Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23256

 1                           Wednesday, 2 July 2014

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.38 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning to everyone in and around this

 6     courtroom.

 7             Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.

 9             This is case number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus

10     Ratko Mladic.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

12             The Chamber regrets the late start and I apologise for it.

13             Before we restart with the cross-examination of the witness, the

14     parties have no preliminaries to be raised.  The Chamber has delayed its

15     decision on the associated exhibits, but they exceed not a bit but by far

16     the number of the guidance.  And apart from the all the technical

17     problems we may have with these associated and exhibits and therefore

18     they should be -- they should be introduced by memorandum so that

19     Madam Registrar is able to see whether everything is uploaded and that

20     the Prosecution has an opportunity to respond to it.

21             But Mr. Lukic, Mr. Stojanovic, you would really have to

22     reconsider.  I mean, you rightly complained if there were too many

23     exhibits, we allowed an excess now and then, and -- but always with some

24     limitations.  It seems that here you're really flooding the Chamber, and

25     that was exactly what the Chamber did not want to happen.  So you're


Page 23257

 1     invited to reconsider the number of 61 associated exhibits.

 2             If there is nothing else, we could ask the witness to be escorted

 3     into the courtroom.

 4             I think the Prosecution has some 50 minutes left.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Good morning, Mr. Radojcic.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to remind you that you are still bound

 9     by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your

10     testimony, and Mr. Groome will now continue his cross-examination.

11             Mr. Groome.

12             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13                           WITNESS:  VLADIMIR RADOJCIC [Resumed]

14                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

15                           Cross-examination by Mr. Groome: [Continued]

16        Q.   And good morning, Colonel Radojcic.

17        A.   Good morning, sir.

18             MR. GROOME:  Can I ask that 65 ter 30891 be brought to our

19     screens.

20        Q.   Now, Colonel Radojcic, I want to return briefly to the modified

21     air bomb that your brigade fired at Hrasnica on the 7th of April, 1995.

22     I think it will assist the Chamber to see photos of the different

23     locations that you have given evidence about.  Can I ask you to take a

24     look at page 1 of this exhibit and --

25             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Could you please repeat the number.  It doesn't


Page 23258

 1     reflect --

 2             MR. GROOME:  Oh, I'm sorry.  So it's 30891.

 3        Q.   Now do you agree in the letters A-S mark the location of the

 4     Aleksa Santic school -- where the Aleksa Santic school was, the school

 5     that was the intended target of the bomb?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Now I heard you say "yes," but -- okay, now I see it on the

 8     transcript.

 9             Now the two towers that are marked by number 1, do you agree that

10     these two residential buildings or high-rise buildings were present

11     during the war?

12        A.   I'm not sure.  Otherwise, I have to admit that I lived in the

13     inner city of Sarajevo, so I got to know this area just from a distance,

14     as it were.

15        Q.   Okay, so fair enough.  Now the location of the house where the

16     aerial bomb landed has been marked with G10.  It is now the site of a

17     hotel.  Do you -- does this agree with your recollection of where the

18     aerial bomb landed?

19        A.   As for this place where the bomb fell, nearby there was a small

20     house and it was destroyed by the bomb.  And possibly that might be that

21     location, but I cannot be sure.

22        Q.   Okay.  Let's go to the next page.  There's several pictures from

23     different perspectives and perhaps from a different view -- having a

24     different view will assist you.

25             So we'll ignore the towers at number 1 because you're not sure.


Page 23259

 1     Again, does A-S indicate where the school is located?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And are you assisted by this view of G10?  Does that comport with

 4     your recollection of where the bomb landed?

 5        A.   Possibly.  But I've already told you that I cannot recognise it

 6     because during the war those buildings were not there, the ones that I

 7     see here right now.

 8        Q.   Okay.  We'll go to one more view.

 9             MR. GROOME:  If we could go to the next page, please.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  May I just ask what the witness means by "those

11     buildings were not there ..."

12             To which building did you refer?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I mean the buildings that the

14     Prosecutor has indicated.  I do not remember.  I told you that before the

15     war, I lived in the centre of Sarajevo.  And as for Sokolovic Kolonija

16     and Hrasnica, I just know about them from photographs, so I cannot

17     recognise this.

18             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  This was not my question.  You said those

19     buildings were not there.  You are referring to the two tall buildings;

20     correct?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.  The two tall buildings

22     and other buildings generally.

