focus on investigation, not on the results
10 of an investigation. But are there any -- were there any investigations
11 that you were aware of within your brigade, allegations that soldiers may
12 have unlawfully targeted civilians, either by sniping or by shelling?
13 A. I cannot rule that out after all this time, but I know that there
14 weren't any violations of international public law. Therefore, logic
15 indicates that there was no need to carry out this kind of investigation,
16 as far as I know.
17 Q. So --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, we have the same problem with: "I
19 cannot rule that out after all ..."
20 It's again about -- is it about allegations? Is it about
21 established violations? Or is it about investigations ? And you say
22 there weren't any violations of international public law. Sniping at a
23 civilian target, would you consider that to be a violation of
24 international public law?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if there was firing at
1 civilians, it is only natural that that is violation of international
2 public law because civilians are protected in each and every case and in
3 every way.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. I just wanted to verify that we have a common
5 understanding of such matters.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Do you recall any occasion in which General Galic ordered an
9 investigation into an allegation that there had been a violation of the
10 laws of war?
11 A. Well, to be quite frank, I can't remember right now. It's quite
12 possible, I don't rule it out, but I just don't remember, especially not
13 of a specific case. Whatever I would say would not be correct.
14 Q. I'd like to discuss some of the maps which are associated to your
15 statement and where you indicated the location of some military targets.
16 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we see D469 on our screens. It is
17 a map of Alipasino Polje. And if we could zoom in to where we see the 6,
18 it's just to the right of the centre of the page.
19 Q. Now, sir, I want to read you a passage from paragraph 8 of your
20 statement in the Karadzic case where you explain the markings on this map
21 and confirm that I understand your evidence. Paragraph 8 says:
22 "I have marked with a red circle the building where I lived."
23 First let me ask you, that red circle right next to the green dot
24 adjacent to the number 6, is that the building where you lived?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So back to your Karadzic statement:
2 "I have marked with a red circle the building where I lived and
3 with a red square the police building across the street from Cetinska,
4 Geteova Street."
5 So the red square that we see approximately across from where you
6 lived, that indicates where the police building was; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now it looks from this map that the police building may be the
9 only building across the road from where you lived; is that correct?
10 Were there other buildings or was it the only building?
11 A. Well, no. You see, there were buildings here where Srakino Selo
12 started. Then there is that school, the 1st of May it's called. I've
13 already spoke about my sister-in-law and the school was turned into a
14 prison and --
15 Q. Sir, let's -- so we keep this in a -- proceed in an organised
16 way. Is your answer that: No, there were other buildings across the
17 street from where you lived?
18 A. The interpretation that I received said that I should say that
19 that is not correct, but I am claiming that there were buildings opposite
20 my building. Two or -- or three or four floors. So the police station
21 was there too and there were buildings, yes.
22 Q. And --
23 A. It's not that I'm claiming that it's not correct.
24 Q. Okay. Are those other buildings you're referring to across the
25 street from where you lived, are they indicated on this map?
1 A. Well, not in particular marked with red, but you can see this on
2 the other side.
3 Q. Okay. Now, the police building that you've marked with the red
4 square on this map, was that police station there before the war?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you've already told us that you lived at this location for
7 11 years. Was that police station there the entire time that you lived
8 at that location?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And is it your evidence that that police station was there during
11 the war?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And do you happen to know whether that police station is still
14 there at the same location?
15 A. I think there is one but I don't dare say anything for sure. I
16 think that it is more likely that it does exist.
17 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we see D470.
18 Q. This was another map that was tendered with your statement.
19 Okay. Now we can see -- this was the map that was produced for the
20 Karadzic case. You do recognise it; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you marked this map with circles to indicate locations where
23 you believe enemy fire had originated; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, let me read paragraph 9 of your Karadzic statement in
1 reference to this map.
2 "I have drawn military targets at Alipasino Polje and marked them
3 with numbers as follows: Number 1, police building ..."
4 The circle with the number 1 next to it is where you say the
5 police station was; correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And it is in the same location on the previous map we've just
8 looked at; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Why did you consider the police station to be a military target?
11 A. Well, you see, quite simply, the right word would be potential
12 military targets. These are places from which fire was opened. That
13 would be right, that would be correct and concrete in relation to this.
14 These are places -- well, I've already told you about this. The school
15 called the 1st of May is close to this police station. I already told
16 you that at the very outset of the war -- if I'm not mistaken, I said
17 that every time because that's a fact. At the beginning of the war --
18 Q. Sir --
19 A. -- there was a sniper or a machine-gun nest -- please allow
20 me - and then 120-millimetres. So that's nearby, it's perhaps less than
21 50 metres from the police station. And the school is not marked, and I
22 told you yesterday about this case, that they set up a prison there and
23 put the unit there --
24 Q. Sir --
25 A. -- in the school the 1st of May and that is right next to the
1 police station -- yes?
2 Q. We're talking about the police station now. Is it your evidence
3 that there was outgoing fire from some type of weapon from the police
4 station; is that your evidence today?
5 A. Not from the police station. Next to the police station there
6 was a machine-gun nest and the calibre was 120-millimetres, because you
7 cannot fire a mortar from a building even if you wanted to.
8 Q. And it's for that reason that you circled the police station as a
9 potential military target; correct?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we look at 65 ter 30696, e-court
12 page 1.
13 Q. And this deals with what I believe you're talking about now. In
14 the statement you signed on the 10th of May, you referred to a sniper's
15 nest in paragraph 7. Can you describe for us precisely where the
16 sniper's nest was?
17 A. On this school, the 1st of May, the machine-gun nest and the
18 sniper nest within the school. And then between the school and the
19 police station there was a mortar nest of 120-millimetres.
20 Q. Now, last Wednesday evening we received a proofing note that
22 "The witness does not know why the Serbian version states that
23 there was a machine-gun nest nor why the English version says there was a
24 snipers nest. In fact, the witness recalls that there was a mortar nest
25 at that location."
1 Now, last Friday with respect to this issue you said the
2 following at T 21438:
3 "Q. What can you tell us in relation to this? Which accords
4 with your recollection of what was present approximately 150 metres from
5 this school on Cetinska Street?"
6 "A. As a matter of fact, there were both, both a snipers nest
7 and a machine-gun nest at the beginning of the war. There was also a
8 mortar position nearby and that's the truth of the matter."
9 Now, my question to you is: Do you acknowledge that you have
10 changed your evidence with respect to the type of weapon that was located
11 at this location we're now discussing?
12 A. Well, I don't see that I changed anything. My statement is
13 identical to what I said just now and what you read out is correct, it's
14 identical, so I didn't change anything. Nothing was changed, sorry.
15 MR. GROOME: Can we now take a look at P6507.
16 Q. Sir, I want to return to the precise location of where this
17 police station was. That's P6507.
18 Now, earlier in the -- or sorry, early last week I asked another
19 Defence witness familiar with this area to mark the location of where the
20 police station was. Now, he didn't live across the street from it like
21 you did, but he marked it anyway. Can I direct your attention to the
22 right side of the map. Can you see the hand-drawn red circle with the
23 letters PS to the right?
24 A. Yes, I see that.
25 Q. So you can see where this other witness marked the location of
1 the police station; correct?
2 A. [No interpretation]
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
4 speak into the microphone.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you please speak into the microphone
6 because the interpreters couldn't hear you and could you re-start your
7 answer. The question was:
8 "So you can see where this other witness marked the location of
9 the police station; correct?"
10 Do you see that?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see that, yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Carefully listen to the next question.
13 Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME: Could I now ask that we see 30 -- 65 ter 30695 on
15 our screens.
16 Q. And, sir, while that's being brought up, I'll tell you that it is
17 an aerial image of Alipasino Polje.
18 A. Yes, but over here there are some changes and I mean --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Wait for the question.
20 MR. GROOME:
21 Q. Okay. Sir, do you agree that this is an aerial picture of
22 Alipasino Polje?
23 A. Yes, but see here Geteova Street, I know that then it was
24 Cetinska. Then there was no street of Safeta Hadzica. Then this
25 Sulejman Efendi Music, there are changes.
1 Q. We all are familiar with the fact that street names have changed.
2 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we go to the next page and this is a
3 close-up or a closer image of the Alipasino Polje buildings that we are
4 now talking about.
