1 Thursday, 26 June 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.33 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 There are no preliminaries. Therefore, could the witness be
12 escorted into the courtroom.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Radojcic. Before we continue, I'd
15 like to remind you that you're still bound by the solemn declaration
16 you've given yesterday at the beginning of your testimony. And
17 Mr. Ivetic will now continue his examination.
18 Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
21 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 WITNESS: VLADIMIR RADOJCIC [Resumed]
23 [Witness answered through interpreter]
24 Examination by Mr. Ivetic: [Continued]
25 Q. Good morning, colonel.
1 A. Good morning.
2 Q. I would like to deal with one more matter from your witness
3 statement, which is D535 in e-court. I'd like to turn to page 11 in the
4 English and page 16 in the Serbian, and paragraph 61.
5 A. Can I receive a copy of my statement in Serbian, please.
6 MR. IVETIC: With the help of the usher, I would ask that the
7 hard copy that was used yesterday be given to the witness.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you be so kind as to repeat
9 the number of the paragraph, please.
10 MR. IVETIC:
11 Q. Paragraph 61, which is page 16 in the Serbian, page 11 in the
13 Here, sir, you talk about eliminating paramilitaries from the ZO
14 and that you asked the Main Staff to send help to that end. When you
15 talk about "help," what help did the Main Staff of the VRS send?
16 A. If I may, before I answer directly to your question, I wanted to
17 explain what kind of paramilitary unit it was. In the area of my
18 brigade, there was a paramilitary formation commanded by Branislav aka
19 Brne. They numbered some 60 to 65 men. Formally speaking, they were
20 part of the adjacent Igman Brigade. However, given the fact that most
21 members of that unit lived in Ilidza, they spent most of their time in
22 the area of my brigade. There were daily problems with them, and for the
23 most part it involved racketeering of caterers, shops, and the latest
24 thing that happened was arson. A fire was set in a catering facility.
25 Since I did not have any authority over them, they were not
1 within my brigade establishment, I couldn't do anything. My military
2 police from my brigade could intervene, but they had relatives among the
3 members of my police brigade and it limited the efficiency of MP's
5 Being aware of that fact, I turned directly to the chief of the
6 Main Staff, General Mladic. In a telephone conversation, I told him
7 about the problems with the paramilitary formation. He had a principled
8 position about such paramilitary formations. It was such that he
9 considered all members of paramilitary formations to include them in the
10 VRS in order to join the struggle of the Serbian people. However, they
11 refused it, and that is why he promised assistance. Indeed, he sent
12 parts of the Protection Regiment to dealt with it in a single afternoon.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In a single morning.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Parts of the unit who, and that is
15 to say members of it who did not do anything illegal, they individually
16 deployed them to the Ilidza and Igman Brigades. As of that moment, there
17 were no other paramilitary formations in the area of my brigade.
18 MR. IVETIC:
19 Q. Okay. And when you say the protection regiment was sent to deal
20 with it, could you explain what that means?
21 A. It means that one of the elite units of the VRS was sent in.
22 They were authorised to deal with it in an efficient manner and they had
23 the skills required to do so. In other words, they could completely
24 disband the unit in a very short time, and as of that moment on, as I
25 said, it no longer existed.
1 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to draw your attention to the time-period of
2 May 1995. Do you recall during this time-period when NATO aircraft under
3 the direction of the UN began operations in -- in and around Sarajevo?
4 A. Certainly I recall that.
5 Q. Can you tell us what your brigade did in reference to UNPROFOR
6 personnel at that time when these NATO planes began conducting
8 A. As I said already, in the area of my brigade there were
9 Military Observers and UNPROFOR members. The Military Observers, a few
10 days before the NATO air campaign, withdrew to their base, whereas the
11 UNPROFOR members remained in their positions in the area of the brigade.
12 I have to say that in the area of defence of the Ilidza Brigade, there
13 were two UNPROFOR units. The first unit was from an airborne regiment
14 from the French army. They were in the Sumarska School building along
15 the separation with the 104th Motorised Brigade of the Army of BH. There
16 were some 20 of them.
17 The other UNPROFOR units in the area of my brigade was from the
18 Ukrainian Battalion. They were billeted in the Energoinvest compound.
19 It was a large factory that was in our territory. They too had some 20
21 When I received an order to place UNPROFOR members under my
22 control as POWs - because at that point in -- of time we were de facto in
23 a state of war with NATO and its air forces, thus they became our
24 prisoners of war. First of all, I spoke to the Ukrainian Battalion
25 commander. I think his name was Colonel Valery Sklai [phoen]. I told
1 him that the situation was changed and that they were no longer UNPROFOR
2 members overseeing the troops but that as of that moment on they were our
3 POWs because of that state of war with NATO. He agreed, and he said, "I
4 am aware of the situation but let us come up with a situation so as to
5 avoid any problems for the personnel." I agreed and I told him that we
6 would deal with that problem in a mutually satisfactory way.
7 He suggested -- well, first he asked that he be allowed to
8 withdraw his unit to the base in Sarajevo in the former Marsal Tito
9 Barracks. I told him I couldn't do that because the order I received
10 from my superior command did not allow for that. Then he said, "Fine. I
11 will leave behind my APCs next to your military police building and the
12 personnel will be in the containers where they had been until then." The
13 weapons were to be separated, placed in a different facility. I said
14 that it was acceptable and that in the same way I could implement my
15 order and preserve the dignity of his personnel.
16 Then I went to the French Battalion representatives. They
17 numbered about 20, around one platoon. They were close to the base in
18 the Sarajevo airport. I found the platoon commander. I spoke to him and
19 I told him the same I did to the Ukrainian Battalion commander. He told
20 me that according to the rules of service of the French army, the
21 Foreign Legion is not to surrender without fight and they said that they
22 were prepared to fight, if necessary. However, given the -- the fact
23 that they were outnumbered, he asked me not to do that because they were
24 not going to put any obstacles in my way in the course of implementing my
1 They laid down their weapons, which were placed in one of the
2 rooms. They promised not to leave their base. They used communication
3 links to stay in touch with their battalion command. I offered all kind
4 of assistance to them in terms of providing food and water, and I asked
5 them for their security not to move about. If there was indeed some
6 serious need to do so due to illness or something else, I asked that I be
7 informed so that they could be escorted by my military policemen to
8 wherever they wanted to go. In that way, I could provide security for
9 them because the situation among civilians and members of the brigade was
10 very tense and there could have been incidents.
11 That is how we tackled the problem, and luckily enough the issue
12 on hand was dealt with on a more senior level shortly afterwards. I
13 think it was one of the successful tasks which I implemented. The
14 French Battalion commander, Colonel Kiel [phoen] if I remember well, came
15 to visit me and he told me something like this, I'll try to recollect his
16 words: "Colonel, sir, your fair treatment of the members of the French
17 Battalion did not go unnoticed and we will not forget it." I took it as
18 a great compliment. Later on he even presented me with a monograph of
19 the regiment with a dedication. Unfortunately I do not have the book
20 with me, but if the Chamber found it necessary I would be willing to
21 forward it. He particularly stressed my professionalism and an
22 exceptionally fair treatment in a very serious situation for both sides.
23 That would be it.
24 Q. Just to clarify, sir, in relation to the weapons and side-arms of
25 the various UNPROFOR units, the French and the Ukrainian ones in your
1 zone, were they -- did the UNPROFOR personnel continue to have access to
2 the same at all?
3 A. Certainly. First of all, I wanted to say that I did not disarm
4 the officers. They kept their side-arms but they took out the bullets
5 from them and handed them over. Their personal weapons were left with
6 them, and if I believe it correctly under the Geneva Conventions officers
7 are guaranteed the right to keep their side-arms.
8 As for any infantry long-barrelled weapons, it was put in a
9 separate room and locked so that the soldiers did not have access to it.
10 The key of the room was with their commanders. It was a gentleman's
11 agreement, a show of trust between me and the UNPROFOR commanders unit,
12 both Ukrainian and the French one.
13 Q. Colonel, I thank you for answering my questions.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I have no further questions in direct
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you Mr. Ivetic.
17 Mr. Radojcic you will now be cross-examined by Mr. Groome.
18 Mr. Groome is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find him to your
20 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
21 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Groome:
23 Q. And good morning, Colonel Radojcic.
24 A. Good morning.
25 Q. I want to begin by asking you some questions about the giving of
1 your statement for this case. Now can we go to the first page of your
3 MR. GROOME: I think we have D535 on our screens. If we can
4 perhaps just go to the first page.
5 Q. Now it says here that you were interviewed on the 24th of May,
6 2013 and the 23rd of February, 2014. Do you affirm that those were the
7 days that you were interviewed?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now prior to the preparation of this statement, were these the
10 only days that you were interviewed?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And the document indicates that you were interviewed by
13 Milenko Dundjer. Did Mr. Dundjer interview you on both of these days?
14 A. Yes. The first interview took place in Novi Sad, where I reside.
15 That is when we met. The second more detailed interview was on the 23rd
16 of February in his office in Belgrade.
17 Q. Okay. And the document also indicates that Boris Zorko also
18 interviewed you. Was he present on both days?
19 A. He was present during the second interview in the Belgrade
21 Q. Now did one or the other of these men take a leading role in the
22 interview process?
23 A. The leading role in the process was in the hands of
24 attorney-at-law Mr. Dundjer. Boris Zorko served as secretary; in other
25 words, he was typing my statement into the computer.
1 Q. Now was there anyone else who's not mentioned on this document
2 who played a role in the interview of you on these two days?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Now, on the 21st of June we were provided with a note summarising
5 some details about meetings you had with the Defence team after you
6 arrived here in The Hague. It states that you met with them on five days
7 from the 15th to the 19th of June. Does that agree with your
8 recollection of what's happened since you've come to The Hague?
9 A. Yes, we were in daily contact.
10 Q. It also says in that document that "proofing is ongoing." So my
11 question to you is: Did you meet with anyone from the Defence team after
12 the 19th of June?
13 A. After the 19th of June, I went back to Novi Sad because there was
14 a break in the proceedings. I returned the next Tuesday, when I met with
15 Mr. Ivetic.
16 Q. Okay. Now while in The Hague, either the first time before you
17 went back or the second time, did you meet any other witnesses in this
19 A. Yes, we were in the same hotel.
20 Q. Can you tell us the names of all of the other people that you
21 know to be witnesses in this case who you met after you arrived in
22 The Hague?
23 A. The first one was Milos, I can't recall his last name. The
24 second person is Stojan Veljovic. The third person who was there for one
25 day only was Mr. Tusevljak. When I left, he went back to Sarajevo the
1 same day.
2 Q. And if I told you the name Skrba, would that refresh your name as
3 to the name of Milos?
4 A. Yes. Milos Skrba.
5 Q. Now it appears that your Karadzic statement, which you signed on
6 the 9th of December 2012, was used as a basis for the creation of the
7 Mladic -- of your statement for this case. Am I correct in thinking
9 A. You are.
10 Q. Now, in my review of the two statements, I see that some of the
11 evidence that you provided to the Karadzic chamber has been removed and
12 some additional information or evidence has been added. I want to look
13 at the evidence that has been removed.
14 Now, can I ask that we go in your Mladic statement, which is on
15 the screen, can we go to page 16 in the original and page 12 of the
17 Okay. To make my point, can you tell me what is the number of
18 the paragraph, of the last paragraph on this page?
19 A. 66.
20 MR. GROOME: Can we please advance to the next page of the
22 Q. And what is the number of the first paragraph on this page?
23 A. 69.
24 Q. Okay. So it would seem that paragraphs 67 and 68 have been
1 Now, could we please go to the -- the version of your statement
2 that was tendered in the Karadzic case.
3 MR. GROOME: That's 65 ter 1D02128. And the paragraph that I'm
4 interested in are on page 14 in the original and page 11 of the English.
5 Okay. There in the original we can see paragraph 67 and the first half
6 of paragraph 68. That's somehow disappeared.
7 Q. Okay. Now I think we can see the parts that I want to ask you
8 about. Now, paragraph 67 deals with the relationship between the -- the
9 Main Staff and republican civil authorities. I'm more interested in
10 paragraph 68.
11 Now this paragraph deals directly with count 11 of the indictment
12 in this case. It is directly relevant the question the Chamber will have
13 to consider, and count 11 charges General Mladic with taking UN personnel
14 hostage between the 26th of May and the 19th of June, 1995.
15 The first line of the paragraph that has been removed from the
16 statement says:
17 "On about 25 May 1995, my brigade received the order from
18 General Mladic to block and disarm UNPROFOR, namely the Ukrainian and
19 French Battalions, which were in my zone of responsibility."
20 Now, my first question at this point is simply limited to whether
21 or not you acknowledge that this evidence which was adduced in the
22 Karadzic case has been removed from your statement in this case?
23 MR. IVETIC: I would object as it misstates the evidence,
24 Your Honour. We just led that evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: About -- could you then please point us exactly to
1 the --
2 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I just -- I believe the witness from
3 what I can tell yesterday speaks English.
4 Q. Can we confirm that you do speak and read English; correct?
5 A. No.
6 MR. GROOME: I thought I saw the witness reading the transcript
7 yesterday. I'm concerned that any lengthy now --
8 JUDGE ORIE: No -- yes, okay. You do not understand any English?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I just -- Mr. Ivetic, you raised
13 an objection. The only thing I'm asking you at this moment, not to
14 further explain but to exactly give us the source you apparently were
15 referring --
16 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- to in terms of pages and lines.
18 MR. IVETIC: Temporary transcript page 4 --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just led it.
20 MR. IVETIC: Temporary transcript page 4.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. IVETIC: Lines 2 to the end of my direct examination.
23 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please.
24 We'll have to ask the witness to briefly leave the courtroom.
25 Could you follow the usher for a moment.
1 Could I ask the witness, what is on -- Witness, Witness, could
2 you please put on your earphones.