23             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  But you were not asked about these buildings but

24     about the small building where the bomb landed and if you remember that.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.


Page 23260

 1             JUDGE MOLOTO:  I thought a little earlier you said you didn't

 2     know whether those tall buildings were there before -- during the war or

 3     not.  Now when you said that they were not there, are you sure that they

 4     were not there?  Is that -- are you changing your position?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said that I do not know

 6     whether they were there.  I think they were not there, but I'm not sure.

 7             JUDGE MOLOTO:  Okay, thank you.

 8             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  Now we have page 3 of the exhibit.

 9        Q.   Again, we can see an A-S.  Can I ask you to confirm that that is

10     the school, the intended target?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   Now this view is perhaps the best view of G10 where the

13     Prosecution asserts that the bomb landed.  Does this perspective help you

14     recall the precise location of where the bomb landed?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Okay.

17             MR. GROOME:  Now could we go to page 4 of the document.

18        Q.   Now, sir, this is a map showing these locations.  The Chamber has

19     heard other evidence from Investigator Barry Hogan about the GPS

20     co-ordinates of the location where the bomb landed.  So using a

21     computer-based mapping programme, we calculate the distance from the

22     centre of the school to the location the bomb landed to be 150 metres.

23     My question to you is simply do you still maintain your evidence that the

24     bomb fell only 20 metres from the school?  You have an opportunity now to

25     change that evidence, if you wish.


Page 23261

 1        A.   I do not wish to change that evidence.  When I say 20, 30 metres

 2     away from the school, I got that information from the members of UNPROFOR

 3     who were on the spot and who showed me photographs of the place where the

 4     bomb landed.  So do I not rule out the possibility that this is it, but

 5     the information I received was that the bomb had fallen where I had

 6     indicated earlier on.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 30891.

 8             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 30891 receives number P6618, Your

11     Honours.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we go back to page 2 of this

15     exhibit.

16        Q.   Now, sir, the next topic I want to ask you about, I want to

17     return to the evidence you gave last week about giving the order to

18     attack an UNPROFOR convoy on Mount Igman on the 14th of July, 1995.  Now,

19     if we look at this view of Hrasnica, we can see a mountain behind it.  Am

20     I correct that that is Mount Igman?

21        A.   Yes, Mount Igman.  And we can see that road that we had

22     discussed.

23        Q.   Okay.  That was my next question.  So the road that we can see

24     traversing the mountain, that's the road where the convoy was attacked?

25        A.   Yes, that's the Igman road, the logistics road as we called it.


Page 23262

 1        Q.   Now I want to the clear up something with respect --

 2             MR. GROOME:  I'm sorry, can we have 30894 on our screens.

 3        Q.   Now, sir, I want to -- I want to clear up something with respect

 4     to the attack that you ordered on the 14th of July.  And specifically, I

 5     want to read a portion of your testimony last week about it being dark

 6     at 6.30 p.m. around the time of the attack and then show you a document.

 7             THE ACCUSED: [Microphone not activated].

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic, no loud speaking.  You know what the

 9     consequences will be.

10             MR. GROOME:

11        Q.   You said at transcript page 23248:  "I have to mention that

12     at 6.30 p.m. it is not as if one were in The Hague where it is still

13     day-time.  At 6.30 p.m. at Igman, it is already dark and one cannot see

14     very well."

15             Now, Colonel Radojcic, what you have on the screen before you is

16     an exhibit which is simply a sunrise-sunset calendar, and there are

17     several such calenders available on the internet, and this particular one

18     is for the city of Sarajevo.  And if I can draw your attention to the

19     time of sunset on the 14th, it is circled in red.  The letter R indicates

20     the time the sun rose and S the time it set.  As we can see, the sunset

21     nearly two full hours after the time you said it was "already dark and

22     one cannot see very well."

23             Again, I ask you whether you stand by your evidence that it was

24     dark at 6.30 p.m.  And, again, you have an opportunity to change your

25     evidence at this time, if you wish.


Page 23263

 1        A.   Yes.  No, I don't wish to change my evidence because, really, at

 2     that time of day, it's dark at Igman because this road goes through the

 3     forest and the sun sets earlier there.  And, quite simply, from the

 4     distance from which we were targeting, you cannot see clearly.

 5             So I stand by what I said.  UNPROFOR withdrew their own forces

 6     into their bases at 1800 hours precisely for that reason.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  Can I ask that we go to the next page.  And

 8     this is the same calender for July of this year, 2014.  And we can see

 9     that in 12 days the sun will set at exactly the same time, 2027 hours and

10     14 seconds.