5 Q. Now, will you agree with me that the circle marked location 1 is
6 the building that you lived in; correct?
7 A. Well, I'd have to analyse this very well.
8 Q. Take your time, sir.
9 A. There are no numbers here.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then we need to have a -- do you see an oval with
11 next to it in red number 1?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Red you mean?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I see that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether that oval next to where
16 number 1 in red is indicated is the place, is the apartment block where
17 you used to live?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it should be either here or I
19 mean -- well, I'm a bit -- well, you know, the cardinal points and
20 whatever. So it's either on the left or on the right. But there were
21 four entrances and almost -- in a straight line, one next to the other.
22 Now I see something different here, as if it were a different building,
23 and it should be the building where I lived. Also, there are lots of
24 details --
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Sir --
2 A. -- for example, I see here that -- yes?
3 Q. The circle with number 1, is it or is it not the building that
4 you lived in for 11 years?
5 A. It could be, but really it's difficult for me to find my bearings
6 on these maps. It's either here or here because I even --
7 Q. Sir, let's go back then to D470. This is where you marked with,
8 I imagine, some degree of certainty the building where you lived in.
9 A. Look, you see, it's not disputed. It's either here to the left
10 or to the right in Geteova Street as it's called today, that's where my
11 building was. But here, judging from the design of these maps I --
12 MR. GROOME: I apologise, I called up the wrong map, D469.
13 Q. Sir, that's now on the screen. Now, you see the building you
14 circled and indicated it was the building you lived in. You see that,
15 don't you?
16 A. It should be so.
17 MR. GROOME: Okay. Perhaps it will assist the witness, I have a
18 clean hard copy of this D469. If he could have that when I show the
19 aerial image. Could I ask for the usher's assistance. And again now if
20 we could return to 65 ter 30695.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps it would assist everybody if you invite
22 the witness to mark the map where he thinks he lived.
23 MR. GROOME: Okay. I'll do that, Your Honour. If we go to
24 page 2 of 30695.
25 Q. So Judge Fluegge has suggested that perhaps if you don't think
1 that the circle with the number 1 is where you lived, if you would draw a
2 circle around the building where you lived.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: With the assistance of the usher.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I think that this is the
5 building, that it should be. If there were numbers -- as it is, it's
6 quite difficult for me to find my bearings. It could be this one here or
7 this one -- sir, if you can see what I'm pointing at, Mr. Prosecutor, I
8 think it's the one that I marked.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. We cannot. If you look at the screen in front of you, you can
11 see the aerial image again. Look at the screen.
12 A. Yes, it turns out that it's the one and same building.
13 Q. And so the circle with number 2, that's the location that you
14 marked as the location of the police station; correct?
15 A. Yes, but I can't see the parking-lot here. And across the street
16 from my building and the police station was a parking-lot, just a
17 parking-lot. There were no other buildings and I don't see it here.
18 Q. And, sir, let's --
19 A. So that it's possible that something has been changed.
20 Q. Let's proceed just very -- step by step. The circle at the far
21 right with the number 3, on the screen, sir, please don't look at the map
22 on the desk at the moment. You see the circle and the number 3
23 underneath that circle?
24 A. This could be the police station, this one, number 3, that could
25 be. It has the parking-lot. I think that's the parking-lot that was
1 between us. When I say "us," I mean between the buildings, the
2 residential ones, and the location where the police station was. That
3 could be it.
4 Q. So do you wish to change your evidence that you gave before the
5 Karadzic Chamber and again in this Chamber that location 2 was the
6 location of the police station?
7 A. I think not, and that this could even be the Andrija Raso School
8 according to me, but once again all of this -- many things are new, it
9 could be the school that my children attended, Andrija Raso, but so many
10 things have changed. It's not clear to me. When I look at it now, to
11 the left from the entrance to my building was the school and here it
12 turns out that it was to the right. So this map confuses me somewhat --
13 Q. Sir, I began this by asking you a very simple question. The
14 building across the street from where you lived, your evidence has been
15 that that's a police station. Is it no longer your evidence that the
16 building across the street from where you lived is a police station?
17 A. No, no. I stand by this because it can't be any different. It's
18 just that the buildings and the map can confuse me, that's all. But I
19 assert - I lived there for 11 years - across the street from the entrance
20 to my building was the police station, exactly across the street from it.
21 There was just a parking-lot between us --
22 Q. Sir --
23 A. -- and now how it looks on a map or if I can make a mistake
24 because of it, that's another matter --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I'm looking at the clock and I have
1 another reason why I would --
2 MR. GROOME: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- like to take a break now.
4 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow
5 the usher.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, would you please keep in mind if you say
8 "you're changing your evidence about the police station being across the
9 street," well, if the police station is somewhere else, the next question
10 to know whether it's across the street where the witness lived, we also
11 have the verify whether the marking of where he lived is correct. Still
12 there's an option if he says there was -- "between my house and the
13 police station there was a parking-lot," it doesn't seem very much to be
14 between 1 and 2. However, it would be between 3 and any building
15 opposite that street which might mean that he marked them perhaps wrong
16 in combination, which would mean that they would have lived not at what
17 he indicated as number 1, but he indicated that there are similar
18 buildings -- I mean, there is quite a lot of similarity apparently in the
19 construction and the structures there, that it might have been, if we
20 look at this last picture, in the right top corner somewhere out of the
21 four quarters rather than the left top corner. That's at least something
22 that needs to be further explored before we can suggest to the witness
23 that he changed his testimony that the police station was opposite his
24 building. He may have changed his testimony as that whether what we find
25 under number 2 is the police station, but unless we know whether if
1 that's a wrong marking the other marking may be wrong as well, it's not
2 yet said that the police station was not opposite from where he lived.
3 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I think it certainly would assist in
4 this line of questioning if the Chamber could familiarise itself with
5 D469. I will bring hard copies of both this exhibit and the aerial
6 photos to have for the Chamber. It may assist you in following the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only thing we want to do is be perfectly
9 clear that we have an exact understanding of the local situation and also
10 make sure that the witness has an exact understanding of what he's
11 marking and whether there's any risk that he makes mistakes there.
12 MR. GROOME: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break and we resume at 25 minutes past
15 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
19 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Could I ask that D469 be brought to our screens.
21 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, while that's being brought to our screens, would
22 it be fair to say that as a senior member of the Ilidza Brigade you
23 worked with maps on a daily basis?
24 A. Yes, and it's not in dispute. It's just obvious here. I can see
25 it. I had some rest so I see that my building is this one -- yes?
1 Q. Let's proceed very slowly, otherwise there's a chance for great
2 confusion, and when you point to the screen we cannot see what you're
3 pointing at. So I'm going to ask you very precise questions. Let's just
4 go step by step. So I have D469 on the screen. Your Karadzic evidence
5 is that the red circle indicates where you lived. Do you still believe
6 that is where you lived?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. Sir --
9 A. Here I --
10 Q. Sir, I'm going to ask the usher to assist you and I'm going to
11 and you to draw -- perhaps if we could use a different colour, perhaps
12 blue. Could I ask that you draw a circle around the building in
13 Alipasino Polje where you lived for 11 years.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And so the record indicates the mark is in green. Could I ask
16 you to put a number 1 next to it. Can you put a number 1 next to the
17 circle you've just drawn to indicate where you now believe your house is.
18 Could I ask you to do it a little bit away from the circle so we can
19 clearly see the 1.
20 A. [Marks]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest the following: We remove this marking and
22 then a blue pen will be used to mark the building where you lived for
23 11 years and then we don't need, at least for this moment, a number 1,
24 Mr. Groome, but perhaps later we need that.
25 MR. GROOME: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's number 1 and that's in blue the building
2 where you used to live. Okay. Please proceed.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Now can I now ask you to draw a circle around the building where
5 you said there was a police station. If you draw a circle around that
6 building and put a number 2 next to it.
7 A. [Marks]
8 MR. GROOME: Could I ask the usher to perhaps --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could the usher stay with the witness.
10 MR. GROOME: It looks like he's trying to write something but it
11 doesn't seem to be working.
12 JUDGE ORIE: No. And the witness already made a dot very close
13 to the structure --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Across the street from my building,
15 that's where the police station was. Now, these buildings here ...