3 What appears on your screen to the right from here to the left.
4 What does appear there?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the screen which is on my
6 right-hand side, I can see the English version of my statement. To its
7 left is the Serbian version.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You have got two screens. You are talking now about
9 you see on the right screen; is that correct? And then that is a
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell me --
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The right screen is split. On the
14 right side, there is the English version and on the left side is the
15 Serbian version. On the left-hand side screen, I see what is probably
16 the transcript of this -- of these proceedings.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question. Thank you. Would you
18 please follow the usher for a moment.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 JUDGE ORIE: And could the witness remain stand by.
21 Mr. Ivetic, it seems that the issue is whether the specific
22 reference to General Mladic was led as evidence. You said it misstates
23 the evidence. I think Mr. Groome was focusing primarily on Mr. Mladic --
24 MR. IVETIC: That wasn't the question he asked, Your Honour. If
25 he asked that question I would not have objected. But he said that this
1 evidence, i.e., the factual scenario from paragraph 68, was removed from
2 this witness's testimony and statement and that's not correct. The
3 gentleman testified for several pages on the transcript on that very
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I said the first line of the
7 paragraph reads:
8 "On or about 25th of May 1995, my brigade received the order from
9 General Mladic to block and disarm UNPROFOR."
10 My first question is: Do you acknowledge that this evidence,
11 referenced to General Mladic, which was adduced through you in the
12 Karadzic case has now been removed from your evidence in this case.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Specific reference to General Mladic giving an
14 order. Is this evidence, is that the -- you consider that anywhere in
15 all those pages you find a reference to this order stemming from
16 General Mladic himself personally?
17 MR. IVETIC: I thought he did. Let me just take one quick look,
18 Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's why I asked for the source.
20 Perhaps you search for the word "Mladic" or for "commander" or
21 something like that.
22 MR. IVETIC: I apologise. The reference to Mladic on the phone
23 was just -- the question just before that, so I do not see Mladic
24 specifically referenced in the -- I -- I apologise. I thought that the
25 telephone conversation with Mladic was in relation to this question. It
1 was in the question prior. Here it just says "received an order" at page
2 4, line 23.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So it did not misstate the evidence.
4 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom again.
5 And would you be very cautious next time, Mr. Ivetic.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you may proceed.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Sir, let me repeat the most pertinent part of my question to you.
10 The first line of the paragraph that has been removed, paragraph 68 of
11 the Karadzic statement, says:
12 "On about 25 May 1995, my brigade received the order from
13 General Mladic to block and disarm UNPROFOR, namely the Ukrainian and
14 French Battalions, which were in my zone of responsibility."
15 And again my question at this stage is simply limited to whether
16 or not you acknowledge that this evidence was removed from the statement
17 that was tendered in this case, the case against General Mladic.
18 A. My opinion is that this is a printing error and quite simply
19 Mr. Zorko during the typing skipped these two paragraphs. Otherwise,
20 there's no reason to give up on this all together.
21 Q. So it's your evidence that there has been an inadvertent removal
22 of paragraphs 67 and 68 from your statement in this case.
23 A. I'm saying this because of the following. If we look at the last
24 version, we we'll 66 and 69. Had somebody wanted to remove paragraphs 67
25 and 68, he would not have continued with number 69. He would have
1 numbered the paragraph a 67 had this been a conscious intention, so you
2 wouldn't have even have noticed. Obviously this is a printing error or
3 typing error.
4 Q. So the fact -- your evidence that this is an inadvertent removal
5 is a conclusion your drawing because a person who wanted to remove it and
6 wanted to hide that fact would have done a better job than we've seen
8 MR. IVETIC: Object, calls for speculation.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- objection denied. Mr. Groome is at this
10 moment verifying whether he well understood the evidence as given by the
12 Please proceed.
13 MR. GROOME:
14 Q. Do you remember my question, sir?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you please answer it?
17 A. Well, I think that this is a printing error. The version of my
18 statement for President Karadzic had the following sequence, 66, 67, 68,
19 69, whereas the version --
20 Q. Sir --
21 A. -- of my statement --
22 Q. -- you've explained that already. All I'm asking you now is what
23 you're telling us, this answer, that's a conclusion that you're drawing.
24 You don't -- you're saying this was never discussed. Am I correct in
25 saying there was never a discussion between you and Mr. Dundjer or
1 Mr. Zorko about the removal of paragraphs 67 and 68?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you review the statement before you signed it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you acknowledge that the evidence contained in paragraph 68
6 would be important evidence in this case. Do you appreciate that fact?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now can I ask you -- while we have it on the screen, can I ask
9 you to read paragraph 68, and when you get to the bottom of the page
10 indicate that so we can advance the page so you can read the entirety of
11 the paragraph.
12 A. Now we can have the next page.
13 MR. GROOME: If we could please advance the page. Perhaps in
14 both versions.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've read it.
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. Now my question to you is whether after having read it do you
18 affirm that it is truthful and accurate?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And if I were to take the time to ask you the several questions
21 it would take to -- to lead this evidence, would you give answers that
22 were substantially the same?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, sir, the topic that's been dealt in paragraph 68 was raised
25 this morning by Mr. Ivetic, and you gave an explanation that went several
1 pages in the transcript. And my question to you is: Do you acknowledge
2 that nowhere in that long description and detailed description of this
3 event did you ever say that you received the order to -- to stop and
4 disarm the UNPROFOR, that you received this order from General Mladic?
5 You never said that here this morning, did you?
6 A. I did not mention that for a simple reason. This order came down
7 the chain of command; that is to say, General Mladic's order did not
8 arrive to me directly as brigade commander. Rather, it came through the
9 command of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and that is how it was sent down
10 to the brigade. That's why I didn't mention it.
11 Q. So was it a conscious decision this morning not to mention the
12 name of General Mladic because you say now you received this order
13 through your chain of command?
14 A. It wasn't conscious. I just wanted to be more precise in my
15 answer. I wanted to be more precise in my answer. It is true that this
16 order came from General Mladic through the command of the SRK.
17 Q. And, sir, isn't it a fact that the reason it's not in your
18 statement, the reason you didn't mention it this morning because in your
19 view that particular piece of evidence is unhelpful to the Mladic
20 Defence? Isn't that the truth of what just happened?
21 MR. IVETIC: Object as to the foundation of this witness knowing
22 what is helpful to the Mladic Defence or not. That's, I believe, a
23 decision for defence attorneys --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Objection denied, Mr. Ivetic.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. Sir, can you please answer the question.
2 A. It wasn't done consciously. It was just done for the sake of
3 precision. General Mladic's position on this question is very well
4 known, and I hope that he never concealed it either. After all, it was a
5 generally known thing about General Mladic's position after UNPROFOR
6 bombed our positions; that is to say, this is information that was even
7 carried in the media. So there's no reason to try to find some wish in
8 my answer to conceal something. On the contrary, I want to say
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, the Prosecution wants to tender
11 paragraphs -- missing paragraphs, paragraphs 67 and 68. I can do that by
12 tendering the entire statement, but I have asked Ms. Stewart to prepare
13 just a four-page document. It has the two signature pages plus the two
14 relevant pages, if that suits the Chamber.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think that would be more appropriate. But before
16 deciding, I would like to hear from Mr. Ivetic what --
17 MR. IVETIC: No objection, Your Honours. This was our 65 ter
18 number. We didn't -- never meant to hide this. I think you should have
19 the whole statement so you can see the comparisons of the documents to
20 see what in fact what the witness described as to his belief of how these
21 paragraphs ended up not in the Mladic statement. I think it provides
22 context, so I want the whole statement in.
23 MR. GROOME: I have no objection to that, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: The whole statement in.
25 MR. GROOME: So then I would tender, if that's acceptable to the
1 Chamber, 65 ter 1D02128.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether the number -- could you please
3 check on your screen whether the number is the number you mentioned
4 Mr. --
5 MR. IVETIC: It's 1D02128, I think.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see a 9 which.
7 MR. IVETIC: 1D02128.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I think we now have the accurate number on our
10 Madam Registrar, 1D02128 receives number.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Number P6611, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P6611 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just before we leave this matter I'm
14 informed by Ms. Stewart that the document uploaded by the Defence does
15 have redactions. Can Mr. Ivetic please explain what those are before we
16 move from it.
17 MR. IVETIC: I can, Your Honour. This is the statement that was
18 introduced in the Karadzic case with redactions that I assume were
19 ordered by the Karadzic chamber. We did not alter the document. We
20 presented the document that was used as evidence in the Karadzic case, so
21 we uploaded it in that form.
22 MR. GROOME: Okay. It's paragraphs 107 and 125 that are
23 redacted. May I suggest that we leave things as they stand and I will
24 during the break check and see rather than make an assumption about what
25 happened with those redactions.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We do not know about the reasons for the
2 redactions, so if you would first try to find out and then if it changes
3 your position we'd like to hear.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. Now, Colonel Radojcic, in your long description of what happened
7 between yourself and the Ukrainian and French detachments, UNPROFOR
8 detachments, you made it sound as if there was maybe some type of
9 agreement that you reached with them and I want to confirm that.
10 Is it your evidence that the Ukrainian UNPROFOR personnel agreed
11 to be prisoners of war?
12 A. Yes, they were aware of the situation and the commander of the
13 Ukrainian Battalion said to me: "I'm aware of the situation. If at all
14 possible, can I return my men to the base in Sarajevo?" And I said, "No,
15 from this moment onwards you are POWs of the Army of Republika Srpska and
16 I can just agree that this be done in a dignified manner so as not to do
17 any harm to the dignity of the Ukrainian army." And he agreed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please carefully listen to the question
19 that Mr. Groome is putting to you, is whether they agreed to have been
20 taken prisoner of war. Not whether they agreed about details of what
21 happened in that situation, not whether they were aware of that
22 situation, but whether they agreed that taking them, that they agreed
23 that they were prisoners of war.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This situation they were not in a
25 position to agree or disagree. I told them that they were POWs and I
1 explained why.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. And the same question with respect to the French. So they really
5 had no choice in whether or not they were going to be POWs; correct?
6 A. No, they had no choice.
7 Q. Now you said that the -- and you mentioned a French officer that
8 they complimented you on their treatment. When -- when did this happen?
9 A. This happened when this crisis was over, the crisis with the
10 prisoners. He came to see me as soon as he could, and since he was aware
11 of the situation in detail and my attitude and the attitude of my
12 officers towards the members of the French Foreign Legion, as a token of
13 his gratitude he said what I have already said.
14 Q. Now when they were freed, let's focus on the French Battalion,
15 they left your area in a bus and they went to Belgrade; correct?
16 A. No, these are Military Observers. In my zone, there were no
17 Military Observers. The members of the French Battalion had their combat
18 vehicles. They got into these vehicles and went to base. The vehicles
19 had been parked in front of the building where they were.
20 Q. And tell us the month and year, as best you can remember, when
21 this French officer returned to compliment you on what had taken place
22 during this crisis.
23 A. It is May 1995. I think that this crisis went on for about ten
24 days, and after that crisis he took the first opportunity to come and see
25 me and we had that conversation.
1 Q. And you said that he gave you some token of appreciation;
3 A. Yes, he gave me a monograph of his regiment, and in this book he
4 wrote a dedication and he thanked me for my professionalism and my wish
5 to have even the most difficult problems resolved to mutual benefit.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: One short question in the meantime, Mr. Groome.
7 Sir, you -- before you gave your answer about May 1995, you
8 looked into your papers in front of you. Did you find the date there?
9 Were you looking at a specific paragraph of your statement?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I just tried to find the exact
11 date because in my statement we have the exact date. I couldn't remember
12 the date right now so I couldn't find it, and then my answer was that it
13 was May 1995.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 MR. GROOME:
16 Q. Now, you made an offer to provide this -- this memento. Where is
17 it now? Do you know -- do you know actually where it is?
18 A. Yes, it is in my apartment in Novi Sad.
19 Q. Could I ask you that after you're discharged as a witness that
20 you provide it to the Defence so I may take a look at it. I would be
21 interested in seeing it. And if that's possible, I would appreciate
23 A. Very, very gladly. And if necessary, I'll send the original of
24 the book, but could it please be returned to me?
25 Q. Okay.
1 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, I'm about to move to another topic. I
2 see that we're very close to the break. Could we take the break a few
3 minutes early and then --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just wanted to follow up on Judge Fluegge's
5 question before we take the break.
6 You said you just wanted to find the exact date in your
7 statement. Did you find in it in the statement?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
11 We take a break of 20 minutes, and we'd like to see you back
12 after the break.
13 [The witness stands down]
14 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before we break I can confirm that the
15 Karadzic chamber ordered the redactions of paragraphs 107 and 125, and
16 that resolves the matter that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Any reasons known which can be discussed in open
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 MR. GROOME: [Microphone not activated] ... related to paragraphs
21 in the Karadzic indictment that had been dropped. So they were
22 considered no longer relevant to the case.
23 MR. IVETIC: Incidents that had been dropped.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whereas these paragraphs are about -- at least
25 one of them gives a title that it's about incidents.
1 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Are the same incidents dropped in the present case?
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I only have redacted from Karadzic so I
4 don't know what text lies underneath the redactions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then it may be interesting because you said we
6 are interested in the whole of the statement. If it was not relevant in
7 that case, it doesn't mean that it would not be relevant in this case.
8 So if you could please try to find out.
9 It is not considered to be a protective measure, it's just on
10 relevance, so therefore I think this Chamber can decide on the matter as
11 it wishes after having heard about these --
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just so the transcript is correct: The
13 paragraphs again are 107 and 115, and it is I that misspoke.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I looked at them. Perhaps we use the few minutes
15 for the one matter; that is, the reasons for the decision on the Defence
16 motion for protective measures for Witness GRM258 because the Chamber
17 stills owes the reasons for that decision.
18 The Chamber therefore will now deliver its reasons for the denial
19 of the Defence motion for protective measures for Witness GRM258.