11        Q.   If I were to make arrangements for an investigator stationed in

12     Sarajevo, if you're discharged as a witness in this case, would you

13     accompany the investigator to where you say it was dark two hours before

14     sunset?  Would you do that 12 days from now?

15        A.   No.

16        Q.   Okay, fair enough.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, Prosecution tenders Exhibit -- 65 ter

18     30894.

19             MR. IVETIC:  We would object, Your Honours.  There has been no

20     foundation laid for whether these are estimates or actual times.  Based

21     upon the last page, it would appear these were estimates done in advance,

22     not on the actual circumstances of the day.  So I don't think there has

23     been evidence lead, apart from Mr. Groome's comments, to identify the

24     document and how it was generated.

25             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I would simply say that astronomy is


Page 23264

 1     one of our oldest and most certain sciences.  I've included the reference

 2     at the bottom of the exhibit that certainly it can be verified.  If the

 3     Chamber wishes to give Mr. Ivetic an opportunity to verify it, I'd ask

 4     that it be marked for identification and he can investigate whether, in

 5     fact, these --

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  What do you mean by "estimates or actual times,"

 7     Mr. Ivetic, in this respect?

 8             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honour, July 14th of 2014 has not yet

 9     occurred, so it's not known whether on the actual day what the

10     atmospheric conditions have been.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

12             MR. IVETIC:  -- so if the other --

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, are you serious about that you expect

14     all estimates on what will happen on the 14th of July as far as sunset

15     and sunrise is concerned would be considerably different from what we

16     find in these kind of tables?  I mean, estimates is not being certain

17     about it.  You'd say it could be one minute later or earlier or is

18     that ... I just don't understand your --

19             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, I know that things can vary in

20     astronomy and atmospheric conditions, and that's what my concern is that

21     we're getting into something where we're speculating, that we don't know.

22     I'm not an astronomer to be able to give you evidence; neither is

23     Mr. Groome.  Therefore --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  But the first -- the first day, of course, was from

25     the past.  That has happened already, and --


Page 23265

 1             MR. IVETIC:  And we don't know whether it was an estimate, like

 2     these others are, or whether it was an actual recording.  That's my

 3     point, Your Honour.  Based upon this exhibit that shows the same data for

 4     a date in the past and a date in the future, we don't know whether

 5     they're estimates or actual recordings after the fact.  And that's my

 6     objection.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, could I inquire --

 8                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 9             MR. GROOME:  Could I inquire of Mr. Ivetic if I produced a

10     calendar that showed that for every year for the last 20 years since 1995

11     the sun set at the same time on the 14th of July, would he be satisfied

12     that it will, in fact, set at that time 12 days from now?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  The objection is denied.

14             Mr. Ivetic, if there is something happening on the 14th of July

15     of this year which changes the -- I would say the constant and precise

16     recording of sunset and sunrise, you may revisit the matter.

17             Madam Registrar, the number would be.

18             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 30894 receives number P6619, Your

19     Honours.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

21             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that we now go to 65 ter 1D02134.  And

22     this is a document dated the 11th of September, 1993, and entitled:

23     "Orders, Decision on Disciplinary measure."

24        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, while that's being brought to our screens, in

25     several places in your statement, you assert your commitment to enforcing


Page 23266

 1     good discipline among your subordinates.  I want to explore this with you

 2     now, and I want to begin by asking you about some of the specific events

 3     you recount in your statement.

 4             You speak about the document our on screen now in paragraph 74 of

 5     your statement.  And to save time, I will summarise your evidence and ask

 6     you whether you agree.  As I understand this decision, it was signed on

 7     your behalf by your chief of staff, and in it you sentenced a soldier by

 8     the name of Sretan Crkvenjas to 40 days of military detention.  You

 9     sentenced him to detention because, on 10 September 1993, he and another

10     soldier in a drunken state forced their way into the communications room

11     where this soldier called another officer, Nenad Perisic, on the phone,

12     threatened him, and demanded he come to where they were.  When Perisic

13     came to that location, Crkvenjas assaulted him.

14             Have I correctly summarised the factual finds or factual -- facts

15     that you established -- or were established regarding this event?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   This matter was investigated and dealt with within a 24-hour

18     period; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Was Perisic a superior officer to Crkvenjas?

21        A.   I so assume.  I'm not sure.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can we go to the next page in English.