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you draw --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose it could be here or
18 perhaps here, across the street from my building, exactly across the
19 street from it, that's where the police station was and the parking-lot
20 was between us.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Okay. Can you put a 2 to the right of that circle that you've
23 just made?
24 A. [Marks]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
1 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could we also ask the witness to look at the marking
3 number 3 on the aerial photo to see whether that refreshes his --
4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, I just want to tender this and
5 then maybe just ask a couple questions before this new one.
6 JUDGE ORIE: That's fine.
7 MR. GROOME: Could I ask that we tender this new version of D469
8 with additional marks made by the witness.
9 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the map now marked with additional
11 blue markings by the witness receives number ...?
12 THE REGISTRAR: Number P6528, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P6528 is admitted into evidence.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. And, sir, so we are clear, the red circle and the red square that
16 we see on this exhibit should be ignored. They are not the location of
17 where you lived and they are not the location of the police station;
19 A. Yes, and it's strange to me that this could happen that the map
20 appeared like this. These are the facts, that I lived here for 11 years.
21 I would leave for work in the morning and I would come back in the
22 afternoon, so I passed there twice a day at least.
23 Q. So, sir, do you believe that you made a mistake when you marked
24 or indicated where you lived or do you believe someone else made a
25 mistake when they produced this diagram for the Karadzic case?
1 A. Well, I couldn't -- it wouldn't be fair to say if it were me or
2 somebody else because neither would be true, but what I showed you now
3 that's what the fact is.
4 MR. GROOME: Can we now look at D470.
5 Q. Now, if I can draw your attention to the circle with the 1 next
6 to it, am I correct that now you believe this marking is in error, this
7 does not indicate the location of the police station?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. GROOME: Now, just to be sure, can we now return to
10 65 ter 30695. And if we can go to e-court page 2.
11 Q. And with the assistance of the usher, I'm going to ask you to
12 circle the location of where you lived with a single circle, please only
13 make one circle, with a number 1 and the location of the police station
14 with a circle and a number 2.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And it should be in blue again.
16 MR. GROOME: Yes, I see that it is in blue, Your Honour.
17 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
18 MR. GROOME: And I would tender that screen image of the
19 witness's markings.
20 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document as marked by the witness receives number
23 P6529, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted.
25 MR. GROOME: And can I now ask that we go to e-court page 5 of
1 65 ter 30695.
2 Q. Sir, this next photograph was taken of the building you have just
3 indicated as the police station. I want to confirm that it is the
4 building you remember as the police station. Is that the building you've
5 referred to as the police station?
6 A. I think that that's the building.
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would
8 tender 65 ter 30695.
9 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30695 receives number 65 -- P6530,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
14 Mr. Groome, just for my understanding, could I take it that this
15 picture is then taken in north-easterly direction, and therefore exposes
16 the south -- I'm looking at page 2 of the same series.
17 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, I believe you can see the drive
18 that we're then looking in --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GROOME: -- on e-court page 5.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Please proceed.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Mijatovic, do you remember when you testified in the
24 Galic case you were also asked to mark a map of military targets in this
25 part of Sarajevo. Do you remember doing that?
1 A. Yes, I probably remember or I mostly do it. It was also quite a
2 long time ago, but yes.
3 Q. Let me show you 1D1814 from the Galic case and see if it helps
4 remind you of that map.
5 MR. GROOME: And this is 65 ter 30685 in this case. Can I ask
6 that that be brought to the screen, and I could ask Ms. Stewart to give
7 the usher some large hard copies of this. I believe it will assist us
8 all in looking at this map.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you are now moving away from
10 65 ter 30695. Pages of it have been marked, have been tendered, have
11 been admitted. Can we forget about the rest or ...?
12 MR. GROOME: There are --
13 JUDGE ORIE: You were always saying this is page 2, that's
14 page 5. Or is the totality already tendered?
15 MR. GROOME: I intended to tender the totality of the exhibit
16 when I -- that last statement I made when I tendered 30695.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So that's -- yes, because there was no
18 further marking on it and you included, then, all pages of that
19 Rule 65 ter number?
20 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. That's clear.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. Now, sir, when you've had a chance to look at 65 ter 30685, my
24 first question is: Is this a copy of the map that you marked military
25 targets on for your evidence in the Galic case?
1 A. Are you asking me?
2 Q. Yes, do you recognise this map? Is this the map?
3 A. It's difficult to say because all the maps are very similar. I
4 couldn't say how long it's been, ten years I suppose, so I'm supposed
5 say -- all maps are quite similar. It was a problem for me to find my
6 bearings a little while ago after so many years because the streets are
7 different, the buildings are the same but -- so why did I get into this
8 position recently, because I wonder why you didn't save a map with those
9 street names that we used then, the street names and the buildings as
10 they were because --
11 Q. Sir --
12 JUDGE ORIE: You were called as a witness by the Defence in this
13 case and Mr. Groome tries to do his utmost best to clarify any confusion
14 that may exist on the basis of maps, et cetera. Let's take our time and
15 let's not -- let's not be bothered by that it could have been done in a
16 different way. We try to do our utmost best to allow you to testify to
17 the best of your abilities.
18 Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Sir, the handwriting on the map, this is your handwriting, is it
22 A. It could be, yes.
23 Q. You're not sure whether you recognise your own handwriting?
24 A. Well, I think that it is my handwriting, though there are some
25 numbers and markings, but yes, I think it is.
1 Q. Okay. Now, if I can draw your attention, can you find
2 Alipasino Polje on this map?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And will you agree with me that the map does not indicate that
5 you circled any military target on the physical compound of
6 Alipasino Polje?
7 MR. GROOME: Perhaps if we could focus or zoom in on the lower
8 right quadrant of the one we're looking at on the screen.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see it here. For example,
10 under number 1, we've seen maps where it was marked next to
11 PTT Engineering from where they fired from howitzers at us and they would
12 go into a shelter. Then we would fire at them and then UNPROFOR would
13 protest. So it's not here and I know that I did mark that location as
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. So you're talking about another location now. I'm asking you to
17 focus on this map in the area of Alipasino Polje, where you lived. You
18 did not mark any military target in Alipasino Polje during your Galic
19 evidence; is that not correct?
20 A. Sir, now when I mentioned Alipasino Polje, I wonder if you heard
21 me, I said that Trg Medjunarodnog Prijateljstva Square up to
22 PTT Engineering is -- it's all Alipasino Polje, and up to the land survey
23 institute, all of that is Alipasino Polje, and the section that we are
24 talking about. So from Ante Babica, if you can see that street, and then
25 to the left, Alipasino Polje --
1 Q. Sir --
2 A. -- all the way to the land survey institute, all of that is
3 Alipasino Polje.
4 Q. Let me get an answer to my question and then I'll ask you to mark
5 if we need to. Yes or no, did you mark any military target on the
6 compound of Alipasino Polje in your Galic testimony? Just yes or no,
8 A. I did mark it, at least three or four targets were in
9 Alipasino Polje from where they fired at us. So they had to be marked,
10 but I can't see it on this map here now. It's not recorded here.
11 Q. So it's your evidence that you recall marking military targets in
12 Alipasino Polje during your Galic testimony, but those markings are not
13 on this map that's now before us?
14 A. As far as -- I can't see the markings, but I know that there were
15 locations from which they fired at us and that constituted potential
16 military targets. And a little while ago --
17 Q. Sir --
18 A. -- in this trial we talked about the mortar nest,
19 120-millimetres, here next to the Prvi Maj School.
20 Q. Sir, my question is purely limited to whether or not you marked
21 these locations you're talking about during your Galic testimony. Did
22 you or did you not mark these locations in the Galic case?
23 A. I believe that I should have done it, that I must have done it.
24 Why it's not on this map, I don't know, but I cannot remember with
25 100 per cent certainty to be completely frank.
1 Q. Okay.
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender
3 65 ter 30685. That's Galic Exhibit 1D1814.
4 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30685 receives number P6531,
7 Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
9 MR. GROOME:
10 Q. Sir, I want to draw your attention to paragraph 22 of your
11 statement. You say:
12 "I was not aware of the Ilidza Brigade deploying mortars on the
13 grounds of the theological college from September 1992 to August 1994. I
14 would have known had they been there."