20 On the 17th of April, 2014, the Defence filed a motion requesting
21 the use of pseudonym, image, and voice distortion as well as the
22 redaction of Witness GRM258's name and any other information in his
23 witness statement which might reveal his identity.
24 On the 1st of May of this year, the Prosecution filed its
25 response, opposing the motion.
1 On 8 May 2014, the Defence filed a request for leave to reply,
2 attaching its reply as an annex.
3 Following informal communication concerning the nature of the
4 reply, on the 12th of May, 2014, during the Pre-Defence Conference, the
5 Chamber put on record that it considered the reply to be part of the
6 original motion, that it would not further decide on the request to
7 reply, and it invited the Prosecution to file a response.
8 On the 16th of May, the Prosecution filed its consolidated
9 response, still opposing the motion.
10 On the 19th of May, 2014, the Chamber informed the parties that
11 it defers its decision on the motion until it has had an opportunity to
12 further hear from the witness in person.
13 On the 13th of June, the Chamber and the parties put questions to
14 the witness in court. Further submissions were made by the Prosecution
15 orally, and the Defence in written form, respectively, on the 16th of
16 June, 2004.
17 The Chamber has set out in a previous decision the test it
18 applies when considering whether to grant protective measures. The
19 Chamber refers the parties to its decision on Prosecution motion for
20 protective measures for Witness RM115 dated the 15th of August, 2012.
21 The Chamber considered that the witness had only expressed very
22 general concerns about negative consequences of his anticipated
23 testimony. With regard to incidents allegedly experienced by him, the
24 Chamber was, based on the information provided by the witness, unable to
25 conclude that the incidents were due to his previous testimony in the
1 Karadzic case. Consequently, the Chamber could not draw from these
2 incidents that testimony in this case would put the witness or his family
3 at risk. The Chamber concluded that there's no objectively grounded risk
4 for the security or welfare of either the witness or his family and
5 denied the motion for protective measures for Witness GRM258.
6 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons for its decision to deny
7 the protective measures sought for Witness GRM258.
8 We take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes to 11.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
10 --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be brought
12 in, I briefly address the following matter.
13 It's about the 92 ter motion related to Slobodan Tusevljak.
14 On the 12th of May of this years the Defence filed a motion
15 pursuant to Rule 92 ter seeking the admission of materials related to
16 Slobodan Tusevljak; namely, A, the witness's statement given in the
17 Karadzic case; B, a supplementary witness statement prepared for the
18 present proceedings; and C, six associated exhibits.
19 At this point the Chamber notes that the Defence did not attach
20 the witness's statement given in the Karadzic case to its motion. On
21 the --
22 [The witness takes the stand]
23 JUDGE ORIE: If you would have one moment of patience, Witness.
24 One moment of patience. I'm just dealing with another matter. It will
25 be finished in 30 seconds.
1 On 26th May of this year the Prosecution filed a response not
2 opposing the admission of the supplementary statement. It reserves its
3 position on admission of the witness's statement given in the Karadzic
4 case until it receives a complete, signed, and dated version of the same.
5 On the 2nd of June, the Defence filed a request for leave to
6 reply, which is hereby granted. The Chamber notes, however, that the
7 reply includes a witness statement which is neither signed, nor dated,
8 and encourages the Defence to address this issue before the witness will
9 give his testimony before the Chamber.
10 Having dealt with this matter -- and, again, apologies. Thank
11 you for your patience, Mr. Radojcic.
12 Mr. Groome will now continue his cross-examination.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, Colonel Radojcic, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of your statement,
15 you give evidence about the SRK being surrounded by an inner and outer
16 ring of the ABiH 1st Corps. Now I want to ask you several questions in
17 this regard.
18 First, the first sentence in paragraph 5 states:
19 "The command of my brigade had information that the SRK encircled
20 from the outside by the BiH army. My brigade held a front line facing
21 both the inner and outer ring."
22 My first question is: Do you know what the source of this
23 information was?
24 A. When I received my duties, the commander of the
25 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps informed me about the tactical and operative
1 situation of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. That happened in January 1993.
2 Q. Can you tell us the name of the person who provided you with this
4 A. General Galic.
5 Q. Now in your statement you don't specify a date, so my question to
6 you is: Is it your evidence that throughout the -- your tenure at the
7 Ilidza Brigade, you believed that you were surrounded by an inner and
8 outer bring of ABiH troops?
9 A. I must admit that my statement was not precise. When you say
10 encirclement, that means that you're encircled totally. My brigade was
11 in a semi-encirclement, to be very precise. If you look at the zone of
12 defence of the Ilidza Brigade, you will see that the only exit that my
13 brigade had was across Rajlovac, Vogosca, and then around Sarajevo
14 towards Pale and Lukavica. This is why I am saying that was not precise
15 when I said encirclement because it was not a total encirclement. We
16 were in a semi-encirclement, as it were.
17 Q. Well before your statement was admitted into evidence, Mr. Ivetic
18 gave you an opportunity to correct any portion of your statement. Why
19 did you not correct this part of your evidence then?
20 A. I can't be very precise in answering your question. I didn't
21 think that it was so important, so I didn't pay that much attention to
22 the whole thing.
23 Q. Now let's not --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just --
25 MR. GROOME: Sorry, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was it then your impression through the war that
2 the semi-encirclement was by both an inner and an inner -- outer circle
3 of the BiH army?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I can elaborate, if you wish.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. Thank you so much.
6 Mr. Groome.
7 MR. GROOME:
8 Q. Now let's not conflate your brigade situation with the situation
9 for the entire corps. As I understand you now, you're saying that with
10 respect to your brigade you were not encircled. You are now using a term
11 "semi-encircled"; correct?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And when you use the term "semi-encircled," you mean that you had
14 the ability to go in and out of the brigade without crossing enemy lines;
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Now let's go to the other use of encirclement with respect to the
18 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and what General Galic told you, as you've just
19 given evidence about.
20 Did he tell you that the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps is encircled by
21 an inner and outer ring, or did he tell you the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps
22 is semi-encircled with an inner and outer ring?
23 A. I think that the latter would be more correct.
24 Q. So it's now your evidence that General Galic told you that the
25 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps was not encircled but was semi-encircled;
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Colonel Radojcic, as a military officer, there's a big, big
4 difference between being encircled and something other than encircled, is
5 there not?
6 A. Certainly there is a difference. However, that difference is not
7 that drastic. If we're talking about the Ilidza Brigade, I had just one
8 possibility to leave that zone with my unit and with the people. If
9 Rajlovac had fallen or Vogosca for that matter, I would have been
10 completely encircled. The front lines were narrow and the distance to
11 the enemy was very short. It was a realistic that a hung over our heads
12 throughout the war.
13 Q. But the question is you're here giving evidence under oath, and
14 you're now saying that what's in your statement, something you reviewed
15 and signed very recently, is not accurate; is that correct?
16 A. Not precise.
17 Q. What's your explanation for using the word "encirclement" when
18 what you now say is the truth is you were semi-encircled. What's your
19 explanation for that?
20 A. The explanation is this. We had front lines facing the Muslim
21 part of Sarajevo as well. That's why our enemies were also behind our
22 backs. My brigade had its enemy on Mount Igman. That's why our tactical
23 position was very difficult or rather we perceived it as an encirclement
24 because there was just one very narrow passage leading towards the rest
25 of Republika Srpska.
1 Q. So, sir, what you're saying is now is you were not encircled but
2 you perceived it as an encirclement; that is correct?
3 MR. IVETIC: Object, Your Honours. And I would direct counsel to
4 look at the sentence in paragraph 5.
5 MR. GROOME: Is that meant for me or the witness?
6 MR. IVETIC: For you, sir.
7 MR. GROOME: I'm certainly aware what's in paragraph 5.
8 Q. Can you answer my question, sir?
9 MR. IVETIC: Can I get a ruling on the objection?
10 JUDGE ORIE: One second. But please, Mr. Ivetic. You make an
11 objection, you refer me to a paragraph, so I want to read that
12 paragraph before I give a ruling on your objection.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the basis of your objection is not clear
15 apart from that you object and that you advise Mr. Groome to look at
16 paragraph 5.
17 What now the objection is, because the question was about what
18 the testimony of the witness is now despite what he may have said or
19 has -- as what we find in his statement.
20 So I do not see exactly -- Mr. Groome explores what the newest
21 evidence now is.
22 MR. IVETIC: And Your Honours --
23 JUDGE ORIE: How he could get an answer from that by reading what
24 is not the newest but what is in the statement?
25 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, the testimony that Mr. Groome is
1 referring to, which begins at line 30 -- pardon me, page 30, line 16
2 through 21, I'm directing the attention to the last part of paragraph 5
3 which I believe is precisely this evidence that is being mischaracterised
4 by new by the Prosecution's question.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you -- if you would take out single words
6 then perhaps there is some corresponding things, but the main line of
7 questioning is clear. And based on the whole of paragraph 5, I would
8 deny the objection.
9 Mr. Groome, could you please proceed. Perhaps you repeat the
10 question for the witness.
11 MR. GROOME:
12 Q. So, sir, my question to you is: What you're saying now, which is
13 different from your statement, is that you were not in fact encircled but
14 that you perceived yourself to be encircled; is that correct?
15 A. Correct. My last sentence says our brigade had communication
16 with the rest of Republika Srpska only through Rajlovac which implies
17 that we were not completely encircled. I agree that in the first part of
18 the paragraph it should read that my brigade was in semi-encirclement not
19 in encirclement. I don't know how this happened. It's a mistake.
20 So, yes, it was a semi-encirclement. Because the last sentence
21 in this paragraph confirms what I'm saying. The only communication of
22 our brigade with the rest of Republika Srpska was only through Rajlovac.
23 This was the only exit or -- that we had.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could now, exactly, Mr. Ivetic, this is what
25 happens. You give a hint that the last line of paragraph 5 gives a clue
1 to the answer. And then the witness starts interpreting the word
2 "communication," which has -- could have many, many meanings, to be the
3 gap in what he described again and again as an encirclement. Therefore,
4 if there's any further objection, then before you object, you should ask
5 the Chamber to briefly pause and then we'll consider whether or not we'll
6 hear that objection in the presence or in the absence of the witness.
7 Mr. Groome, whenever there's an objection, you should immediately
8 stop and then I'll guide the parties through the situation.
9 MR. IVETIC: I --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
11 MR. IVETIC: I appreciate Your Honours' guidance. I just want to
12 again emphasise, the witness testified about this before I made my
13 objection. And the statement in -- in -- that is signed in B/C/S --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
15 MR. IVETIC: -- has this information.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- leave it to my -- my guidance is there. My
17 ruling is there.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Okay. Colonel, let's take a closer look at paragraph 4.
21 You say in paragraph 4, you talk about the ABiH 1st Corps having
22 a strength between 45.000 and 100.000 combatants which were deployed in
23 inner and outer rings.
24 So let me ask you now with this possibly different understanding
25 of what encirclement is, is it still your evidence that the ABiH
1 1st Corps had an inner ring and an outer ring of troops?
2 A. Yes, this is still my statement. The main forces of the
3 1st Corps of the BiH army were in the inner part of Sarajevo. You can
4 see it on the map. It's adjacent forces were behind the backs of the
5 Ilidza and Ilijas Brigades. They were deployed in Hrasnica,
6 Sokolovic Kolonija --
7 Q. Sir --
8 A. -- Butmir and Igman.
9 Q. -- we can't see the map at the moment. Before I ask you -- I'm
10 going to ask you to do some things with this map. Are we in agreement
11 that a ring, like a circle, has no beginning and no end. Can we agree on
12 the term "ring" before we proceed? Do we agree on the term?
13 A. But, of course, I agree with you.
14 Q. Okay.
15 MR. GROOME: Now could I ask that P3 be brought to our screens.
16 This is the Sarajevo map book. And could I ask that we go to page 54.
17 Q. Now, Colonel Radojcic, what's going to come up on the screen is a
18 copy of this map that we have in court. But obviously because of its
19 size it's a little bit difficult to work with on the screen, okay? Now I
20 was unable to work out looking at this map the rings that you describe in
21 your statement. Before I ask you to show us those rings, please stay
22 where you, can you confirm that this is a VRS map that includes the
23 greater Sarajevo area?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now with the Court's permission, I'm going to ask you to trace
1 with the pointer these rings.
2 Now please don't do anything until you hear my complete
3 instruction. Once you stand up to go to the map, we cannot hear what
4 you're saying, so I'm going to ask you not to speak. When I hold up one
5 finger, that's going to indicate would you please trace the inner ring of
6 troops. When I hold up two fingers, that's going to indicate that I'm
7 asking you to trace the outer ring. Okay?
8 Now in order for us to see this, can I ask you to go very, very
9 slowly. We'll be able to watch a close-up of what you do on our
11 MR. GROOME: And with the Court's permission and the usher's
12 assistance, perhaps we need to -- I see there's another set of earphones
13 there, but let's see -- no, we don't need them. Okay.
14 Q. So, sir, can I ask you to stand up and now trace very slowly,
15 let's do it three times, what you say is the inner ring of ABiH troops,
17 Sir, we can't hear you. We --
18 A. First I'm going to show the inner ring. We can see an
19 uninterrupted line containing the main forces of the BiH army. Around it
20 were the main forces of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps.
21 Q. Now, [Indicates].
22 A. And now I'm going show the outer ring and let me tell you
23 immediately that I did not invent that term "outer ring." Similarly to
24 the modified aerial bomb, it's not completely adequate. The
25 Ilidza Brigade --
1 Q. Sir, hold on. Just one second.
2 MR. GROOME: Could I ask the director to -- just to zoom out a
3 bit more from the ...
4 Can we see the map on our monitors again and see if it's zoomed
5 out. Okay.
6 Q. So, sir, can you now -- can you now trace the outer ring of
7 Muslim forces that encircled the ABiH troops that you referred to as the
8 outer ring of ABiH troops in your statement?