23             MR. GROOME:  And could we actually go to the last page in the

24     original, if we could.

25        Q.   Now am I correct that Crkvenjas signed this decision and doing so


Page 23267

 1     was acknowledgement of it and that he accepted his punishment?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   Did you ever have any problems with Crkvenjas after this?

 4        A.   I do not recall.

 5        Q.   Would this event and your punishment of Crkvenjas have been known

 6     to other soldiers in the brigade?

 7        A.   In principle, all punishment that is meted out by the commander

 8     of the brigade down the chain of command reaches each and every soldier,

 9     and there are certain lessons drawn on the basis of that punishment.

10        Q.   Now what do you think the impact on the brigade would have been

11     if Crkvenjas had assaulted Perisic and there had been no punishment or no

12     action taken?

13        A.   Quite simply, such an incident could not have gone by unpunished,

14     so every incident of this nature was punished more or less in the same

15     way.

16        Q.   I guess what I'm getting at, if you had not taken such quick and

17     decisive action, is there a likelihood that other soldiers would have

18     thought that they could have assaulted officers and do so without being

19     held to account for having done so?

20             MR. GROOME:  Now could we please call up 1D02008.  And this is a

21     document entitled:  "Order on a disciplinary measure," dated 26 of July,

22     1993.  Signed by Colonel Radojcic.

23        Q.   And you deal with this in paragraph 132 of your statement.

24             While that's being brought to your screens, perhaps you remember

25     this case.  In this case on the 26th of July, 1993, you ordered 60 days


Page 23268

 1     of military detention for a soldier by the name of Novak Popadic.  He did

 2     several things including the most serious of which was he fired a zolja

 3     hand-held rocket launcher at ambulance at 8.30 on the morning of

 4     the 26th.  Is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Did he ever --

 7             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Groome can you repeat the number of the

 8     document for the record.

 9             MR. GROOME:  I'm sorry.  1D02008.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

11             MR. GROOME:

12        Q.   Did the ambulance belong to the 1st Battalion of your brigade?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Now obviously firing a hand-held rocket at an ambulance was a

15     very serious breach of discipline.  Am I correct in concluding that you

16     were able to effectively investigate and take corrective action with

17     respect to this incident within a very short period of time?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Am I correct in thinking that if you had not taken such quick and

20     decisive disciplinary action, such a failure might have encouraged other

21     members of the brigade to act in an undisciplined away, including

22     misusing their weapons?

23        A.   Yes.

24             MR. GROOME:  Now could I ask that 1D02148 be brought to our

25     screens.


Page 23269

 1        Q.   And it is a document that you discuss in paragraph 94 of your

 2     statement.  And, again, I see your statement at your right hand, so

 3     please feel free to look at it if it assists you.  It's a document

 4     entitled:  "Report about violation of armistice by Ilidza brigade," dated

 5     21 August 1993 and signed by Deputy Commander Dragomir Milosevic.

 6             The next matter I would like to address with you relates to an

 7     order your brigade received to investigate two separate allegations that

 8     the VRS had broken a cease-fire on the 17th of August, 1993.  And, again,

 9     you address this in paragraph 94.  Colonel, at the outset, my primary

10     focus is not the substance of the event but the procedure that was

11     followed, and I want to be sure that I fully understand this procedure.

12             I want to go through a series of three documents associated with

13     your statement and ask you very specific questions.

14             My first question is:  One of the allegations was that on

15     17 August 1993 at 1530 hours two T-55 tanks from the Ilidza Brigade

16     opened fire on an UNPROFOR transport.

17        A.   That is what is written in this document.  However, as far as I

18     can remember, at this time I was not in the area of responsibility of the

19     brigade, and it was the chief of staff of the brigade that stood in for

20     me.  So I cannot say anything specific about this currency.

21        Q.   Okay.  And, again, I'm not interested in the substance but the

22     procedure.

23             The second alleged breach of the cease-fire concerned a mortar

24     being fired from the Nedzarici Brigade into Dobrinja at about 1940 hours

25     in which 40 victims were said to be injured; is that correct?


Page 23270

 1        A.   Yes, that is what is written in this document.

 2        Q.   Now I want to go to two other documents, but before we leave this

 3     document, I just want you to note --

 4             MR. GROOME:  If we could go back to the first page in both

 5     documents.