15 My question is: Are you certain about the fact that there were
16 no mortars on the grounds of the theological faculty?
17 A. I'm sure that there were no mortars in the school.
18 Q. Your evidence in your statement is not in the school. I think we
19 all have figured out at this stage that it's not possible to fire a
20 mortar with -- inside a building. Your evidence was:
21 "... deploying mortars on the grounds of the theological
22 college ..."
23 Are you quite certain that there were no mortars deployed on the
24 grounds of the theological college or theological faculty?
25 A. Yes, I stand by it that I didn't see them there.
1 Q. Now, you said:
2 "I would have known had they been there ..."
3 What did you mean by that statement: "I would have known had
4 they been there"?
5 A. Well, number one, had I not seen them. Had I seen them, I would
6 have known of their existence there. Quite clear.
7 Q. Can I --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just be clear.
9 That's not what the language says. The language doesn't say: If
10 I haven't seen them, I'm not aware of them. Of course if you do not see
11 something you cannot -- it suggests that if they would have been there
12 even though you personally may not have seen them, that you would have
13 known it by other means if they would have been there. That's what the
14 language suggests. Is that a proper understanding of this part of your
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think -- I'm saying I
17 really did not see them and I cannot say that I saw them if I did not see
18 them. That is, I mean, I think that the most correct answer would be
19 that I did not see them.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you said more than that. You said:
21 "I would have known had they been there."
22 If you don't see something from your position, you may consider
23 it extremely likely that you would have been informed about it even if
24 you have not seen it with your own eyes. That's what the text suggests.
25 Is that also your testimony?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I mean, it could be
2 interpreted that way and it could be expected, the way you put it just
3 now. But because of many circumstances, many developments in the zone
4 all the time, the zone of a brigade that had these 36 offensives coming
5 from the enemy, believe me, it's hundreds of incidents per day, people
6 being killed, wounded, all sorts of things were happening, I mean all
7 sorts of things. Even if I were a computer, I wouldn't be able to know
8 all of that --
9 JUDGE ORIE: We're not just talking about events. We are talking
10 about mortars being positioned at the grounds of the theological faculty.
11 Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: Could we please see P6509. It's a panoramic photo
13 taken from the faculty of theology.
14 Q. Now, the first question I'll ask you, Mr. Mijatovic, is a
15 previous Defence witness has given evidence --
16 A. I'm sorry, just a second, please. I'm not Mijanovic. I am
18 Q. I'm sorry if I misspoke, but yes, I know that you are
19 Mr. Mijatovic.
20 A. Or it was the interpreter, the interpreter that made a mistake.
21 Q. Possibly. We're all speaking very quickly but we all realise
22 that you are Mr. Mijatovic.
23 A previous witness has given evidence that this photo is a view
24 from the theological faculty. Can I ask you to look at it and tell me
25 whether you agree.
1 A. I think it should be.
2 Q. Now, the witness also gave evidence that sometime -- I'm sorry,
3 that the location marked as M1, that paved area adjacent to the building,
4 indicates where four to five mortars were placed up until approximately
5 the end of 1992. Do you accept that this contradicts your evidence that
6 there were no mortars at this location?
7 A. Well, right now we'll be going back to my statement here. In
8 1992, I mean, I said that from June, July, and August -- in fact, I spent
9 three months in hospital. Then I was in this rear unit, and then after
10 that I was assistant commander for morale and information and religious
11 affairs, where it is very realistic to expect that I did not know and
12 that I could not have known of all of these things. I mean, all these
13 others who were saying this, they probably have arguments for that.
14 Obviously for 1992, I could not have known about that. It doesn't make
15 it any more difficult or any less difficult, but objectively that's what
16 I said and that's what I stand by.
17 Q. The witness then provided evidence that M2 on the screen in front
18 of you indicates the meadow or the green meadow behind the theological
19 faculty, and that's where the mortars were moved at the end of 1992. Do
20 you accept that this evidence contradicts your evidence that there were
21 no mortars on the grounds of the theological college or faculty?
22 A. Well, the area of the faculty of theology, now what is that? The
23 zone is 5 metres, 10 metres from the faculty of theology. One could
24 conclude, as far as I could see, that it could be M2. That could be
25 100 metres away from the faculty of theology and then there are other
1 buildings there in between. I mean -- so what you're asking is very
2 relative about the area of the faculty of theology. After all, this
3 witness - if it's a valid witness -- I mean, I cannot say, not that I
4 don't know. I cannot confirm or deny things that that person said. It
5 wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be proper.
6 Q. Sir, hold on --
7 A. I've told you about what I know. What I know, that's what I told
8 you about.
9 Q. You've just said that "I don't know," but yet in your statement
10 which is now in evidence as D468 you said:
11 "I would have known had they been there ..."
12 That statement is no longer true, is it?
13 A. No, on the contrary, it is true and how. All the time. I mean,
14 we can just play with words here, but I am saying -- and all of it boils
15 down to it being correct that I did not know. Practically I had no way
16 of knowing because I was not in that area during that period -- or
17 rather, I was there very little. You know where the command is, it's not
18 even close to Nedzarici or the faculty of theology, and that's where I
19 spent time roughly --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I would have -- if I now properly understand your
21 testimony, I would have expected in your statement: For the latter part
22 of 1992, I would not even have known if they were there because I wasn't
23 around and I was -- you were, I think, hospitalised or -- that that would
24 come closer to what you are telling us now than what we read in your
25 statement. Would you agree with that?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my view, it's the same. I still
2 stand by each and every word I said.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So you do not agree with me. Then I have one other
4 question. You disputed or at least you raised a question about what the
5 grounds of the theological faculty would be. If you would look at that
6 photograph which is still in front of you and look at the position of M2,
7 would you know whether there ever had been any mortars there in the --
8 after 1992? So position M2. If you know, tell us --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The most correct answer is: I'm
10 not sure. It's been a long time, all of this has changed.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So you don't -- you can't tell us with an
12 adequate level of certainty.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
14 MR. GROOME:
15 Q. I wanted to switch to a different topic. I want to draw your
16 attention to paragraph 29 of your statement in this case where you
17 address an incident referred to as G13. It involves a modified air bomb
18 that landed on Safeta Hadzica Street. Do you remember the incident that
19 I'm referring to? Please, a simple yes or no will do.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And do I understand your evidence correctly that this air bomb
22 was launched in response to what you referred to as "an all-out Muslim
24 A. I never stated that that air bomb was launched in response to a
25 Muslim offensive, no. I don't even know who it was that launched that
1 air bomb. I know from the media, from television, Muslim television at
2 the time, we found out that this bomb fell. It's not that we -- I mean,
3 I just said that the time coincided with this all-out Muslim offensive.
4 I never could have stated that that bomb was a response to that. From
5 the media --
6 Q. Sir --
7 A. -- I remember that very well, Muslim media, Muslim television,
8 that's where I found out about that.
9 MR. GROOME: Could we please have D468 up on the screen and can
10 we please go to paragraph 29, which I believe is the second-to-last page
11 of the document.
12 Q. We can now see your statement, paragraph 29 of your statement in
13 both languages. Let me ask you this. Paragraph 29 you say:
14 "It was explained to me that on 26 May 1995 an incident occurred
15 in Safeta Hadzica Street and that according to the findings of Muslim
16 police the trajectory of the projectile was west/south-west ..."
17 My question is: Who was it that explained to you that
19 A. Well, I think that over here it could be heard from the previous
20 trials, that's the only way I could have received this information.
21 Q. So it's your evidence that no one --
22 A. And what I said -- sorry, sorry. What I said that I heard during
23 the war from the media, or rather, Muslim TV.
24 MR. GROOME: If we could have -- please have 65 ter 30684 on our
1 Q. This is your statement which was admitted in the Karadzic case.
2 MR. GROOME: And if we could go to paragraph 26, which should be
3 the third from the last page.
4 Q. I will read it to you while it's being brought up on our screens.
5 So your Karadzic statement about the same event says:
6 "It was explained to me on the 26th of June, 1995, an incident
7 occurred in Safeta Hadzica Street and that according to the findings of
8 the Muslim police the trajectory of the projectile was
9 west/south-west ..."