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'm inquiring: Are we somehow
10 recording the encirclements? I believe it's usual practice to identify
11 for the record what is being represented on the demonstrative exhibit.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, first of all, the video, of course, is part of
14 the record as well, so everyone could always see it. But we'll take
15 care, if you have any concerns in that respect, Mr. Ivetic, that it will
16 be done in such a way that there can be no doubt as to what the witness
17 pointed at.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
19 MR. GROOME:
20 Q. Okay, sir. Now the outer ring that you describe in your
21 statement. The outer ring of ABiH forces. Do it quite slowly so we can
22 follow the pointer.
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Please resume your seat.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before he does --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. GROOME: Yes, sure.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- I have a question.
4 In relation to those two rings, could you indicate where your
5 units were; in other words, the SRK corps including your brigade? Just
6 do the circle. Don't talk. Just do the circle.
7 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: So from what you've just done, it then means the
9 inner circle of the BiH did not encircle you or semi-encircle you. You
10 encircled. Am I correct? You were therefore not encircled by two lines.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you look at the map, you will
12 see the positions of the Ilidza Infantry Brigade.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will also see that --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse me, excuse me, sir. That's not my
16 question. From the lines that you drew, I see where you indicate your
17 units to have been is outside what you say is the inner circle of the BiH
18 units. I'm saying to you you were therefore not encircled by two -- by
19 an inner and an outer circle of BiH. You actually encircled the inner
20 one. Just yes or no. Do you agree to that?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Partly.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And what about the forces that were
24 behind my back?
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: You -- that's not my question and you don't ask me
1 questions. That wasn't my question. My question was just that you are
2 encircling the inner circle of BiH; is that correct? I didn't hear what
3 you said.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 Thank you, Mr. Groome. You may proceed.
7 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before that I would like to deal with the request by
9 Mr. Ivetic --
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honour?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes?
12 MR. GROOME: What I'm about to do now is to -- is now to get him
13 to do it in pen on the document that's on the screen. That was always my
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. GROOME: But given the size of it, I thought it would be
17 helpful for the Chamber to see a full-sized map. Okay.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll now do the marking on the screen and
19 then we have to -- I take it we have to zoom out, maximum --
20 MR. GROOME: I think we have the entire thing on the screen now.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I may have zoomed in myself on my version.
22 MR. GROOME: So with the usher's assistance, could we please use
23 a green pen so we don't confuse with the red and blue lines already on
24 the map.
25 Q. Sir, can I ask you now -- don't touch the screen yet with that
1 pen because as soon as you do, there will be a mark. I'm going to ask
2 you to draw the inner circle and then put a 1 next to the inner circle
3 and if you would just follow us what you showed on the large map. So
4 show us the inner circle in a green line with a 1 next to it.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Okay. Now can you do the same thing. You traced what you said
7 was the outer ring. Can you now trace that on this map before us. And
8 again mark 2 next to that outer ring.
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Okay. And that's -- you've made your marks. While we're here,
11 while you have the pen on hand, could I ask you to put a dot and a letter
12 R to show us where Rajlovac is, the location you mentioned in
13 paragraph 5.
14 A. Can I please go to the big map because what I have on the screen
15 is kind of blurred and the letters are too little. It's very hard for me
16 to see anything.
17 Q. Okay. So before we do that can I ask that we save this? So we
18 memorialize this, could this be tendered as an exhibit, your markings?
19 But before we do that --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. -- are there any other markings you want to make on this map to
23 represent the outer ring of the ABiH troops?
24 A. No. I have to apologise and say that I'm not familiar with the
25 outer ring in detail. I was a brigade commander, not a corps commander.
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, we have precisely -- I think in the
2 part that was shown on the video there was another section that was
3 indicated that I do not see on this electronic version that has been
4 marked, so --
5 MR. GROOME: This --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This is the --
7 In your marking, Witness, did do exactly the same with a pen as
8 you did on the big map before, or did you point at a portion also in, if
9 I could say so, in the south-easterly part of this map where we also see
10 blue and red dotted lines?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Before me is the map with a very
12 large-scale, 1:100.000; as to opposed to this map, and the scale there is
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's a --
15 THE WITNESS: And I can see things far better on it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter. Is it true then when you
17 were standing, did you also point at, when explaining to us where the
18 outer ring was, also to a part of the map which is more in a
19 south-easterly direction where we see the red and blue dotted lines as
20 well? Is that true?
21 Would you make that marking which you did before on the big map
22 also the screen at this moment? Would you add that to the markings you
23 have made until now on the screen with that same green pen.
24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Don't worry about -- too much about the details but
1 that at least you cover some of it.
2 Mr. Ivetic, is this what you had in mind? And there the witness
3 adds a portion --
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, and now I believe it comports to
5 what was done on the demonstrative exhibit and I have no objection to it
6 being tendered.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar this map marked by the witness would
8 receive number?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Page 54 of Exhibit P3 as marked by the witness
10 receives number P6612, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: P6612 is admitted.
12 MR. GROOME:
13 Q. Now, sir, recalling our agreement a few minutes ago that a ring
14 had no beginning and no end, it is true that the line that you have drawn
15 has two beginnings and two ends; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. It's not a ring, is it?
18 A. Not a full ring. The term "outer ring" is imprecise. The
19 definition of the inner ring is precise, but the definition of the outer
20 ring is quite imprecise as obviously there were interruptions in it.
21 Q. So it's a semi-ring. Is that what your evidence should be
22 understood? Where you said there was an outer ring of ABiH troops should
23 be understood to mean that there's such thing as a semi-ring of ABiH
24 troops. Is that how we should understand your evidence?
25 A. When I provided my statement, I relied on the term that was used
1 throughout the war, the inner and outer rings. I do understand that the
2 term "outer ring" is inadequate as it was interrupted. I agree with you.
3 Q. Now, the gap that is at the -- at the top, the top right quadrant
4 of that map, that's -- that opening would allow access to the
5 Drina Corps; correct?
6 A. Most likely.
7 Q. So someone could drive from the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps to
8 Zvornik and even straight on to Belgrade without ever having to cross a
9 front line manned by ABiH troops; is that correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And the other gap that you have at the bottom left quadrant,
12 after the operation Lukavica 93 that gave unfettered access between the
13 Sarajevo-Romanija Corps and the Herzegovina Corps; correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now you said a few minutes ago when I asked you about these gaps,
16 you said:
17 "I have to apologise and say that I'm not familiar with the outer
18 ring in detail. I was the brigade commander, not the corps commander."
19 Now in your statement, it doesn't say that "I'm not sure about
20 the outer ring, this is what I was told." It says quite definitively
21 that there is an outer ring made up of 45.000 to 100.000 troops, divided
22 between the two rings. It says quite definitively that there is an outer
23 ring of ABiH troops. Doesn't your statement say that?
24 A. [No interpretation]
25 Q. Your answer wasn't recorded or translated. Can I ask you to
1 repeat it?
2 A. I stated that the manning level of the 1st Corps was between 45-
3 and 100.000 men, depending on the period of the war, who were deployed in
4 the outer and inner rings.
5 In the inner ring there were the main forces of the 1st Corps.
6 In the outer ring at Igman there were auxiliary forces of the 1st Corps
7 of the Army of BH. That is what is contained in my statement.
8 Q. Now to follow up Judge Moloto's point, do you now concede that
9 it's not the SRK that is encircled but it's the ABiH troops within the
10 confines of Sarajevo, those are the troops that are encircled and
11 encircled by the SRK? Do you concede that point?
12 A. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. Now I'm going to ask you to --
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Groome, you were going to ask the witness
15 where Rajlovac was situated.
16 MR. GROOME: Yes, we're getting a better map. I'm going to have
17 to come back to that, if that's okay, and we have a map that I'll call
18 up. And I think we'll be able to do it in a few minutes that -- it's a
19 different map, though, and it will clearly show that location. Okay?
20 Q. So now before we finish with this map, though, can I ask you to
21 once again stand up and you'll see that I put two pins in the map. Now
22 one of the pins, it's in just to the left of the middle and marks the
23 village of Kozmatica, and the other one is placed at Colopek and that's
24 to the right of the middle of the map. Can I ask you without speaking
25 get up, take a look at those pins, where they are, and then return to
1 your seat and I'll ask you a question. And perhaps if you can put your
2 finger on the pin so the Chamber can see where ...
3 MR. GROOME: Maybe if the usher could assist.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I don't see any
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Let's --
8 A. Unfortunately, I was unable to see any pins.
9 Q. Okay. Let's -- don't sit down yet, please. Just walk over and
10 keep the earphones on, please. Look to the middle of the map. Please
11 keep the earphones on.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Witness, "Svedok." Could you please, Mr. Usher,
13 draw the attention of the witness to -- yes.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Groome. It means that everything is in
16 MR. GROOME:
17 Q. So look at the middle of the map. And then if you just -- okay.
18 Down a little bit lower. Now just look to the left there. Do you see
19 the red pin sticking in the map? Just a little bit to the left. Just
20 come straight towards the left. Okay? Your finger is now on Kozmatica.
21 Now go down to the right of the middle of the map, a bit further south,
22 go back to the middle of the map, and go to the right of the middle. Now
23 you have your finger on Colopek. Now you've put your fingers on both.
24 Okay? Now can you return to your seat. Look at the area in between
25 those two pins and please then return to your seat.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No loud speaking, Mr. Mladic. No loud speaking.
2 That's a simple instruction. If you want to communicate with counsel,
3 either you write a little note or you whisper at such a level that you
4 don't -- we cannot hear you.
5 MR. IVETIC: I believe -- what I was able to hear from Mr. Mladic
6 is that he is unable to see and he's asking for the areas to be marked.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. There's nothing wrong in what he wishes to
8 achieve at this moment.
9 Mr. Groome, may I take it that you will invite the witness to
10 make markings on the map on the screen now or not? Because Mr. Mladic
11 was at such a distance that he couldn't see it.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I can --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Where the pins are.
14 MR. GROOME: -- state for the record: Before court started
15 today, Mr. Mladic did have an opportunity to come up to the map with
16 Mr. Lukic. I asked Mr. Lukic to point out the two pins to him so he
17 would know what we're talking about during this portion of the evidence.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
19 MR. GROOME: I certainly have no issue with Mr. Mladic during the
20 next break coming back to look at these pins in this map.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Of course. The Chamber was not aware that such an
22 opportunity has been given to Mr. Mladic, but in view of that fact we can
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Now, sir, my question to you is: Is the territory between those
1 two pins - between Kozmatica and Colopek - that's area held by the VRS
2 army; correct?
3 A. I don't want to answer that question. I was the brigade
4 commander. These questions fall exclusively within the competence of the
5 corps command. I'd rather not answer those question, if I may.
6 Q. Well let me ask you --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, it's not your position. If you have any
8 knowledge that that terrain between the two points you just indicated by
9 looking at and pointing at the pins, if you know that this was under your
10 control of your army, then you should answer the question irrespective of
11 whether -- if you say I don't know, then that's a different matter. Then
12 tell us that you don't know. But it's not because of your position that
13 you should not answer the question. So do you know it or do you not know
14 it? And if you want Mr. Groome to repeat the question, the question
15 was -- yes, you know it?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer the question
17 conditionally only, because I can see on the map that there were no ABiH
18 forces in between. So my answer would be I can see on the map that that
19 part of territory was VRS controlled.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you only know it from the maps. You had
21 no idea that this in fact was terrain which was VRS controlled?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do know that it was so, but I am
23 unaware of precise details of the lines of separation. That is why I
24 don't want to go any further into the issue.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you know in global terms that that terrain
1 approximately was under VRS control which is confirmed on this map.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME:
5 Q. Now, sir, the Chamber has heard other evidence that the two
6 circles on this map represent the 20-kilometre exclusion zone that came
7 into effect in February 1994. Does that agree with your understanding of
8 what those circles are?
9 A. Yes, I am aware that it was the exclusion zone in terms of heavy
10 artillery assets use; that is to say, our assets.
11 Q. So the radius of that circle is 20 kilometres and the diameter
12 would be 40 kilometres; correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Using that as a rough guide, would you agree with me that the
15 distance between those two pins - between Kozmatica and Colopek - would
16 be in excess of 20 kilometres?
17 A. That is possible, but I can't be precise.
18 Q. Okay. Now, I'm finished with that map and now we're going to go
19 with Rajlovac.
20 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that we look at -- load up P3 and go to
21 e-court page 65.
22 Q. And, sir, while that's being called up, it may take a few
23 moments, can I ask you when you used the word "communication," were you
24 referring to communication lines travelling through Rajlovac or were you
25 referring to something other than that?
1 A. I was talking about going via Rajlovac or travelling via
3 Q. Now, can I ask you -- maybe if we could -- well, first, before I
4 zoom in on anything, can I ask you whether you would be able to indicate
5 Rajlovac on this map in its current projection? Without doing -- without
6 touching, just tell me yes or no because I want to know whether I need to
7 have it zoomed in or not. Would you be able to indicate Rajlovac?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Can I ask you to put a dot and next to it put an R to
10 indicate the location Rajlovac.
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. And can I ask you to put a dot and the Latin letters H and Q to
13 indicate where your headquarters or the headquarters of the
14 Ilidza Brigade was.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. Have you -- okay. I can see a dot. But can I ask you to put the
17 letters HQ next to that so we'll know that that indicates "headquarters."
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. GROOME: And just so the record is clear, it looks like
21 there's an H and a K there for headquarters. The Prosecution would
22 tender this as the next exhibit.
23 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Page 65 of Exhibit P3 as marked by the witness
1 receives number P6613, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Now, sir, let's me ask you this: It would appear that Rajlovac
5 would be the way out of --
6 A. I apologise.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. I was confused by the blue lines. In our system of markings we
9 use red for our forces and blue for enemy forces. This seems to be a map
10 of the Army of BH because the numbers are -- the colours are in the
11 other -- the wrong order.
12 Before I mark anything, could I get a chance to have a closer
13 look at the map in order to eliminate any potential mistakes.