 6        Q.   I want you to note at this moment that this report of what

 7     happened on the 17th of August was sent to the Main Staff on the 21st of

 8     August and bears the reference number 20/15-944/3, okay?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   Now if we can go --

11             MR. GROOME:  If we can go to 1D02526.

12        Q.   And this is order 20/15-944, dated the 18th of August, 1993,

13     marked "top urgent."

14             Now, Colonel Radojcic, can you take a look at this document.  In

15     this document on the 18th of August, 1993, the commander of the SRK,

16     Stanislav Galic, orders you to urgently investigate the reasons fire was

17     opened from two Ilidza Brigade tanks on an UNPROFOR transport; correct?

18        A.   Yes.  However, at that point, I was not in the area of

19     responsibility of the brigade.  I was visiting my family, so I'm not

20     familiar with --

21        Q.   Okay.  Do you agree with me that this document is related to the

22     report that we just looked at a minute ago?  It is the order to

23     investigate which then resulted in the report?

24        A.   Yes.

25             MR. GROOME:  Could we now look at 65 ter 1D02152.


Page 23271

 1        Q.   Now, this is an urgent order from Stanislav Galic ordering an

 2     investigation.  It is dated the 20th of August, 1993.  Again, we see the

 3     reference number 20/15-944, followed by a 2.  Once again, it is an order

 4     to the Ilidza Brigade to investigate something.  In this case, an

 5     allegation by UNPROFOR that on 17 August 1993 at 1940 hours there was

 6     mortar fire from Nedzarici over Dobrinja allegedly injuring 14 people;

 7     correct?

 8        A.   That is what is written in this report.

 9        Q.   Now the second paragraph states:

10             "With regard to the Order of the General Staff, classified number

11     17/230-380 of 19.08.1993 form a Commission and investigate the incident

12     in order to review all the circumstances regarding the place, reason, and

13     participants, and a battle situation during the action."

14             This document indicates that the Main Staff issued an order on

15     19 August for this event to be investigated; correct?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   And do you agree with me again, this is an order -- or these are

18     the documents that are related to that report that was ultimately sent to

19     the Main Staff about these -- these two events?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Now you refer to this particular document in paragraph 100.  And

22     you say:

23             "The UN observers' problem was that they had one or two observers

24     in our area of responsibility and they covered a vast area and could not

25     have an overview of our brigade's actions."


Page 23272

 1             As I understand your evidence, at any given time there were no

 2     more than two UNPROFOR observers within the entire area of responsibility

 3     of the Ilidza Brigade; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes, at the time.  There were either two or three, depending on

 5     the time.  They had their base, and from that base, they went to

 6     different areas, depending on what the needs were.

 7        Q.   So it's your evidence that it was impossible for them to see

 8     everything, in essence?

 9        A.   Yes, they couldn't observe everything basically.

10        Q.   Now I'd like to return to the report.

11             MR. GROOME:  And that's 1D02148.

12        Q.   And this is the report that went to the Main Staff on the 21st of

13     August, 1993 and signed by Deputy Commander Dragomir Milosevic.

14             Now we can see from the first line of the report that the

15     Main Staff issued two orders to investigate these two allegations.  One

16     was order 17/230-377 on 17 August, and the other was 17/230-380 on

17     20 August 1993; correct?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Now if we look at item 1, second paragraph, we see in that, that

20     it is a response to the Main Staff order -- I'm sorry, that in response

21     to the Main Staff order the SRK issued its own order, and that's order

22     number 15/20-944; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Now, I'm going to suggest to you that there has been a typo here,

25     and this is really a reference to the earlier documents 20/15-944.  Would


Page 23273

 1     you agree with my interpretation that the typist of this document

 2     inadvertently reversed the 20 and the 15?

 3        A.   It is possible.

 4        Q.   Okay.  The next paragraph summarises the results of the

 5     investigation; correct?  And, again, I'm not interested so much in the

 6     substance, but here we have a summary of the facts that were established

 7     in this investigation; correct?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now turning to item 2, again we see the report indicates the SRK

10     order assigning persons to investigate the matter and then summarises the

11     findings of the investigation; correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now the purpose of this document or this report is to inform the

14     Main Staff of the results of this investigation that they ordered;

15     correct?

16        A.   Yes, it is.

17        Q.   Now the report to the Main Staff is dated 21st of August, 1993.

18     Again, recognising that you were on family leave, is it your view that

19     this event could be adequately investigated and reported on within four

20     days, this relatively brief period of time?