10 You were incorrect about the date in the Karadzic case, were you
12 A. I think that precisely here we see the exact date, the
13 26th of June. It started, this strong Muslim offensive, on the
14 16th of June. It went on almost for months. So on the 16th of June, one
15 of the strongest Muslim offensives was launched.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you were reading from the Karadzic
17 statement which is on our screen now, because then the quote is not
18 exact. Could you please re-read page 75, line 17.
19 MR. GROOME: I'll just read the quote again, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You see that there is a difference.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. "It was explained to me that on 26 June 1995 an incident occurred
23 in Safeta Hadzica Street and that according to the findings of the Muslim
24 police the trajectory of the projectile was west/south-west ..."
25 In the Mladic statement you said that it was explained to you
1 that the incident in Safeta Hadzica Street occurred on the 26th of May.
2 In the Karadzic case you said it was explained to you that that incident
3 occurred on the 26th of June. Correct?
4 A. Well, obviously the only mistake here is a typo, a typo. The
5 months are different, that's all. Because the fiercest offensive, the
6 most massive one, the strongest one in the war started on the
7 16th of June.
8 Q. So it's your evidence that this offensive started on the
9 16th of June; correct?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Let's go back to your Mladic statement, D468, again to
12 paragraph 29, and there you say:
13 "I would like to point out that on 26 May 1995 a fierce Muslim
14 offensive was underway against all lines of the SRK, mostly against the
15 Ilidza Brigade ..."
16 Do you remember putting that in your statement for this case?
17 A. Obviously, Mr. Prosecutor, things were confused when typing up
18 the month. That is so clear. It's just a typo, to be precise, a
19 typographical error. June is the correct month. I repeat that the
20 strongest offensive launched against Serb Sarajevo, especially Serb
21 Ilidza, it started on the 16th of June, and there's no dilemma in my
22 mind. I remember that and everybody remembers that, so it's just a typo.
23 The month was called May instead of June. The year is the same and
24 everything else is the same.
25 Q. Now, sir, you signed this statement on the 10th of May, just a
1 matter of weeks ago. Did you review this statement prior to signing it?
2 A. Yes --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you --
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I reviewed it but you know that
5 mistakes may happen.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could you first wait to hear what the question by
7 Mr. Groome is. He started asking whether you had reviewed. I think you
8 have answered that.
9 Mr. Groome, and then you were interrupted.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Where were you when you reviewed your statement?
12 A. That first statement --
13 Q. Sir --
14 A. -- I mean --
15 Q. -- the 10th of May, when you signed your statement, where were
16 you when you signed your statement?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: 10th of May, 2014?
18 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, this year. I was
21 together with the gentleman from the team, but not these two here, their
22 colleague in Pale. That's where I signed that statement. Their
23 colleague came to Pale and -- I mean, it was with him, yes. But also,
24 again there was quite a bit of a rush. There were several witnesses, if
25 I can put it that way, so no wonder that the months were interchanged
1 here, May, June.
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. Okay. So is it your evidence that you did not have adequate time
4 to review your statement before you signed it on the 10th of May?
5 A. Well, relatively enough time, but obviously this mistake slipped
6 in. Whatever I were to say, there is a mistake, but there is no dilemma
7 at any moment that this strongest initiative -- offensive started on the
8 16th of June. And so what is correct is what is stated in Mr. Karadzic's
9 statement. Although let us be clear, in May there were attacks as well
10 and all sorts of things.
11 Q. Sir --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said there were
13 several witnesses at the time. Were you the first one who were invited
14 to sign or were you the last one or how many witnesses were there?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, actually, I was alone, in
16 fact, when I gave this statement and when I signed it, but then others
17 were waiting, for instance, for their turn, but I was on my own.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And how many witnesses were there waiting?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It must have been two at least, as
20 far as I can remember, at least two. And I was the third one, if I'm not
21 mistaken, on that day.
22 JUDGE ORIE: How much time did you take to carefully read the
23 details of your statement?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, methodologically a page is
25 read three to five minutes. That is proven by science. Now, there can
1 be an entire text and then a person would have to do this a lot more
2 seriously, say, you would need 10 or 15 minutes for a page. And then if
3 you were to analyse every full stop and comma, then perhaps it would be
4 even longer. So it's hard for me to say how much time I needed for this.
5 JUDGE ORIE: No, I asked you how much time there was given or you
6 took, not on what it would have required, but how much time did you take
7 or were you given to re-read this statement before you signed it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, Mr. President, just
9 to read it without a thorough analysis and comparison, obviously I can do
10 it very fast. But if I want --
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm not asking you what you could have done.
12 I'm simply asking you: How much time did you take? Did you take
13 two minutes? Ten minutes? An hour? How much time did you take to
14 review it before you signed it?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, certainly to do it thoroughly
16 I'd need half an hour at least.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I now for the third time have to establish that you
18 are not answering my question. I understand this as unwillingness to
19 tell me how much time you had. Or did you just sign it even without
20 having read it or just going through the pages? What was it? How much
21 time was it?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry, I do apologise. That's
23 not the interpretation that I received. The interpretation I received
24 was how much time I would need otherwise to read this. I said half an
25 hour, so that's what I was told, right? I mean, that's what the
1 interpretation was --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mijatovic, you're blaming our interpreters to,
3 most likely, have misinterpreted three times, because I asked you the
4 same question three times, and if they misinterpreted it, especially if
5 they misinterpreted it for three times, then of course that would be
6 something to seriously consider. We may check that.
7 Was it translated, my question to you, three times how much time
8 you would have needed? Or was it translated to you that I asked you
9 three times now how much time you have taken to read it, how much time
10 you took? And I want an answer to that last question. And whatever it
11 was, one minute, three hours, the only thing I want that information to
12 hear --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the most correct question.
14 I do apologise. I apologise to the workers who are working here. Maybe
15 I misunderstood. I'm not narrow-minded. Say between half an hour and an
17 JUDGE ORIE: You took between half an hour and an hour to review
18 before you signed?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I didn't look at the watch,
20 but according to my recollection it might have been that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Was it according to your recollection or might it
22 have been? Was it between half an hour and an hour or could it have been
23 shorter or even longer?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's this. Again, it's
25 guess-work on my part because I didn't look at the watch, so all of it
1 is, I mean, hypothetical thinking in terms of how long it lasted because
2 I didn't look at the watch.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Sir, so I've read you the same sentence in your Karadzic
6 testimony and your Mladic testimony. In the Karadzic testimony you said
7 the event that you were giving information on occurred on the
8 26th of June. In your Mladic statement you say that that event occurred
9 on the 26th of May. Which is the correct date? Which incident are
10 you -- which -- what's the date of the incident you're providing evidence
12 A. I cannot say exactly what the date is because that was -- well,
13 that was 1995 so that was 19 years ago. Is that right? I just know, as
14 far as I can remember and that's why I explained this, that it could have
15 been the 26th of May, this is the time of the strong enemy offensive.
16 And this date here in President Karadzic's case was communicated to me
17 then. Do you understand what I'm saying?
18 Q. Well, sir --
19 A. -- and --
20 Q. -- the problem I have is that the date keeps changing. Now you
21 say: "... the 26th of May, this is the time of the strong enemy
22 offensive." Didn't you minutes ago, sitting in this courtroom, tell us
23 that that strong offensive started on the 16th of June?
24 A. I stand by that, no denying that, it started on the 16th of June,
25 the offensive, and it went on for a month. I'm sorry, I didn't change
2 MR. GROOME: I'll move on, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please do.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. I want to ask you now about an event that's referred to as G10 in
6 both your Mladic and Karadzic statements. I draw you to paragraph 28 of
7 your Mladic statement. You -- the last sentence --
8 MR. GROOME: Maybe we could call that up for the witness, that's
9 D468, paragraph 29.
10 Q. The last sentence of this paragraph reads:
11 "I do not know any other details about the incident."
12 And I'll wait until you can see that and ask you to confirm that.
13 A. I see it and it is clear that it was explained to me back then in
14 the courtroom about the incident, as was the case with the previous
15 incident on the 13th. Either the Prosecution or Defence explained to me
16 what we are referring to.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We don't have anything on the screen at the
19 MR. GROOME: Nor do I.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Perhaps only the witness.
21 MR. GROOME: Now we see it. Okay.
22 Q. So at the end, the last sentence you say:
23 "I do not know any other details about the incident."