14 Q. Sure. And can I ask you this: Does this mean what you've just
15 said that we should vacate that last exhibit and start again?
16 A. Yes. We need to remove my markings because I was confused by the
17 separation lines.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll vacate the exhibit that we just admitted and
19 we re-start this whole exercise. And, Mr. Groome, I would suggest that
20 we then zoom in on what seems to be here the numbers 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13,
21 14 which gives a detail of that part of town and the Chamber knows where
22 that is in relation to the whole of the city.
23 Madam Registrar, the number vacated is now P66 --
24 THE REGISTRAR: 6613, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- 13. And we re-start here. Perhaps we zoom in
1 first on the quadrants 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14. Like that, yes.
2 Witness, this is not a map of any army but it is a map which was
3 produced for the -- for the Tribunal.
4 Now in order to give you some guidance and if the parties
5 disagree, please let me know immediately, the red dotted line indicates
6 the -- where the positions at the front line for the BiH army were,
7 whereas the blue dotted line indicates the VRS side of those same
8 confrontation lines. And I think we should then also re-start that you
9 mark again Rajlovac.
10 Mr. Groome, could you take over here --
11 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- and ask the witness to again mark Rajlovac to
13 start with.
14 Q. So, Colonel Radojcic, before you make any other markings I just
15 want to confirm that you now have -- having looked at the map you are
16 able to orient yourself and you can accurately locate Rajlovac for us.
17 A. Yes, I can mark Rajlovac.
18 Q. Okay. Again a dot and the letter R.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Okay. I see the letter R. Is that right over the location of
22 A. The dot represents the central part of Rajlovac, the railway
24 Q. Okay. I see that now. Now could you do the same thing for your
25 headquarters. Put a dot and the letters H and Q.
1 A. I don't think I can indicate my command post on this map. We
2 would need to go further to the left in order to be able to find it.
3 Q. Okay. So can you help us by saying to the left of which of these
4 quadrants, 5, 9 or 13 would your headquarters be located?
5 A. To the left of quadrant 9. It would be to the left of quadrants
6 9 and 13. Those would be the quadrants I would focus on.
7 Q. Thank you for that.
8 MR. GROOME: And, Your Honour, could I now tendered this version
9 of the map?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The map now marked with Rajlovac, not yet with the
13 headquarters, that now replaces P6613.
14 Madam Registrar, could you confirm that.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. That would be number P6613.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Now, sir, this would appear --
19 JUDGE ORIE: And, of course, is admitted.
20 MR. GROOME: Sorry.
21 JUDGE ORIE: That is what I meant by replacing. But since we had
22 vacated it, there's nothing to replace. It is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Now, sir, the path between your headquarters and Rajlovac would
25 be going in a northerly direction; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, when you drew the outer ring --
3 MR. GROOME: And that's now P6612.
4 Q. And we can bring it up if you want to see it. Am I correct in
5 understanding your markings there that there was also a southerly way
6 that you could leave your -- your headquarters; is that correct?
7 A. No. One couldn't go south because the only exit in order to
8 communicate between Ilidza and Vogosca went via Rajlovac.
9 Q. Just let me take a look at paragraph 4. I didn't recall that it
10 was between Ilidza and Vogosca.
11 Now, so paragraph 5 - I'm sorry, it's paragraph 5 - it doesn't
12 say the only communication between -- between the brigade and Vogosca.
13 It says the only communication our brigade had with the rest of
14 Republika Srpska was through Rajlovac.
15 So now my question is: Could you not have gone in a southerly
16 direction from your headquarters and reach other parts of the
17 Republika Srpska through that gap in the outer ring that you indicated on
19 A. There were no roads which could be used for motor vehicles.
20 Q. So your evidence is that you could not go. Despite the fact that
21 there was a gap in the outer ring, your evidence is that you could not
22 traverse the area where that gap was?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. I understand now.
25 Now, in paragraph 7 of your Mladic statement, you say that one
1 objective of the VRS operations around Sarajevo was to block the main
2 force of ABiH 1st Corps from leaving Sarajevo and being utilised on other
3 fronts; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in paragraph --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, it looks as if you are now entering a
7 new --
8 MR. GROOME: Yes, sorry, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: -- area.
10 MR. GROOME: I do see that it's time for the break.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And I think we should take the break now.
12 Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes. You may follow
13 the usher.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break. If there's any need for
16 Mr. Mladic to have a closer look at the map, that can be arranged during
17 the break.
18 We take that break and we'll resume at ten minutes past 12.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 11.51 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.12 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We're waiting for the witness to be brought in. The
22 Chamber was informed that Mr. Mladic had an opportunity to look at the
23 map and where the pins were during the break.
24 Mr. Groome, will you further examine the witness on the southerly
25 link with -- through the southerly route from Rajlovac or from the
2 MR. GROOME: I may tomorrow, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
4 MR. GROOME: I need to do a bit of investigation.
5 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, there's one other matter that relates
6 to the pins. While examining it, the one of the pins did become
7 dislodged from the map and fall to the ground --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. IVETIC: -- which I gave to Madam Registrar.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I --
11 MR. IVETIC: So I wanted to put that on the record that I did not
12 want to reinsert it because I honestly did not see that there were pins
13 there in the first place.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And my follow-up report was that Madam Registrar
15 returned the pin to Mr. Groome and that Mr. Groome said that he would not
16 use the map any further and that therefore the removal of the pin had no
17 significance for the proceedings.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm glad.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Sir, I want to before we move on just perhaps take stock of where
23 we are now so far in your examination.
24 It seems that you acknowledge that evidence that would be
25 important in this case has been removed from the statement tendered in
1 this case. It seems that you now acknowledge that your evidence about a
2 double encirclement is not factually accurate. So what I want to ask you
3 is, is it a case that these are honest mistakes on your part or have you
4 come here to give biased evidence in an effort to help Mr. Mladic?
5 A. I can tell you that I really came with honest intentions, to tell
6 the truth. As for that problem that we had with the terms of
7 "encirclement" and "semi-encirclement," if you can find my statement
8 given to President Karadzic I think that it is the term
9 "semi-encirclement" that is used there. I would kindly ask you to do
10 that in order to resolve this dilemma. I was in -- at the military
11 academy I was a professor of tactics, and I really doubt that I could
12 have used the word "encirclement" instead of semi-encirclement. So I can
13 only attribute this to an unintentional mistake.
14 Q. So, sir, I have a copy of that statement in your language. I'll
15 ask the usher to give it to you, but I ask you not to look at it now.
16 During the next break take a look at it, and the first question I'll ask
17 you when we return is to show us where the term "semi-encirclement" is
18 used, okay?
19 MR. GROOME: With the Court's permission, could I ask the witness
20 be provided a copy of his Karadzic statement.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, no objections?
22 MR. IVETIC: No objections.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then be it given to the witness.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Now, I was beginning to talk to you at the break about
1 paragraph 8, and there you talk about the impact of the 1st Corps
2 breaking the blockade of Sarajevo and you say the following:
3 "If the BH Army 1st Corps broke out of the Muslim-controlled city
4 of Sarajevo, it would have had a major effect on the other fronts and the
5 course of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina because those forces would be
6 used on other fronts."
7 My question is: Is it your view that the ABiH needed the
8 1st Corps troops blockaded in Sarajevo on other fronts?
9 A. Since they also knew what the objectives were, political and
10 military of the Serb side, towards Sarajevo, during the second part of
11 the war they tried to get the main forces of the 1st Army of BiH out of
12 Sarajevo and to use them at different fronts.
13 Q. So am I correct in understanding your evidence that it is quite
14 possible or you believed that had the 1st Corps been able to leave
15 Sarajevo such an event would have resulted or could have resulted in a
16 different outcome to the conflict?
17 A. Whether it would lead to a different outcome of the conflict, I'm
18 not sure. But that it would have affected other parts of the front line,
19 that I am sure of. Because a mass of 40- or 50.000 armed men is
20 certainly relevant in terms of affecting the outcome at certain parts of
21 the theatre of war.
22 Q. Now if we look back at paragraph 4 of your statement, you say in
23 reference to the 45.000 to 100.000 troops in the 1st Corps:
24 "As needed, the forces were manoeuvred out of the city and vice
25 versa. This manoeuvring was carried out through a tunnel dug under the
1 airport runway or across the runway at night."
2 Is it your evidence that the ABiH was able to move troops in and
3 out of Sarajevo at will?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And one of the ways that they did this was through a tunnel that
6 was 1 to 2 metres diameter?
7 A. To the best of my knowledge, you are right.
8 Q. So the soldiers would have to go through that tunnel or come into
9 that tunnel in a single file; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then the other way was to run across the airport runway, a
12 path that left them exposed to SRK fire; correct?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. In your experience or your estimation, how many troops would have
15 come in or gone out on a daily basis of Sarajevo?
16 A. It is very hard to give a precise answer to that question because
17 the soldiers left town going to Igman and coming back when there were
18 changes at positions. They did not carry weapons then. They left
19 weapons at Mount Igman and returned without weapons so that it would be
20 easier for them to go back. How many people came --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you please focus on the answer,
22 whether it was with or without weapons.
23 Mr. Groome asked you to tell us from your experience or by an
24 estimation that how many troops that could have -- would have come in and
25 out on a daily basis.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's exactly what I wanted to
2 say. If they carry all their weapons and their full combat kit, then it
3 is much more difficult to get through. The very fact that they did not
4 carry these weapons shows that more soldiers managed to get out and come
5 back at a given point in time. What the exact number would be, I cannot
7 JUDGE ORIE: No. But let's take it one by one, Mr. Groome, if
8 you wouldn't mind. The tunnel. How many troops would you get through
9 the tunnel of 1 or 2 metres, as Mr. Groome put it to you and you did not
10 challenge, to go through that tunnel on a daily basis?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether the
12 interpreter made a mistake. Not 1 to 2 millimetres but 1 to 2 metres.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There is must be somewhere some confusion, but I
14 think everyone is talking about metres. But, could you tell us?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly the width and the height
16 of the tunnel limits the number of people who can get through that
17 tunnel. I assume that during one night or during the course of one day,
18 but they mostly used it at night because they were exposed to our
19 activity in certain parts, they would manage to get one or two companies
20 through the tunnel.
21 JUDGE ORIE: A company consisting of how many soldiers?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let's say the average size of a
23 company was 150 men, so during one day between 250 and 300 men could have
24 been transferred without any problem whatsoever without stopping the flow
25 of goods --
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers].
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- because we have to know that in
3 this tunnel goods were also being transported and even civilians who --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Apart from the goods, how would people move
5 through that tunnel which must have been of considerable length? Did
6 they crawl, did they -- was there any carriage on rails? What was it
7 that how they could get through?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never entered the tunnel. What
9 I'm saying, I'm saying on the basis of conversations with persons who did
10 move through that tunnel. As far as I know, people have -- had to bend
11 forward in order to get through. Also, they had the problem of
12 negotiating parts of the tunnel where there was lots of water and where
13 there was a shortage of oxygen. So it was not easy to get through this
14 tunnel at all. On the basis of statements made by witnesses or rather
15 persons who went through that tunnel, and I talked to them, that's what
16 they said. I think that they also used rail to transport goods.
17 JUDGE ORIE: If they used rail, do you know how many carriages
18 there were driving over that rail?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I don't have any
20 such information.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. So, sir, just a few minutes ago when talking about the military
24 since of all the troops blocked in Sarajevo, you said that -- that they
25 were certainly relevant in terms of affecting the outcome at certain
1 parts of the theatre of war.
2 So it seems that it would have been important to be able to get
3 those troops out, if possible. Then you've also said that those troops
4 could be moved in and out of Sarajevo at will.
5 Now you've just said that it was not easy to get through that
6 tunnel. My question to you at this point is: You're not being exactly
7 precise when you say that they were able to move forces in and out of the
8 city as needed. That's not exactly precise, is it?
9 A. When I said "as needed," I meant, first of all, that they
10 transfer these people when they were changing their soldiers at Igman.
11 Let me go back to that erroneous term, the external ring. So when they
12 exchanged these shifts, it was done through this tunnel.
13 Now the remaining people that they would get out in order to
14 involve them at other parts of the front line, I don't have any specific
15 information, but using military logic I can infer that I would use them
16 at different front lines, because the Sarajevo front was under a lot of
17 monitoring of the monitors, of the world public, et cetera, so it was
18 obvious that the Serb side did not want to resolve the question of
19 Sarajevo by military means. That is why they needed to get these
20 soldiers out of Sarajevo. 75.000 as far as I know. That is their
21 information. The 1st Corps had 75.000 mean. This is a major human
22 potential, and it would be a pity for it to remain untapped in Sarajevo
23 whereas there is combat going on elsewhere.
24 Q. So, sir, if they needed to get these troops out that had
25 tremendous potential for assisting them in other parts, if what you say
1 is true, that they can move them in and out as needed, do you know why
2 they didn't? Why didn't them simply take 40.000, move them out, send
3 them to another front? Do you know why they didn't?
4 A. They didn't do that probably because they were preparing
5 throughout the war to deblockade the 1st Corps. They tried that twice,
6 the last time in 1995, and they succeeded in getting the main force --
7 Q. Sir --
8 A. -- of the corps out of Sarajevo and -- yes?
9 Q. -- why would they need to break the blockade of the corps if what
10 you're saying is true, that they can move in and out as needed? Why did
11 they need to break the blockade?
12 A. Because in that way they would have opened a wide area through
13 which their forces could leave rather than having those problems already
14 referred to in terms of leaving through the tunnel.
15 Q. I'm going to move onto another topic.
16 Paragraph 9 of your statement you say in the second sentence of
17 that paragraph:
18 "Minor offensive actions were carried out at the beginning of the
19 war before the lines of defence stabilized and during the war outside of
20 the corps's zone on the order of the superior command; for example, in
21 the Nisici Plateau area and in Operation Lukavac."