21        A.   From the text we can see what happened and there is an

22     explanation.  The very fact that certain measures were taken testifies to

23     the fact that the reaction was immediate.

24        Q.   So I want to now see if I understand the procedure and the

25     capacities.  So what we've just gone with these three documents, that


Page 23274

 1     indicates that the Main Staff of the VRS had the capacity and the means

 2     to conduct detailed investigations into matters related to actions of

 3     soldiers; correct?

 4        A.   Correct.

 5        Q.   Was there any period of time during your tenure as commander of

 6     the Ilidza Brigade that you came to learn that the Main Staff did not

 7     have this capacity?

 8        A.   The Main Staff learned of all incidents first and foremost

 9     through the chain of command and also through UNPROFOR liaison officers,

10     as well as liaison officers with the command of the SRK who were in

11     direct communication with the corresponding organs of the Main Staff.

12     These two bodies provided quick access for General Mladic to all

13     information taking place in the area of activity of each of the brigades,

14     individually.

15        Q.   And similarly we saw a few minutes ago, you had your own ability

16     as commander of the brigade to initiate investigations into breaches of

17     discipline; correct?

18        A.   I did have the possibility of launching an investigation.  As for

19     the explanation provided here by the SRK Command to the Main Staff, one

20     can clearly see what actually happened.  The incident is explained, and

21     in this first incident where the -- there was alleged firing by the two

22     T-55 tanks, the assertion is that our tanks did not open fire as they

23     were close to the command.  The UNPROFOR vehicle was close to the Luzani

24     settlement.  Let me remind you, Luzani --

25        Q.   Sir --


Page 23275

 1        A.   -- is the most densely populated area in --

 2        Q.   Again, I'm focusing --

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   -- on the procedure not so much the substance of it.  So now I

 5     want to turn -- what we understand now, and now let's turn our attention

 6     to G8 and your evidence about that.  And G8 is the first shelling of the

 7     Markale market, and it occurs about six months after this event.

 8             In paragraph 108, you that General Milosevic ordered you to

 9     "establish the facts about the shell," and this is in reference, of

10     course, to the first shelling of Markale.

11             I see you're going through your statement.  Okay.  You have it.

12             Now the Defence has not tendered through you any similar

13     documentation that we've just seen, and I know of none in our

14     collections.  So my question to you is:  Do you have in your possession

15     any report similar to the one we have just looked at with respect to your

16     efforts to establish the facts of the first shelling of Markale?

17        A.   Pursuant to an order by General Mladic, the Chief of the

18     Main Staff, General Galic or General Milosevic was tasked to urgently

19     establish a commission that would co-operate with UNPROFOR in order to

20     attend the scene and check the circumstances under which the Markale I

21     incident took place.  I was a member of the three-member commission.  I

22     was taken by an UNPROFOR vehicle across the --

23        Q.   Sir --

24        A.   -- airport runway, and I spent the next 24 hours --

25        Q.   -- I'm very pressed for time.  So my question is simply:  Are you


Page 23276

 1     in possession of any documentation similar to what we've just seen, with

 2     respect to Milosevic's order to you to establish the facts of Markale,

 3     the first shelling of Markale?  Are you in possession of any

 4     documentation like that?

 5        A.   I have no such documents.

 6        Q.   Okay.

 7        A.   I was not supposed to go there because of any documents.

 8        Q.   Okay.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, earlier you made a reference to

10     paragraph 8 of the statement where it might be that you intended to refer

11     to 108.

12             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13        Q.   Now in paragraph 25 of your statement, you say that it was

14     absolutely never your intention to terrorise civilians and never knew

15     members of your unit, as well as superior and subordinate units to

16     terrorise civilians.  I'm going to ask that you look at a document with

17     me; it's P6523.  And it's a document entitled:  "Conclusions and tasks

18     from a briefing at SRK Command, on 31 March, 1994," dated 1st of April,

19     1994.

20             Now, Colonel, this -- well, we'll give it a moment to come up.

21     This is a list of 31 tasks assigned to members of the SRK by

22     Major-General Galic.  I want to draw your attention to number 8.

23             MR. GROOME:  And that can be found on the second page of the

24     English, please.

25        Q.   Where it says:


Page 23277

 1             "Fortify positions, around Sarajevo by erecting wire and concrete

 2     barriers which would, in turn, strengthen the belief that they are really

 3     are blocked ('in a camp')."