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand this relatively brief paragraph, you
2 provide four facts: One, an incident allegedly occurred in Hrasnica in
3 April 1995; two, the command of the Bosnia and Herzegovina army was
4 located in the centre of Hrasnica; three, according to your intelligence
5 sources, there was a 120-millimetre mortar located at the place of
6 impact; and four, the mortar was under the command of Fikret Pljevljak.
7 Do you agree that that is all of the information that you provide
8 in this relatively short paragraph? Yes or no, please.
9 A. It is not all of the information --
10 Q. Sir --
11 A. -- I remember mentioning something else and I'm surprised not to
12 see it here, although I know that Mr. Ivetic must have forwarded it to
13 you --
14 Q. So the sentence that says:
15 "I do not know any other details about the incident."
16 As of the 10th -- that you signed on the 10th of May, as of today
17 that statement is no longer correct?
18 A. I think Mr. Ivetic forwarded you --
19 Q. Sir --
20 A. -- the information stating that in Hrasnica in addition to the
21 machine-gun nest --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I intervene. Whatever Mr. Ivetic may have sent to
23 us, yes or no, is not part of the question. On the 10th of May you
24 signed a statement in which, apart from the four facts mentioned, you
25 explicitly state:
1 "I do not know any other details about the incident."
2 Which means that on the 10th of May you clearly said: I have no
3 further knowledge. And Mr. Groome was focusing on that statement given
4 on the 10th of May and he would like to know - Mr. Groome, if I
5 understood you well - that at that point in time you had no knowledge
6 whether that's true, 10th of May.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It would not be correct at that
8 moment. There was other information, though, in circulation and you
9 cannot recall everything off-the-cuff at any given moment. Anyone is
10 able to recollect additional things. That's what I'm trying to say, that
11 there were around 80 heavy pieces there --
12 JUDGE ORIE: No, no -- I'm not --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and I said so in Karadzic. I
14 don't know why it's not here --
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not inviting you to say what you knew more about
16 it. So you stated something at that point in time, not saying: I am
17 unaware whether or other details do not come to my mind. You said: I do
18 not know any other details about the incident. And you tell us now that
19 that's not -- may have been true at the time, but certainly you
20 remembered details since then. Is that how we have to understand your
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be fair.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. So on the 21st of May, 11 days later, we receive a seven-page
1 document, nearly as long as the statement, which purports to be
2 additional information that you provided on three days, the 16th, the
3 18th, and the 21st of May. Now, I want to read you a section of that
4 document, bearing in mind your statement: "I do not know any other
5 details" apart from what is in your statement and your evidence that
6 there was a 120-millimetre mortar in Hrasnica. The information provided
7 on the 21st of May has additional information for paragraph 28 and
9 [As read] "The witness would add that Hrasnica had numerous
10 military targets, including three tanks, five transporters, one
11 multi-rocket-launcher, two 105-millimetre howitzers, four 76-millimetre
12 guns, dozens of 82-millimetre mortars, dozens of 60-millimetre mortars,
13 and dozens of 120-millimetre mortars."
14 Do you accept that in the 11 days between you signed the
15 statement and we received this note of additional information, that is
16 a -- very significant additional information has been provided regarding
17 the amount of weapons in Hrasnica?
18 A. I accept that.
19 Q. Now, you signed your Mladic statement on the 10th of May. It was
20 the product of five days of interviews in addition to however many times
21 you were interviewed by the Karadzic Defence. Do you accept that all you
22 talk about in those statements is the 120-millimetre mortar?
23 A. Well, it's not only about that. As we are discussing this, in
24 the process of providing answers, things are coming back. During the
25 last Muslim offensive, it was shown on their TV that they had a
1 24-barrel multiple rocket-launcher just above Hrasnica where they opened
2 fire from -- upon us during the last offensive. And I wasn't able to
3 recall that before now. And their TV broadcast it, confirming it.
4 Hence, you shouldn't be surprised when someone recollects something which
5 had been suppressed for a long time.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Witness, may I ask you how many days have you
7 been interviewed in April, July, October, and December of last year, on
8 the basis of which this statement was compiled which you signed on the
9 10th of May?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Three days for sure, approximately.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the time-frame from April to December 2013, as
12 it is written in your statement. And you say in this long time-period,
13 all the details you have provided now didn't come up to your mind?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not that it didn't come up to
15 my mind, but, for example, there was something more important at that
16 particular point in time and unless you write it down, just like everyone
17 else, it's difficult. We remember as much as we suppress, otherwise the
18 brain would implod e from all the information we have received during the
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I'm not interested in any explanation how a brain
21 and a memory works. If you just would have not mentioned these details,
22 that would be one story, but you explicitly said:
23 "I do not know any other details about the incident." "I do not
24 know any other details." After months of interview on many days, and now
25 all of a sudden it comes to your mind?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question is what the point of a
2 particular question is. If someone is asking me about a particular
3 alleged incident - and I believe I describe it as such - then it is only
4 normal that --
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I stop you again because you are not answering my
6 question. How does it come about or did it come about that this sentence
7 is included:
8 "I do not know any other details."
9 And now you provide us all of a sudden with many other details,
10 very precise details. Why did you say:
11 "I do not know any other details"?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, I stand by it. I do not
13 have specific information regarding that incident. All the rest is
14 secondary, things that occurred in our theatre of war, and I wanted to
15 say to the Chamber and the Prosecutor is that I wanted to paint an image
16 of the size of forces we were in conflict with and what things were
17 happening, what kind of assets and weapons were used against us at Ilidza
18 alone, and the importance of this particular incident is up to the
19 Chamber to decide. However, it is up to me to say that they indeed had
20 all the assets at their disposal that I am talking about now.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And now you say: All the rest is secondary. Is
22 it hearsay? Did anybody provide you with this information during your
23 interview or what has happened that you are now able to give all the
24 details in relation to this incident?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, direct knowledge or hearsay.
1 Direct knowledge means that I would have to go to the enemy side to see
2 each of the assets or take photographs of them in order to have direct
3 knowledge. To my mind, all of the information we had concerning
4 different sources, like our observers or captured enemy soldiers,
5 et cetera, all that all suddenly becomes hearsay as if unreliable or
6 incorrect. I can't have first-hand knowledge unless I go to the enemy
7 side. I think it's impossible.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness be asked
9 to move away from the microphone.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, whatever I tried to
11 compare after the war with my original knowledge actually tallied and
12 that information came from enemy sources --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I don't have any further questions. I have heard
14 enough. Thank you.
15 MR. GROOME: [Microphone not activated].
16 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: The Prosecution tenders this proofing note,
18 65 ter 30696.
19 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30696 -- I apologise, is it 96 or 86?
22 96, receives number P6532, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 I would have --
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
2 MR. GROOME: That concludes my examination of the witness. I
3 don't want the Chamber to have a false impression of what's just
4 happened, and I bring to the Chamber's attention that the witness does,
5 in at least his Galic testimony that I can recall, mention some other
6 assets in Hrasnica, certainly nothing on the order of what we see in
7 P6532, but if it assists the Chamber in the Prosecution pulling together
8 those different excerpts so the Chamber can compare, we'd be more than
9 happy to do that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I would have a few questions, very few
11 questions. Perhaps it's better that I put them now so that you have a
12 better opportunity to prepare during the break for any further questions.
13 Witness, Hrasnica, when you are referring to Hrasnica and when
14 you say that there was a command centre in -- command of the BH Army was
15 in the centre of Hrasnica, Hrasnica, you're referring to a village; is
16 that correctly understood? Not. What does it then mean?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it was interpreted
18 to me that that is where the command of the ABiH was. The command of the
19 104th Brigade of the so-called ABiH was there, so there's a difference
20 between a brigade and the army, if I may.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I just read from your statement:
22 "As far as I know, the command of the BH Army was in the centre
23 of Hrasnica ..."
24 That's what your statement says in English, but apart from that,
25 that was not the focus of my question. Hrasnica is a village; is that
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a rather large settlement.