22 So my question is: Is the reference to Operation Lukavac a
23 reference to Operation Lukavac 1993?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now the Chamber has recently heard evidence about
1 Operation Lukavac, how it involved the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, how it
2 involved the Herzegovina Corps, and its ambitious aims with respect to
3 territory. Why do you characterise the operation as "a minor offensive
4 action"? Why do you do that?
5 A. Because the role of the members of my brigade in those operations
6 was a minor one. The number of people involved in operation Lukavac
7 under the command of General Galic ranged, say, well, it was around 350
8 men. In my statement, what I meant was activities based on the decision
9 of the brigade commander; that is to say, when they took part in
10 operations within the area of responsibility of the brigade. I meant not
11 in larger scale operations than.
12 Q. Well, sir, you remember what I just read, and I won't read that
13 again. I'll read you the sentence before that, paragraph 9:
14 "The SRK and my brigade executed primarily defensive actions and
15 went on the offensive in the corps' area of responsibility only in the
16 initial stage of the war in order to improve tactical positions."
17 Sir, you were referring to the entire corps, were you not?
18 A. I'm speaking about the Ilidza Brigade and the participation of my
19 units within the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, when we did take part in these
21 Q. So do you wish to change your evidence about whether or not
22 Lukavac 93 was a minor offensive operation, or do you still maintain that
23 it was?
24 A. I did not say that it was a minor operation. On the contrary, it
25 was a major operation, a strategic operation, operative strategic
1 operation. So it would be absurd for me to claim it was a minor
2 operation. No. My forces took part in small operations such as, et
3 cetera, I mentioned Lukavac. But we did take part but we were not a
4 decisive factor in that fighting.
5 MR. GROOME: Can I ask that the witness's statement, D535, be
6 brought to our screens and that we go to paragraph 9 in both. I believe
7 it's e-court page 3.
8 Q. Sir, you have a hard copy of your statement, so you can get a
9 look at it a bit quicker than us. Take a read of paragraph 9, then I'm
10 going to ask my question again.
11 So, sir, you've just said Lukavac 93 was a major operation. Am I
12 wrong in reading it here that you've described it as a minor offensive
14 A. You must have misunderstood it. If you allow me, I'm going to
15 read out the statement and explain what the mistake is.
16 Could you please return the previous page for me because I don't
17 have that portion here right now. Please do enlarge it a bit. Thank
19 This is what I say in my statement:
20 "In the beginning of the war before the lines of defence were
21 stabilized, minor offensive actions were carried out and during the war
22 outside the corps's area of responsibility on the order of the superior
23 command; for example, in Nisici Plateau area and in Operation Lukavac."
24 The very name Operation Lukavac shows how big it is because in
25 military theory, operation, battle, that is the highest category of
2 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, to say that we should deduce from the name
3 that is called operation that where you said it was a minor offensive
4 action we should understand that to be a major offensive action is --
5 requires quite a lot from our flexibility, because the text clearly
6 refers to minor offensive actions and then refers to Operation Lukavac as
7 one of them. Now to say we should understand from the word "operation"
8 that it wasn't minor, then at least you put a puzzle before this Chamber.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second part of the sentence
11 "... and during the war outside of the corps's zone on orders of
12 the superior command," that is to say, minor offensive actions do not
13 pertain to actions outside the zone of the corps. It just means what we
14 did within the area of responsibility of the brigade. I thought that if
15 I used the word "operacija," operation, in Igman that that automatically
16 means how big it is. There are three categories of size. There is
17 battle; there is combat; there is operation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, let me stop you there. You say we may have
19 misunderstood it, but your evidence is that your involvement may have
20 been rather limited but that Operation Lukavac was a major military
21 operation. Is that your evidence?
22 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
23 MR. GROOME:
24 Q. Sir, it seems --
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. It seems that every time I ask you about some specific text in
2 your statement, it's not what it appears on its face to be. Before I
3 proceed, are there any other portions of your statement that you need to
4 correct, that you need to say you're not sure about, or that you need to
5 tell us -- you need to interpret it in a particular way to really
6 understand what I'm really trying to say. Is there anything else you
7 want to tell us about your statement before I continue asking you
8 questions about it?
9 A. I wouldn't change anything, not even in this text that you find
10 controversial. I thought that if I say "operacija," operation --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that is carried out --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- by operative forces and --
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- you were not invited to revisit the matter we had
16 just dealt with. Mr. Groome asked you whether any other portion in the
17 statement would need further clarification, correction, guidance in
18 understanding it. That was the question. Anything?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can respond that I don't know
20 what it is that the gentleman, the Prosecutor, will not find
21 comprehensible. That is why I am here to give an explanation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So you say I'm not aware of any other portion where,
23 as far as you can imagine, a further explanation would be needed.
24 Then, Mr. Groome, please proceed.
25 MR. GROOME:
1 Q. I want to change the topic now. In paragraph 26, you speak of a
2 number of topics including the fact that you sent regular combat reports.
4 Sir, just to avoid confusion can I ask you to take the Karadzic
5 statement which is to your right and turn it face down. We will have an
6 awful lot of confusion if you start referring to that statement here.
7 Just put that face down. That's the one that the usher just gave you.
8 Flip it over. We're not going to use that now today -- or not at the
10 The Mladic statement is to your let, the one that you received
11 yesterday. And I'm directing you to paragraph 26? You say in reference
12 to combat activity:
13 "I kept the superior command informed of all such instances by
14 sending regular and interim combat reports."
15 Now the Chamber has heard detailed evidence about the VRS system
16 of daily written and oral reports. I'm not asking you to go into that
17 now. My question is simply whether you sent regular and interim combat
18 reports on a daily basis?
19 A. As for regular reports, yes; whereas, interim reports were sent
20 as needed.
21 Q. Now, was there ever a time in your tenure from -- from the
22 beginning of 1993 to the end of the conflict that you were unable to send
23 a report to your superior command because of something that was happening
24 in the battle-field or some other reason? Was there ever an occasion
25 that you can remember that you were unable to send a daily report?
1 A. I exclude that possibility. The reports were sent daily. If I
2 was not there, a report would be sent by my deputy. It was the task of
3 the duty officer.
4 Q. Now, did you provide honest and complete reports of the
5 activities of your brigade?
6 A. Of course, that was my duty. It would have been a crime if I had
7 decided to misinform my superior command and I would have been liable for
8 that, if I had decided to misrepresent the situation in my brigade.
9 Q. Apart from misrepresenting, did you have to report on
10 unsuccessful tasks; that is, you were asked to do something and your
11 brigade was unable to achieve success in the task? Were you obliged to
12 report that to your superiors as well?
13 A. Yes, of course.
14 Q. So if you were asked to target, let's say, a mortar position at a
15 particular location and you attempted to do that but you missed it, would
16 that be something that you would have to report to your superiors?
17 A. If I was asked to destroy a target, I would have followed
18 through. It never happened to me that I received a task and I didn't
19 complete it. There was no need, therefore, to report on a failed
20 mission, especially if that mission was a combat mission. There were
21 some tasks I didn't complete, but those were never combat tasks. When it
22 comes to combat task, I always strived to complete them.
23 Q. Well, let me ask you the question theoretically. Let's say there
24 was a lesser commander than yourself who did fail in a task, would that
25 commander be obliged to report the missed target or the failure to his
1 superiors in his daily report?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In your reports, did you provide honest and complete reports of
4 enemy activity in your zone of responsibility?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So if your superiors read your reports, they would know in detail
7 what soldiers in the Ilidza Brigade were doing and what was going on
8 within the brigade; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now if I can draw your --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome could I ask for one clarification.
12 MR. GROOME: Sure.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier questions were put to you in relation to
14 targeting with mortars an object, and part of your answer was, well, it
15 was -- if it was combat activity, you never failed to achieve what you
16 had to do. Do you consider launching a mortar projectiles to a target,
17 would you consider that to be combat activity or?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, that would have been a
19 combat activity. Whenever you use combat assets and live ammunition, you
20 were in combat and such an activity is considered a combat activity.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So if you engaged a target with mortar fire, you
22 said you never failed to -- it haven't -- "it never happened to me that I
23 received a task and I didn't complete it." So that would be true then
24 for such a -- for engaging a target with mortars as well?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but I have to say that brigade
1 artillery was under my direct command, 76-millimetre cannons; 105- and
2 122- howitzers; whereas 120-millimetre mortars were in battalions;
3 whereas 82- and 60-millimetre artillery weapons were part of the company.
4 So if I had been given a task to use mortar and destroy a target, I would
5 have done it very successfully. I must say that mortars are less precise
6 as a combat asset than the artillery tools that I had at my disposal in
7 the brigade.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you would follow up and achieve your task
9 anyhow, even if, due to the imprecision, initially you would have failed
10 to hit the target, is it, because you said we would not give up until we
11 had done our task?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said that in my previous
13 answer. My artillery was deployed at places from which we had optical
14 visibility with all the targets that were given as targets to my brigade.
15 JUDGE ORIE: That's all nice. But you told us that you never
16 failed to fulfil a task, especially when it was combat activity, and you
17 confirmed that engaging a target with artillery would be such a task you
18 never failed to perform. That is how I understood your testimony. Is
19 that correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if -- and you hinted at the lack of precision
22 of mortars, for example, then even if the first projectile didn't hit the
23 target, then, as you told us, you would perform the task anyhow, so I
24 take it that you would then do that by the second or the third or the
25 fourth shot. Is that correctly understood?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Would that also mean that if an artillery projectile
3 falls at a certain location, which is -- well, let's say, near - you hear
4 interpretation? Yes - which is near to what you considered to be a
5 military target and if there's no follow-up hitting that military target,
6 that then apparently what was hit must have been the target. You
7 understand what I mean? Because if where the projectile landed was not
8 the target, you told us that you'd never failed to perform your task and
9 then hit the target with one of the next projectiles.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
13 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. I want to now turn to the topic of modified air bombs, and you
15 gave extensive evidence about that yesterday.
16 I want to break down my examination into different particular
17 aspects, so I'm going to ask you as best you're able to focus on the
18 particular aspect that I'm dealing with at the time, and the first aspect
19 is the destructive power of the modified air bomb.
20 Now I want to read you an excerpt from your Karadzic testimony.
21 MR. GROOME: And for Ms. Stewart's benefit, I'm on page 17. I'm
22 jumping a bit.
23 Q. I want to read you an excerpt from your Karadzic testimony and
24 ask you whether you stand by it.
25 MR. GROOME: This is the Karadzic case at transcript 31249.
1 Q. This is the question you were asked and the answer you gave:
2 "What kind of destructive -- actually, the destructive power of
3 these bombs, 100 and 250 kilos, is massive; correct?
4 "A. When we say contact-fuse aerial bombs weighing 100 kilos, we
5 have to know that the explosive charge accounts for 40 per cent of the
6 total weight of the bomb. The rest is the body of the aerial bomb. And
7 that after the explosion during which the bomb is fragmented, of course
8 this is massive. Yes, it's a powerful bomb."
9 Do you stand by that evidence that you gave before the Karadzic
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now that the destructive power you are referring to is the
13 destructive power of the air bomb. You're not giving any consideration
14 to the rocket's destructive power. Am I correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Now I want to read you a description of the destructive use and
17 capacity of these air bombs that we found in a technical document of the
18 ABiH Army which also possessed aerial bombs. I want to ask you whether
19 you agree with this technical description.
20 "The contact-fuse high impact aerial bomb is a classic highly
21 destructive aerial bomb intended for the destruction of facilities of
22 medium and large resistance, these being command centre buildings,
23 shelters, bunkers, bridges, railroad junctions."
24 Would you agree with this technical description of the capability
25 of an air bomb?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, for the record can we have the exhibit
3 number that Mr. Groome is quoting from?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
5 MR. GROOME: The ERN number is Y0145122, Y0145128.
6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, what document number is that on the
7 65 ter list for cross-examination that was provided to the Defence for
8 use with this witness?
9 MR. GROOME: Mr. Ivetic is correct. It is not on the -- the
10 document list.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It should have been, Mr. Groome.
12 MR. GROOME: I stand corrected.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it uploaded into e-court?
14 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. It was disclosed to the Defence,
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but --
17 MR. GROOME: If it's not, I can do that, Your Honour. That's my
18 error. I apologise to Mr. Ivetic for that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it now and then happens. We should try to
20 avoid that it happens too often. As a matter of fact, try to avoid it to
21 happen at all.
22 Mr. Ivetic, if you need further time for that to have a look at
23 it, but it might have not have done with the witness today, so therefore
24 if you need more time, then please tell us.
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. Now I want to return to your Karadzic testimony. When you
3 said: "... of course, this is massive. Yes it's a powerful bomb," you
4 were referring to a 100-kilo bomb. Am I correct that a 250-kilo air bomb
5 would be approximately or have approximately two and a half times greater
6 destructive capacity than a 100-kilo air bomb?
7 A. Certainly more destructive. But that doesn't mean that a
8 250-kilo weighing bomb has 40 per cent. The correct technical
9 information would be 35 to 40 per cent. I can't give you a more precise
10 answer as to how much more destructive would a 250-kilo-weighing bomb be.
11 Q. Now this quarter-of-a-tonne bomb, there weren't many bombs with
12 greater destructive, were there?
13 A. Are you referring to the armament of the JNA?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I believe you're right. There weren't.
16 Q. And you have seen the destructive capacity of a 250-kilo air bomb
17 personally; correct?
18 A. I had that opportunity. If needed, I can repeat its basic
19 parameters that illustrate that.
20 Q. No. I want to ask you a question that perhaps will help
21 illustrate the destructive capacity. You have been to this court
22 building several times. If a 250-kilo air bomb were to be dropped
23 directly on this building, would it destroy the building?
24 A. It would not.
25 Q. What percentage of the building would you say would be destroyed,
1 if it suffered a direct hit from a 250-kilo air bomb?