 4             Now my first question to you is:  Do you think that -- I mean, we

 5     know that Serb civilians were kept in detention facilities.  Do you think

 6     that Serb civilians kept in a detention facility would have experienced

 7     feelings of vulnerability, fear, perhaps even terror?  Would you

 8     acknowledge that?

 9        A.   If I may, I would like to study this entire document.  I am not

10     certain what it is all about and I could provide a better answer after

11     that.  Based on your question --

12        Q.   Sir --

13        A.   -- I can only state that --

14        Q.   -- if that's what you want to do, I am sure that the Chamber

15     won't object to you having a chance to look at that document.  So perhaps

16     we will do that, and perhaps I'd be granted the opportunity to ask that

17     question after the break.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, if a copy of the document could be given to the

19     witness so that he could have a look at it during the break.

20             Perhaps, Madam Registrar, you could make a print-out of this

21     document which consists of --

22             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that now P6513 be brought to our

23     screens.

24        Q.   And this is an order signed by Dragomir Milosevic on the 21st of

25     July, 1995.  It's addressed to several subordinate units of the Sarajevo


Page 23278

 1     Romanija Corps, including the Ilidza Brigade.

 2             And my first question to you is:  Do you recall receiving this

 3     order?

 4        A.   Yes.  And I can see here that it wasn't signed by

 5     General Milosevic.  It was signed by a certain Dragicevic on his behalf.

 6        Q.   Now, in this order we read:  Our forces on the Trnovo axis who

 7     have a lot of problems (Kragujevac, Cardak, Hum, Celina have fallen) on

 8     top of all other difficulties, our defence on Mount Treskavica also has a

 9     lot of problems.  The Turks have probably moved the main focus of attack

10     towards Gorazde in order to relieve our forces on the Trnovo axis and to

11     link up the forces and deceive the enemy, I hereby order.

12             In this order, Milosevic is referring to problems that VRS troops

13     outside the theater of Sarajevo are experiencing; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Now the first order reads:  "The brigade commands shall

16     independently plan, prepare, and carry out an attack or a show attack

17     against the city of Sarajevo..."

18             Now, sir, this is an order to attack the city of Sarajevo.  So my

19     first question to you is, is:  As a brigade commander, did you implement

20     this order as it applied to you?

21        A.   The order was not sent to my brigade alone.  If you look at the

22     header, it was sent --

23        Q.   Sir --

24        A.   -- to the Ilidza Brigade --

25        Q.   -- I certainly appreciate that.  But my question is limited to,


Page 23279

 1     you did receive the order.  Did you implement it as it pertained to you?

 2     Did you take any action in response to this order?

 3        A.   At the time I was at the forward command post at Nisici where the

 4     corps command was.  I did learn of this order but I wasn't familiar with

 5     its details.  The chief of staff stood in for me while I was absent.

 6        Q.   Well, sir, do you acknowledge that this order orders an attack or

 7     a show attack on the town of Sarajevo in response to events that are

 8     happening in other parts of the -- of the country?

 9        A.   This is how the order was drafted.  I acknowledge that.  But it

10     contains another thing, all of us, the brigade commanders, were familiar

11     with the position and the order of the chief of Main Staff for the city

12     of the Sarajevo not to be taken at any point during the war and that it

13     would be left to politics to deal with it after the war.  This order was

14     just to demonstrate that position and to tie down the 1st Corps forces to

15     our units and to enable freer movement for our forces in the Trnovo

16     theater.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the Prosecution tenders P6513.  It is

18     now marked for identification.

19             MR. IVETIC:  No objection.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

21                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

22             JUDGE ORIE:  It has a number already.  I missed that.

23             MR. GROOME:  So it's P6513, MFI'd.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And is now admitted into evidence.

25             MR. GROOME:


Page 23280

 1        Q.   Sir, last week at T-23213, I asked you to describe the sound of a

 2     modified air bomb, the sound that it made as it travelled through the

 3     air.  And you said:

 4             "It created quite a terrifying sound, because during its flight

 5     and due to the emission of powder gases, one could hear a very strong

 6     hiss."

 7             Now you experienced the sound as a terrifying sound and you knew

 8     that it was moving away from you.  Do you accept that the people in

 9     Sarajevo, hearing that sound passing over their heads or towards their

10     location, would also have experienced the sound as a terrifying one?

11        A.   I suppose so.

12        Q.   Now when you fired the one -- the air bomb at Hrasnica, were you

13     able to hear that sound the entire journey of the projectile to where it

14     landed?