3 JUDGE ORIE: A settlement of 500 metres long? A thousand metres
4 long? Could you give us -- from maps I've seen until now --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can approximate. I think the
6 settlement had over 10.000 inhabitants and it is at least 3 kilometres in
7 length by some 2 kilometres in width. It even had a second division
8 soccer team, which is a sign of its size. It is a large settlement, not
9 a village. Perhaps a town would be a better way to describe it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let me just -- 2 kilometres in width, you
11 said, 3 kilometres in length, do you mean --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Approximately I think.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Do you mean the built-up area, so the populated
14 where we find houses? Or do you -- are you talking about the area
15 including fields surrounding this settlement?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I refer to, I think it is the
17 built-up area, the urban area.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then the parties are invited to carefully look at
19 their maps where the built-up area seems to be considerably smaller than
20 what I at least have seen until now.
21 Now, when you describe, apart from the 120-millimetre mortar nest
22 near to the point of impact and if you would describe all the rest of the
23 armament that you said was in Hrasnica, was that all in the settlement
24 itself where these howitzers -- or were they in the wider area of
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were some in the settlement
2 itself and around it. As for APCs or tanks, you know they can move from
3 one place to the next. It is difficult for me to limit each of those to
4 a single location.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The fixed ones, where were they? Could you, in line
6 with the list you gave, tell us exactly, for example, the mortars
7 where -- the dozens of mortars, where were they? Could you tell us where
8 they were?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right at this moment, let me try to
10 recall it all, although it would take time. I have managed to remember
11 many things, though. I know they were in the outskirts of Hrasnica. I
12 know that, for example, their multiple rocket-launcher was in the
13 outskirts of the settlement itself. I discovered it and I asked that it
14 be engaged. For the most part, they were in the outskirts, but the nests
15 moved places. It is only logical. If they were observed by our
16 observers, they become a target and then they move. Any assets that
17 could be moved were never left in a single place for the entire war. It
18 is simply impossible.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No, but I'm just focusing on the day of at least the
20 time-frame of this incident. Could you tell us the dozens of mortars of
21 the various calibres, could you give us six, seven, eight positions where
22 they were to be found? Yes, in April 1995.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In April, for the most part --
24 well, it's difficult for me to recall right now. I would like to be fair
25 and correct. I can't say exactly. In principle, they moved inside that
1 area. As for any specific locations, I can't, not after this much time,
2 it would be unfair.
3 JUDGE ORIE: All those dozens and dozens of mortars were moving
4 around all the time? If you have them by the tens in the various
5 calibres, they would nevertheless change position again and again? Is
6 that how I have to understand your testimony?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You didn't understand me well. It
8 doesn't only concern mortars. If you followed, I said that it also had
9 to do with tanks, APCs, guns, multiple rocket-launchers, howitzers, and
10 mortars. They would stay in a place for a period and then, for safety
11 reasons, they moved.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But I asked you about the mortars. My previous
13 question was: Could you tell us the dozens of mortars of the various
14 calibres, could you give us six, seven, eight positions where they were
15 to be found in April 1995? And if you then answer dealing with other
16 armaments, then of course I do not think that I got an answer.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me try to deal with the mortars
18 only. I know that in the firewood warehouse they had a nest for a
19 120-millimetre asset. I think it was at the beginning of the conflict
20 and we were shelled frequently from there. I also know that they had it
21 at --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you -- no --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I'm trying, I'm trying --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you there. You're not trying at all
25 because I'm asking you about April 1995 and you're telling me about the
1 beginning of the conflict. So I'm not saying that you're not trying --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I meant the beginning of 1995. I
3 meant the beginning of 1995.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You said the beginning of the conflict, but we may
5 verify that as well, whether --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then it's a mistake. I thought the
7 beginning of -- because it's in April, it's sort of characteristic of
8 1995. That's what I mean. They were in the firewood warehouse. They
9 were near the road up to Igman, on the right-hand side, so that's two.
10 There was a mortar near the place of the incident, so that's three. So I
11 can recall these three places right here and now, and that's all I can be
12 precise and confident of. There were some further up close to their
13 point at Igman. There was also a 120-millimetre mortar nest there and
14 that was also in April.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We will take a break. We have only very short to go
16 after the break and, Mr. Ivetic, I can imagine that it would not be
17 sufficient time for you for a further examination.
18 But we take the break. We would like to see you back at
19 five minutes past 2.00 and we will then, to start with, have ten minutes.
20 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
21 There's no need to seek eye contact with anyone else in this --
22 no, Mr. Mladic is supposed not to speak.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at five minutes past 2.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 1.46 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.06 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, can you give us an impression on how
3 much time you would approximately need for re-examination?
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm close to 15 minutes. I'm going to
5 try and see if I can squeeze it into the ten minutes that we have so we
6 can dispense with the witness coming back.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then of course the question remains how much time
8 Mr. Groome then would still need but okay.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic will now further examine you,
11 Mr. Mijatovic. Try to focus on his questions and answer them.
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
15 Q. Good day again, sir. I would like to return to Hrasnica and the
16 situation on the ground in 1995 in Ilidza. How often did Ilidza receive
17 incoming fire from the ABiH forces located in Hrasnica?
18 A. Very often. They used powerful assets. I think I said on Friday
19 that my brigade alone had sustained 460 people killed, several hundred
20 wounded, and in addition to the Ilidza Brigade, there were other units in
21 Ilidza which also sustained many losses. I think we had the highest
22 number of killed personnel in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I think in the
23 entire Yugoslav theatre of war, the Ilidza part was affected the most.
24 Q. And in relation to the incoming fire that was coming in from
25 Hrasnica, would that level of fire change during the time-period of
2 A. To be fair, in terms of intensity during cease-fires, it did
3 change but it doesn't mean it stopped all together. Never did the enemy
4 side honour any cease-fires.
5 Q. What kind of ordnance specifically was used by the ABiH in
6 Hrasnica against Ilidza during 1995 that you recall?
7 A. To be specific, in 1995 they opened fire from all available
8 assets, starting with cannons of different calibres, howitzers, mortars,
9 multiple rocket-launchers. There was an example when nine people were
10 killed nearby the municipal building and over 20 were wounded. They were
11 all wounded by a multiple rocket-launcher. They had 120-millimetre,
12 82-millimetre mortars, 60-millimetre mortars, howitzers, 105,
13 125-millimetre. They also used the Sultan, as they called it, it is
14 155-millimetre asset. And they also had infantry weapons of course.
15 Q. If I could ask you, sir, you have now identified an incident
16 where nine people were killed nearby the municipal building and over
17 20 were wounded. Was that the only such instance of targeting from
18 Hrasnica upon Ilidza which resulted in civilian casualties or were there
19 other such incidents?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: I'm just wondering how this arises from
22 cross-examination, Your Honour.
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, it arises from the questioning of the
24 number of assets that are in Hrasnica and establishing the reliability of
25 the witness's testimony as to the list of additional assets that he has
1 identified in proofing and in his direct examination on Friday, which was
2 challenged by the Prosecution in cross-examination today.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just say something, you're talking about
4 civilians. The answer said "nine people." It didn't say "civilians."
5 You are now introducing the concept of civilians, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: One moment. Let me just scroll up.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you look at page 95, line 13 and 14.
8 MR. IVETIC: I agree. I agree. It should be "persons" not
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed. Your time is relatively
12 limited. I leave it a bit to you. It requires a bit of inventivity to
13 link it to the cross-examination, but I'm not going to stop you. Please
15 MR. IVETIC:
16 Q. Let's move on for the moment. You were asked during
17 cross-examination about the approximately 200 soldiers arrested for
18 disciplinary matters. What knowledge did you have of General Mladic and
19 the Main Staff and their position as to discipline of soldiers among the
20 lower commands?
21 A. The commander General Mladic insisted on discipline all the time
22 and on sticking to the Geneva Conventions, implementing the customs of
23 war, he requested that whoever violated discipline be prosecuted, that
24 civilian facilities and religious facilities in the city not be targeted,
25 that civilians not be targeted. And I'm proud of having such a commander
1 and such other commanders in the corps, who in addition to defending
2 their own people also took care about the other ethnic group and in
3 particular the civilians from this other ethnic group, even though they
4 were our enemies. And when I said that I am proud, I remain proud that
5 from Ilidza --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Let me stop you here.
7 Mr. Ivetic, you are invited to, if the witness comes to general
8 sweeping statements which have got nothing to do with the knowledge of
9 facts personally observed by him, that you would perhaps interrupt him.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. Sir, today at temporary transcript page 20, when talking about
13 aerial bombs, you said:
14 "All weapons imply certain deviations if that is what you had in
16 I would like to have you explain what type of weapons you are
17 referring to when you say "all weapons."