2 A. Since we're talking about contact-fuse air bomb, the principle of
3 its action is this: The ignition has a retardation, it is adjustable,
4 and it will all depend on how thick the obstacle is. The purpose of its
5 use is not to destroy and demolish but to pierce and then there is a
6 detonation whose impact destroys everything on its way. This doesn't
7 mean that it would demolish the whole building. It only means that once
8 it fell into the building, its kinetic energy would create a huge
9 pressure which would then destroy both the assets and the people who were
11 Q. So again my question is: What percentage of the building would
12 be destroyed in the way you described if a single 250-kilo air bomb had a
13 direct hit on this building?
14 A. It would destroy the entire wing on which it fell. So if it was
15 adjusted to destroy only the top floor, it would destroy the roof and the
16 top floor and it would damage everything below it. If the retardation
17 was higher, then it would go deeper. It would destroy the floor onto
18 which it fell and it would damage all around it. It would depend on the
19 material, whether it is reinforced concrete or some other material
20 resistant to the effect of an air bomb.
21 Q. Now you've used a term which we're having difficulty or the
22 interpreters are having difficulty interpreting and it's what is
23 adjusted. I think you mean that what is adjusted is the time between the
24 contact with the fuse and the time of the actual detonation of the bomb.
25 Is that what you're referring to?
1 A. Primer is made in such a way that the explosion can be adjusted
2 to one, two, or three seconds from the moment the bomb hits a building.
3 So when you set that time, the bomb will go on piercing through the
4 building until the moment it is activated and it is activated or the time
5 is set by you. There is deceleration depending on the target and the
6 material it's built from.
7 Q. Now yesterday you described three aerial bombs that you were
8 personally involved with. Do you recall what the fuse was set to in each
9 of those occasions?
10 A. I can't give you a precise answer because I don't know. My chief
11 of artillery did that with the crew, so I don't know.
12 Q. Okay. Now I'd like to turn -- now I want to focus simply on the
13 rockets that are used to --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome can I ask one matter for clarification.
15 MR. GROOME: Sure.
16 JUDGE ORIE: You started with -- talking about 100-kilogram bomb
17 which would, as you said, contain 40 per cent of its weight for explosive
18 material. And then Mr. Groome took you to the 250-kilo bomb. And then
19 you said, well, that doesn't mean that they have 40 per cent. The
20 correct technical information would be 35 to 40 per cent of weight found
21 in the explosive materials. I was puzzled by that answer and I'll tell
22 you why.
23 Usually if you take a larger container then the weight and the
24 material used for the container itself, if you make it bigger, becomes
25 proportionally less than the volume you gain inside that container. Do
1 you agree with that? If you have a small bottle, then the glass is
2 taking relatively more of the weight of the filled bottle than if you
3 have a larger bottle. Would you agree with that?
4 Now, why --
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see you're nodding -- you're nodding yes.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with that.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now why would that be different with a bomb?
9 If you make it larger, then I would expect the proportion of the volume
10 where the explosive is found to be higher rather than lower, similar as a
11 larger bottle containing more fluid relatively compared to a smaller
13 Could you explain to me why you nevertheless when talking about a
14 heavier, a larger bomb would take it that the explosive material would be
15 less in percentage compared to a smaller one?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the encyclopedias that I studied
17 and from which I learned, there is information according to which aerial
18 bombs contain 35 to 40 per cent of their total weight, so I can't give
19 you a precise answer. I can't talk about a 105-millimetre bomb and tell
20 you whether it's 40 kilograms or 35 kilograms because the literature that
21 I studied does not give a definition of that kind. However, logic
22 follows your thought and makes me think that you're right in saying that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You were first asked about a 100-kilos bomb and you
24 were -- your testimony was put to you whether the explosive charge
25 accounts for 40 per cent of the total weight of the bomb and then you
1 said you stood by that evidence. You didn't say it's wrong, "In
2 encyclopedia I read that it was 35 to 40." But when talking about larger
3 bombs, you said it doesn't mean that it's 40. It could be anything
4 between 35 and 40. It could be anything 45 and 45, which was missing
5 logic for me. And you've tried to explain that. But your first answer
6 was that you stood by the 40 per cent that was read out to you as your
7 previous testimony. Any comment on that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but -- I said that, but that
9 would have been an average value, between 35 and 40. That's why I said
10 40 per cent. And I agree totally with the way you are thinking, which is
11 that logic could lead us to a weight of 250 kilograms for a bomb.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The reason why I'm asking is because you start at 40
13 per cent. We're talking about larger bombs and you are reducing the
14 explosive power, more or less, by saying it was 35 to 40 per cent, not
15 necessarily 40 per cent. Whereas, my logic would tell me that the
16 explosive power would increase, and perhaps considerably increase, and
17 you agree with the logic of that. So I'm puzzled by why in your answers
18 you go down in explosive power, relatively, whereas you agree the logic
19 telling you that it should go up. That's the reason why I asked you
20 those questions. If you want to comment on it, please do so. Otherwise,
21 we'll proceed.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I just wanted to be more
23 precise, and I said that that's -- that was 35 to 40 per cent. Perhaps
24 this aerial bomb has 45 per cent. I'm not saying this is correct or not.
25 I wanted to be more precise which is why I offered an average or a median
1 value of 35 to 40 per cent. It was not my intention to reduce its
2 explosive power in any way because it a powerful asset.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Groome, I'm looking at the clock. We are
4 one or two minutes from a point where we would take a break. I don't
5 know --
6 MR. GROOME: It would be fine to take the break now, Your Honour.
7 And I would just say that Ms. Stewart has graciously uploaded that
8 document we were speaking about. It's now under 65 ter 30874 should
9 Mr. Ivetic and the Chamber wish to take a look at it.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information.
11 Could the witness be escorted out the courtroom.
12 We take a break of 20 minutes, Witness, and we'd like to see you
13 back after that.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 20 minutes past 1.00.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Oh. 30 minutes. Half past.
18 --- Recess taken at 1.10 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 1.33 p.m.
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, while we're waiting for the witness if
21 I could correct a misstatement that I made on the record.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please.
23 MR. GROOME: In reference to that document, which is 30874, I
24 have incorrectly characterised it as the ABiH assessment of its own air
25 bomb. What is, in fact, is the ABiH's Army assessment of the air bombs
1 which were -- held by the VRS. So it's their assessment of VRS weaponry.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Now, if I remember well, but I'm also looking at
3 you, Mr. Ivetic, the portion that was read, that the meaning of it was
4 not influenced as a matter of fact by whom was commenting on -- on whose
5 equipment, so therefore I'm just looking at you as well to see whether we
6 can leave it to what Mr. Groome just said.
7 MR. IVETIC: That's my recollection of the part that was cited as
8 well. But again, the provenance of a document is always necessary to be
9 known what -- what the scientific value of the same is or what the weight
10 attributed to it is.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. That's -- but that's a matter which is
13 apart from the question that was put to the witness where it was just a
14 quote which was given.
15 Mr. Groome, please proceed.
16 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Now, Colonel Radojcic I want to focus on Plamen rockets and that
18 component of a modified aerial bomb.
19 Now, in your Karadzic testimony at T31251 you state:
20 "We used rockets that were used by the Plamen
21 multi-rocket-launcher. They were used as the fuelling agent."
22 Do you stand behind that?
23 A. Unfortunately, not completely. Later on I found out that there
24 is a Grom variant. I'm not sure. Believe me, I'm an infantry officer.
25 I spoke about this. I said that there were some rockets, but it is
1 possible now there are Grom-type and Plamen-type. So my statement in
2 that regard was perhaps not fully correct. Also the number. I mentioned
3 four then, but later on I found out that it was three, as in three
5 MR. GROOME: I see Mr. Ivetic on his feet.
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. I'd like to enquire: During the
7 Prosecution's case in-chief when we were presenting prior testimony, it
8 was our obligation to upload the same in e-court and have it up on the
9 screen so that everyone could follow. It's my understanding that this
10 transcript is number 30850 on the Prosecution's list, and I'm wondering
11 why we're not following the same procedure. I have a paper copy and am
12 able to get to it, but it does take me some time to locate the page
13 numbers when the Defence had an obligation to put it up on the screen.
14 So I'm just wondering what Your Honours' guidance on that would be.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I think there are two issues. The one is
16 to have the prior statement on the screen if you want to present that as
17 evidence, and at the same time the Chamber guided the Prosecution not to
18 introduce under Rule 92 ter portions of the previous statement by the --
19 by the witness. So there may be some confusion about what now should
20 guide the Prosecution. But I think there's nothing wrong on having and
21 even would preferable to even if a portion of a previous testimony is put
22 to the witness to have that portion on the screen.
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. Because I recall Your Honour
24 specifically wanted the context of what was before and after.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
1 Mr. Groome.
2 MR. GROOME: I apologise. I think if we could have 65 ter 30850
3 or does Ms. Stewart have -- Ms. Stewart has it available. If we could
4 put it on the ...
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MR. GROOME: So it's in e-court -- 65 ter 30850 and it's on
7 e-court page 44, line 24. Okay. So the Chamber will be able to look at
8 that, Mr. Ivetic will be able to look at that. So we can proceed.
9 Q. You've made these qualifications to that prior testimony, and my
10 question in follow-up to that is: Of the three air bombs that you say
11 you fired from your brigade, were they all Plamen rockets or did they
12 have a combination of Plamen rockets and Grom rockets as well?
13 A. I think that all of them were Plamen. Later on I read in
14 literature that Grom was used too, but I think it's Plamen.
15 Q. So as far as you're personal knowledge about the weapons that
16 were sent up from your brigade, they were all Plamen rockets; is that
18 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I'm a bit puzzled by the phrase "they
20 were used as the fuelling agent."
21 Witness, do I have to understand this as they were used as the
22 propelling agent or -- I have some difficulty in understanding how
23 rockets can be fuel or fuelling agents, whereas I could understand that
24 rockets are propelling agents for the bomb if attached to that bomb.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right. The fuse
1 is on the top and it is activated as I have already mentioned.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, there may be now another confusion
3 between fuses and fuelling --
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, may I suggest --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. GROOME: I'm going to go through in tremendous --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then --
8 MR. GROOME: -- detail all the different components. Perhaps it
9 might assist the Chamber --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. GROOME: -- to let me do that first.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you please do so.
13 Q. So, Colonel Radojcic, I want to tell you my understanding of a
14 Plamen multi-rocket-launcher and then ask you to either correct me or say
15 that I have it right.
16 Now, I understand that a Plamen multi-rocket-launcher consists of
17 32 128-millimetre rockets that can be fired in rapid succession; is that
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now my information is that they could be set to fire these 32
21 rockets in -- anywhere between six seconds to roughly 20 seconds. Does
22 that sound roughly accurate?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Your agreement is not recorded, sir, if you nod.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that is correct but I
25 would kindly ask you to bear in mind that these questions are way too
1 professional for me. These are questions for an artillery officer,
2 whereas I'm an infantry officer. Perhaps these are even questions for an
3 expert. So I kindly ask you to ask me questions about things that you
4 assume that I may know about.
5 MR. GROOME:
6 Q. I appreciate that you're assisting us and this is not your field
7 of expertise, but to the extent you are able to tell us that you roughly
8 know or that certainly is helpful. These rockets are launched from a
9 special launcher that sometimes is -- is mounted to the back of a trailer
10 or a large vehicle; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And this launcher has tubes; correct?
13 A. That's right, 32 of them.
14 Q. And the rocket is aimed by calibrating the elevation angle as
15 well as the bearing of those tubes; correct?
16 A. Yes. There's a range finder and also -- I mean, that is for
17 setting the distance and the elevation. And you've been referring to the
18 azimuth and that means actually setting the angle. So we're basically
19 referring to the same thing, artillery protractor.
20 Q. And just to be clear, there are two adjustments - one up and
21 down, and the other laterally - to aim those tubes; correct?
22 Again we need to have you say something to be recorded on the
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. And they have a range of about 8 kilometres; is that correct? Or
1 if you know.
2 A. As far as I remember, yes.
3 Q. And the -- the designed usage of the Plamen rocket system is to
4 suddenly and very significantly attack front line troops; is that
6 A. Yes. One multiple rocket-launcher, when it is fired fully, it
7 covers 300, 400 metres, by 300, 400 metres. So that is a platoon, as far
8 as defence is concerned.
9 Q. And am I correct in thinking that the tubes are not aimed
10 individually but the entire casing that holds the 32 tubes is -- is
11 manoeuvred in order to aim the rockets? Again, we would need you to ...
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. If a single rocket were to land on an average-sized home that we
14 may all have seen in the Sarajevo area, would it have the destructive
15 capacity to destroy that home?
16 A. No. Because the fuse of a multiple rocket-launcher acts
17 momentarily. It is quite different than that of an air bomb. So the
18 very instant when it touches the surface it is activated and that is why
19 it is intended for destroying manpower, personnel, as opposed to air
20 bombs. We've already discussed that, what that is used for.
21 Q. Okay. Now prior to launching the Plamen rockets, they're all
22 loaded into the tubes; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, if an entire salvo is being fired. Sometimes only five or
24 ten rockets are being fired. But if it's an entire salvo within the
25 time-frame that you referred to, then all rockets are placed in tubes.
1 Q. So that when the rocket engine ignites, the projectile is forced
2 out of the tube in a path controlled by the tube?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So it's analogous to a bullet being placed in the chamber of a
5 long-barrelled weapon and being fired. The path of the barrel controls
6 the path of the bullet; am I correct?
7 MR. IVETIC: Objection, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: Shall I give the reasons?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you can do that without hinting at the
11 content of the testimony but just in legal terms, then ...
12 MR. IVETIC: Yeah. Calls for speculation and asserts matters not
13 in evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before deciding on the objection, is there any
17 dispute between the parties that barrels of weapons, especially if they
18 are longer, are designed to guide the projectile to the aimed target?
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes there is, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ORIE: You say that there's not a --
21 MR. IVETIC: There is -- there is a distinction, and I don't want
22 to go into technical terms, but I would not say that that's correct.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then I'll rule on the --
24 Mr. Groome, you are invited to put the question in such a way
25 that -- and always to find out first what the witness's knowledge about
1 technical aspects is. And then on every and each matter the Chamber will
2 consider whether or not, if the witness has difficulties in answering the
3 question, whether we would allow you to proceed or not.