18 A. I had in mind all weapons when I said this because there is no
19 weapon for which anyone could guarantee. Even those who take part in
20 sports competitions do not always get the best marks. That's what I had
21 in mind. So there is no tool that you can guarantee would have not a
22 single percentage of deviation and that deviation is impossible.
23 Q. Okay.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'll not deduct it from your time.
25 The issue raised by the Prosecution, apparently now again by
1 Mr. Ivetic, is whether these aerial bombs are any less precise than what
2 is the normal range of imprecision, of which we know a lot about mortars
3 and et cetera, whether they are similarly inaccurate in -- when fired or
4 whether there's any difference. That is the -- apparently the issue.
5 Could you tell us whether you have any knowledge about any difference
6 between precision, aerial bombs compared with other weapons?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that there is some
8 difference. To be fair, there is some difference between aerial bombs,
9 even though that's conventional weapon like other conventional weapons,
10 but there is a difference.
11 JUDGE ORIE: What is the difference? Are they more or are they
12 less precise than, well, let's say, mortars or cannons or ...?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, once again, to be fair,
14 they're less precise.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. The rocket engines attached to the modified aerial bombs by the
18 VRS, do you know if they were tested before being so attached and used?
19 A. Yes, they were.
20 Q. And the Prosecution asked you about the amount of explosives in
21 those aerial bombs that were used. Do you have any knowledge to be able
22 to compare the amount of explosives in those bombs with the amount of
23 explosives in bombs dropped by NATO aircraft or by Tomahawks on the
24 territory of the Bosnian Serbs?
25 A. I think that the bombs that NATO dropped on the positions of the
1 Army of Republika Srpska were incomparably heavier, 10 to 20 times
2 heavier than the bombs which the Serbs used.
3 Q. Thank you, sir.
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I complete my redirect examination.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Could I ask you one additional question. Could you give us --
7 the bombs NATO dropped, what type of bombs were they? We have not heard
8 much about that, that's the reason, since you appear to have knowledge
9 about -- what type, what ...?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were mostly bombs enriched
11 with depleted uranium. You know what sorts of consequences uranium had
12 on the Serbian population in and around Sarajevo. That's the most
13 horrible form of bombing that we could have experienced because to this
14 day people are dying as a consequence of these bombs containing depleted
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but could you say it was this or that type of
17 bomb or the bombs fired by NATO dropped on the positions of the Army of
18 Republika Srpska?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I had an occasion to see the bombs
20 or one that was dug out from 12 metres below a house owned by my
21 relatives. It was taken out and fortunately it never exploded. So the
22 rapid intervention unit had to dig. It was 12 metres deep in the ground
23 and it was a huge bomb, much bigger than the ones that we had and that
24 had 250 kilos. I know that Tomahawks were used, I know that likewise
25 very destructive 30- and 40-millimetre shells were used. I had a chance
1 to see them because they hit our positions above Blazuj, above the
2 transformer station that was mentioned. It's a part of Igman which is
3 called Golo Brdo and that was precisely where they would pass 20 metres
4 below us and go on to the other side. And not knowing that they
5 contained uranium, I held some of them in my hands. How that would be
6 reflected in my health, we shall see.
7 JUDGE ORIE: But you are unable to say it was this type with a
8 load of a thousand kilogrammes of explosives or you don't have further
9 details apart from observing what you saw?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the names, to be fair, I'm
11 not familiar with them. I don't know the exact names of those bombs.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
13 Mr. Groome, I -- we are already five minutes past the time and I
14 haven't apologised yet or -- even for going that far. How much time
15 would you need because I don't want to further rely on the --
16 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, there's just two things I want to ask
17 the witness about. I just want to ask his basis of knowledge that
18 depleted uranium was dropped on Sarajevo, that was one question. And the
19 other question I was simply going to ask him, he indicated in response to
20 a question you put, Your Honour, that he knew that there was a mortar
21 located near the place of the incident. So I have a blank map of
22 Hrasnica I was going to simply ask him to mark. He seems to know where
23 the incident occurred.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that usually takes at least, the two together,
25 five minutes. I'm looking at the interpreters whether -- I can imagine
1 that they have other things to do at this moment, so without an explicit
2 "yes," I would adjourn for the day. Could I hear from one of the booths.
3 THE INTERPRETER: We prefer to finish for the day, Your Honour,
4 if that's possible.
5 JUDGE ORIE: The English booth suggests that we finish for the
6 day, so under those circumstances, unless I hear from the other booths, I
7 don't see any signals, you may proceed, Mr. Groome.
8 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
9 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, you've just given evidence that NATO dropped
10 depleted uranium on Sarajevo. What's the basis of that knowledge? As
11 briefly as you can say.
12 A. The basis of my knowledge is the research carried out by expert
13 personnel from our armed forces as well as some experts from Belgrade who
14 deal with that issue. There was a lot of morbidity --
15 Q. Okay --
16 A. -- and people are still dying today, some of whom include my
17 cousins, et cetera.
18 MR. GROOME: Could we please call up 65 ter 09821 and could we
19 focus in the lower left quadrant of that map --
20 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for that.
21 Mr. Ivetic, I think once the witness has been released, if it
22 would be of any assistance to give further details of the sources the
23 witness relies upon as scientific research on the type of bombs used by
24 NATO, then I take it that you would be willing to assist Mr. Groome.
25 MR. IVETIC: I will definitely talk with the witness after he has
1 been released.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you. Please proceed.
3 MR. GROOME: If we can just go down to the left lower portion of
4 this map. I think we're a little bit high. Okay, that would be very
5 good. If we can just focus in or zoom in on that settlement we see near
6 the bottom.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Mijatovic, this is a map of Hrasnica.
8 MR. GROOME: And again, if we could zoom in a little bit more so
9 we can see individual buildings. And if we can go further, further.
10 Okay, that should be good.
11 Q. Do you agree that this is --
12 MR. GROOME: Can we go down just a tiny bit more -- no, the other
13 way, please. That's good.
14 Q. Sir, do you agree that this is a map of Hrasnica?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, the record recorded you saying in response to a question
17 from Judge Orie:
18 "There was a mortar near the place of the incident, so that's
20 Can I ask you once again now for the last time to take the blue
21 pen - and if the usher would assist - can I ask you to mark the place of
22 this mortar which also happens to be the place of the incident.
23 JUDGE ORIE: At least near to it.
24 MR. GROOME: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We can't hear the witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could the microphone be adjusted so as the
3 witness says something that the interpreters can hear it.
4 Yes, would you just mark the location of that 120-millimetre
5 mortar you spoke about.
6 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
7 [Interpretation] As far as I recall, it could be around here.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Okay.
10 MR. GROOME: And I would just ask that that be tendered as a
11 Prosecution exhibit.
12 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 9821 as marked by the witness receives
15 number P6533, Your Honours.
16 MR. GROOME: Nothing further.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Groome, you have used 65 ter 15896, I think
19 it was a sitrep report. You didn't tender it.
20 MR. GROOME: I read the relevant portion, but I'm happy if the
21 Chamber would be assisted by that as having it in evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, it's just to avoid that something at a later
23 stage is missing --
24 MR. GROOME: An oversight.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- on oversight.
1 MR. GROOME: It wasn't, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ivetic, no further questions triggered
3 by --
4 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Mijatovic, I would like to thank you for
6 coming a long way to The Hague and for having answered all the questions
7 that were put to you by the parties and by the Bench and I wish you a
8 safe return home again. You may follow the usher.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would like to salute
10 the commander.
11 JUDGE ORIE: No, you are not here to salute. You appear here as
12 a witness.
13 [The witness withdrew]
14 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that the instructions have been conveyed
15 to the Victims and Witnesses Section, but witnesses may not always fully
17 First of all, I'd like to thank very much the flexibility from
18 all those who are assisting us. As you may have noticed, I would have
19 stopped if -- because I'm aware that everyone has his own duties on from
20 the time scheduled for these hearings.
21 We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Tuesday, the
22 27th of May, in this same courtroom, I, at 9.30 in the morning.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.27 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
25 May, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.