4 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. GROOME:
7 Q. Sir, according to your statement you were an instructor both in
8 the VRS Military Academy and then also in Belgrade; is that correct?
9 A. At the air force academy in Rajlovac until the beginning of the
10 war. But my unit was relocated to Belgrade when the war started. And
11 then I was transferred to the Military Academy for Land Forces, and I
12 taught one semester there.
13 Q. Now based on being an instructor and based on being a brigade
14 commander, do you feel yourself competent to be able to give me an answer
15 to a question which asks whether the path of a bullet is controlled by
16 the barrel it travels down?
17 A. Certainly.
18 Q. Then can you please answer that question. Does it in fact
19 control --
20 A. If we want to be more accurate in this answer, perhaps it's
21 better to compare a mortar barrel to the barrel of a multiple
22 rocket-launcher, because a mortar can have a barrel of 60-millimetres,
23 82-millimetres, 120-millimetres, et cetera. The barrel is lowered and
24 then it is fired and ballistics laws are in play just like in the case of
25 Plamen except that the trajectories are different between the two.
1 Q. So I agree with you --
2 A. If I was clear.
3 Q. I agree with you that perhaps is the better example, so do I
4 understand correctly that the tube of a mortar functions -- well, let me
5 reverse it, please.
6 The tube of the Plamen rocket-launcher functions very much as the
7 tube of a mortar. It aims the path that the projectile will take.
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Now the individual rockets do not have guidance systems; correct?
10 A. I don't know what you mean by guidance systems.
11 Q. They don't have the same technology that maybe a Tomahawk missile
12 would have that would carry it to a specific location. The tube is
13 simply aimed and the rocket is fired; correct?
14 A. That's right. And it is based on the rules of ballistics. So
15 they have a ballistic trajectory.
16 Q. And each individual rocket has its own individual warhead;
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Am I correct that when a rocket fires from the launcher, the
20 launcher vibrates in response to the force of the rocket igniting?
21 A. We don't call that vibration. We call it trigger. But that
22 happens after the rocket leaves the tube. So that moment when it leaves
23 the tube, the rocket, I mean. I think that it is Newton's third law,
24 that is when this happened, but that is once the rocket has left the tube
25 and that is why it does not affect precision otherwise it would be
2 Q. Is that why the rockets, although they fire in quick succession,
3 they don't fire simultaneously, to allow that trigger effect to settle
4 before the next rocket is fired?
5 A. I assume that that is the case. But I'm not sure.
6 Q. Do you agree with me that the Plamen rocket system is not
7 designed to fire rockets simultaneously?
8 A. I don't think that they can all be fired at the same time. I
9 mean, in the same second. There has to be a certain time interval
10 involved, as you mentioned at the outset. I think it was six seconds or
11 something like that. At least that's what I observed. And I don't think
12 I ever saw anything different. I think that would be an accurate answer.
13 Q. I now want to focus on the air bomb itself. And we've heard from
14 you yesterday that the 250-kilo air bomb was designed as a weapon to be
15 dropped from overhead by a plane flying over its target; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. It has no independent propulsion system; correct?
18 A. No, it does not.
19 Q. It has no guidance system; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. It hits its target by the force of gravity and the accuracy is
22 determined by when it is dropped and from how high; is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Now I want to shift to building the air bomb, the modified air
1 Now, to create a modified air bomb, a rocket -- or multiple
2 rockets were attached to either a 100-kilo or a 250-kilo air bomb;
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. How many rockets would be attached to a 100-kilo air bomb?
6 A. I didn't have them in my brigade, but as far as I know one rocket
7 would have sufficed to propel such a bomb.
8 Q. How many would be attached to a 250-kilo bomb?
9 A. Three rockets.
10 Q. And that would be three Plamen rockets in the context of your
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now would you agree --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, could I seek clarification.
15 About the 100-kilo. You said as far as you know, did you say one
16 rocket would have sufficient power to propel such a bomb or ...?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I did not have those bombs,
18 but I believe that it was launched with only one rocket.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 Please proceed.
21 MR. GROOME:
22 Q. Now, sir, would you agree with me that rockets were attached to
23 the air bombs using two general methods. The first one was to screw the
24 rocket into the back of the air bomb itself?
25 A. I must admit that I did not inspect that at close range but it is
1 possible. I'm not sure. I don't know how it was attached.
2 Q. Okay. The other way of attaching, which I believe is the way
3 that was done in your brigade, was to use a welded frame to attach the
4 rockets around the outside of the air bomb; is that correct?
5 A. As I said in my previous answer, I can't answer because I did not
6 inspect those bombs. When they were launched, I would be standing some
7 20 to 30 metres away from them and I did not really inspect them at close
9 Q. Do you know if when they were attached that they were attached
10 with their warheads intact?
11 A. Yes. You can't touch it. It's full of TNT. You can't remove it
12 and then return it. It's impossible.
13 Q. Now yesterday you told us that the Ilidza Brigade built its own
14 launchers. My first question in this regard is: How many launchers did
15 you build?
16 A. We built one launcher.
17 Q. And yesterday at transcript 23044 you said:
18 "Rocket-launchers were manufactured by us based on sketches we
19 received from our superior command. The basis -- or the base was
20 actually a truck with a back that could be lifted up and down."
21 My question to you is: Did your superior command specify the
22 type of truck that needed to be used?
23 A. As far as I know, we used the trucks that had a hydraulic lifting
24 mechanism that already existed and created an elevation. I don't think
25 that they prescribed the make of lorries. There was an expert team in
1 Energoinvest, which was a company, a team of engineers. They were
2 provided with drawings and they dealt with that. I don't know anything
3 about that, but I know that a team of top-notch experts were gathered
4 round that problem in order to deal with it.
5 Q. Now, did your superior command provide with you any specialised
6 parts to make the launcher or was it simply the drawings and that
7 materials that could you acquire locally could be manufactured to create
8 the launcher?
9 A. We used drawings and then a manufacturer would find appropriate
10 materials and proceeded to craft such a launcher based on the sketches
11 provided to them.
12 Q. So there were no specialised parts that were provided from the
13 superior command, just the drawings?
14 A. At the outset, I said that that was not my primary task. I had
15 my assistant for logistics who dealt with that issue. I just received
16 reports informing me that we received bombs and a launcher. That's what
17 I was concerned with. The technology, the crafting of the launcher and
18 the bombs was within the purview of my assistant for logistics.
19 Q. Okay. Do you know what the track was made or what the rails that
20 the -- the bomb would -- would lift off? Do you know what that was made
22 A. I know that there were rails on the launcher. I don't know how
23 the rails were lifted, what kind of mechanism was used to elevate them.
24 I don't know.
25 Q. I'm going to ask that you now look at a video of a rocket and a
1 rocket-launcher. We'll -- according to the practice in this trial that
2 we've been following, we'll play it twice to ensure the accuracy of the
3 interpretation or the language on the video.
4 After the second time that it's played, I'll ask you some
5 questions about it, okay?
6 MR. GROOME: And this is 65 ter 22344.
7 [Video-clip played]
8 MR. GROOME: So we'll now watch it one more time and we should,
9 at least those of who don't speak Serbian, B/C/S, will hear the
11 [Video-clip played]
12 THE INTERPRETER: [Voice-over] "21st Sabotage Detachment has
13 invented, realised, and demonstrated in practice the use of artillery for
14 sabotage purposes. 21st Sabotage Detachment was the first to use a
15 mobile rocket-launcher in combat
17 "The exceptional strength of the detachment's fire-power is shown
18 by the possibility to launch 18 250-kilo bombs in a one 5-second burst of
19 fire as well as 152, 57-millimetre rockets."
20 MR. GROOME:
21 Q. Now I have a few questions to follow up on this.
22 The air bombs that we see in this video, do you recognise them as
23 either being 250 kilo or 100 kilo?
24 A. I believe that what we saw were 100-kilo bombs.
25 Q. Okay. And as I understand your evidence, you did not have this
1 specific type of modified aerial bomb in the Ilidza Brigade; is that
3 A. Correct. We didn't have either bombs or a launcher of this kind
4 to launch them. I believe that we saw five launching pads. We only had
5 one. This is actually the first time I've seen anything like that.
6 Q. And would the launcher that you had, recognising it only had one
7 set of rails, would it operate according to the same principles generally
8 that we've seen here on this video?
9 A. Yes, the principle would be the same.
10 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 22344.
11 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we object. The witness has not
12 authenticated that such a launcher was known to him, that he has
13 knowledge of how it operates, or that he had it in his possession. So we
14 still don't know -- the foundation for this video has not been laid by
15 the Prosecution.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome.
17 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I simply offer it to -- the witness has
18 said that it demonstrates the similar principles as the launcher that he
19 used. There are not a lot of videos of rocket-launchers in use, so I
20 believe it does have relevance for this Chamber's determination of facts
21 related to air bombs, and on that basis I tender it.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied. The witness testified as
24 to what he saw on the screen was operating in a way similar to what he
25 experienced within his own brigade with his aerial bombs.
1 Please proceed.
2 MR. GROOME:
3 Q. Now --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Number still has to be' signed.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Document 22344 receives number P6614,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
8 MR. GROOME:
9 Q. Now, sir, I'm going to -- as you've just heard me say, there is
10 not a lot of video of this munition. I'm going to show you the remnants
11 of the other type of modified aerial bomb to see whether you recognise
13 So could I ask that we play 65 ter 30857a, and this is from video
14 V000-4586, time code 1 minute 9 seconds to 1 minute 41 seconds.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 "It was surprising. It was a new Serb concoction, cobbled
17 together from the engines of 122-millimetre rockets with a warhead
18 designed to explode in the air. A highly inaccurate weapon designed
19 solely to wreak terror on civilian areas."
20 [Video-clip played]
21 "They'd never seen anything like it before. It wasn't
22 surprising. In was a new Serb concoction, cobbled together from the
23 engines of 122-millimetre rockets with a warhead designed to explode in
24 the air. A highly inaccurate weapon, designed solely to wreak terror on
25 civilian areas."
1 MR. GROOME:
2 Q. So, sir, my question to you regarding this video is -- I'm not
3 asking you to agree with the comments by the news reporter, but what I'm
4 asking you is the type of frame that we see here that is -- has the
5 remnants of the rockets attached, is this the type of apparatus that was
6 used in the Ilidza Brigade to attach three rockets to a -- an air bomb?
7 Is it similar to that type of apparatus?
8 A. It was similar, yes.
9 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 30857a.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC: I won't object to it on that basis.
12 JUDGE ORIE: In the absence of any objection, Madam Registrar,
13 the number would be?
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30857a receives number P6615,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P6615 is admitted.
17 MR. GROOME:
18 Q. Now, sir, for the last thing I'd like to do with you today is to
19 talk about the aiming of the air bombs.
20 MR. GROOME: And I think we'll be assisted if we call up
21 65 ter 30862, and these are some photos of rocket systems. So if we
22 could call them up and look on the first page of this exhibit.
23 Q. So, sir, this first image, do you agree with me that this is an
24 image depicting the Plamen rocket system?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, you see that red arrow. Am I correct in that that arrow is
2 pointing to a turret which allows the azimuth of the rocket to be -- or
3 the bearing of the rocket to be aimed. Do you agree with that?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. GROOME: Could we advance to the next page.
6 Q. Now, I believe this is the Orkan system. Are you sufficiently
7 familiar with the Orkan system that you would be able tell us whether
8 this is in fact the Orkan system?
9 A. Yes, yes, it's Orkan.
10 Q. And again if I can draw your attention to the red arrow, this is
11 pointing to a turret, albeit a different design, that again allows the --
12 the bearing of the tubes to be adjusted; correct?
13 A. Yes. The technical solution is somewhat different, but the
14 principle is to actually adjust the bearing of the tubes and achieve a
15 certain azimuth, as you say.
16 Q. And the two hydraulic pistons that we see on the side, that would
17 be for adjusting the elevation of the tubes; correct?
18 A. That's correct. Based on the range that needs to be achieved,
19 you use firing tables in order to adjust the pistons and achieve a
20 certain elevation for the barrels.
21 MR. GROOME: Now, can we advance to the next page.
22 Q. And this is a picture or a still from P6614, the video that we
23 saw, and if I can draw your attention to the red arrow. And my question
24 to you is: It is apparent from this that this launcher does not have a
25 turret, it does not have a mechanism for adjusting the bearing of the
1 rockets, does it?
2 A. I can't see it from here. Perhaps it is somewhere else,
3 somewhere on the side. But if there is, we can't see from here.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, I'm looking at the clock.
5 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour, could I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: I know that you get stuck in the middle of a --
7 MR. GROOME: Could I simply tender this --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- firing position, but --
9 MR. GROOME: If I could tender this and I'll be done for the day,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the photographs uploaded under one
13 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour. They're all up on one number.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30862 receives number P6616,
16 Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
18 We adjourn for the day.
19 Witness, I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak with
20 anyone or communicate in whatever other way about your testimony, whether
21 already given or still to be given, and we'd like to see you back
22 tomorrow morning at 9.30.
23 You may follow the usher.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is certainly what I'm going
25 do. Thank you.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, you asked for six hours and I think
3 you've used two and a half hours.
4 So may I take it, Mr. Ivetic, that you would need some time as
5 well for re-examination in view of the --
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. I have approximately -- I'd say
7 probably 20 to 25 minutes of questions already.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which means that there's no fair chance that
9 we would conclude the testimony of this witness tomorrow, I would say.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Which means that we would resume to hear the
12 testimony of this witness only next week, Wednesday, after tomorrow,
13 because we're not sitting on Monday or Tuesday.
14 We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, Friday, the
15 27th of June, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, I.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.19 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Friday, the 27th day of June,
18 2014, at 9.30 a.m.