15        A.   I don't remember whether I could hear it throughout its

16     trajectory, but in the first stage of its flight I certainly did.

17        Q.   Okay, thank you.  Now the last set of questions I want to ask you

18     is about an associated exhibit.

19             MR. GROOME:  And it's 1D02153.

20        Q.   And while that's being brought to our screens, can I ask you who

21     Dragan Marcetic was?

22        A.   Dragan Marcetic was the chief of staff of the Sarajevo Romanija

23     Corps in 1993.  Once he left, General Milosevic assumed the position who,

24     at the time, was still a colonel.

25        Q.   Now this document is authored --


Page 23281

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, I'm looking at the clock, and I'm also

 2     informed that you have used your full six hours.  How much time would you

 3     still --

 4             MR. GROOME:  I just have a few questions on this document and

 5     this is the last document.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  And that's the last document.

 7             MR. GROOME:  That's it.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I suggest that we --

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Since we had a late start we can continue for a

11     couple of minutes and have a bit of a later break.

12             MR. GROOME:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Please.

14             MR. GROOME:

15        Q.   So this document is authored by Dragan Marcetic and it's dated

16     the 12th of June, 1993 and entitled "Artillery fire and mortar fire over

17     urban parts of Sarajevo."

18             Now, Colonel Radojcic, you provided evidence about this document

19     in paragraph 103 of your statement.  And you say:

20             "My comment is the same the one for 1D8390."

21             And now as far as I can figure, and I informed Mr. Ivetic of this

22     last week, you do not comment on 1D8390 in your statement.  So I'm going

23     to ask you -- would you please read the first four paragraphs of this

24     order and then I want to ask you a question about it.

25             So if you can read it out loud and so it can be translated


Page 23282

 1     because the translation is somewhat problematic.  Could you just read it

 2     and we'll read along in English but perhaps we may have a more precise

 3     understanding.

 4        A.   In the heading, it states that it is to deal with the opening of

 5     artillery fire on urban parts of Sarajevo:

 6             "Caution:

 7             "Forward to all SRK commanders and to the rear command post to

 8     commander personally.

 9             "Despite several orders and caution issued by the SRK Commander

10     not to open fire from bigger calibre weapons on Sarajevo, it is still

11     being done.  Certain Commanders, especially in battalions and regiments,

12     violate this order wilfully issued by the SRK Commander disregarding the

13     consequences.

14             "We all care to do away with as many Turks as possible, but not

15     at the expense of such political consequence caused by a couple of shells

16     or mines in Sarajevo with minimum effect.

17             "I caution unit commanders that criminal proceedings will be

18     instituted against irresponsible and wilful officers.  All officers and

19     soldiers need to be explained the consequences of such irresponsible and

20     wilful conduct.

21             "Preserving ammunition is the task number one.  Our sources of

22     supply have dried up.  Ammunition cannot be obtained.

23             "Explain to the soldiers and officers to open fire only upon

24     order and approval of superior officers and only against clearly visible

25     targets and when strictly required to do so.  Recalcitrant and


Page 23283

 1     irresponsible soldiers and officers shall be called to task and submit

 2     reports against them in order to conduct proceedings and establish their

 3     criminal responsibility.

 4             "Deputy Commander, Dragan Marcetic."

 5             I just want to add that this order was sent to all SRK units and

 6     not only to my unit; thus, it means that it wasn't -- it wasn't only my

 7     units which violated the cease-fire and opened fire on Sarajevo.

 8        Q.   Okay, sir, I'm interested now in the second paragraph, and it

 9     uses the word "poturica," and do you agree that that term "poturica" is a

10     derogatory term for Muslims which literally means a person who started

11     life as a non-Muslim but then became one.  Do you agree that that's the

12     literal definition of the phrase that's used by Marcetic?

13        A.   On top of this term, there are quite a few others used by

14     commanders unfortunately.  For example, in the previous one --

15        Q.   Okay.

16        A.   -- the word was "turci," similar to this one.  So it's obvious

17     that -- well, in principle, the term was used for people who converted to

18     Islam despite their ethnic background having been Serbian.

19        Q.   So, sir, in hindsight as you sit here today, in 2014, do you

20     consider it appropriate for a senior officer in the VRS to say something

21     like this in an order, and it's been translated, "We all care to do away

22     with as many Turks as possible."

23             As you sit here today, do you consider that an appropriate thing

24     for a senior officer to have in an order?

25        A.   It is very complicated to provide an answer to this question, but


Page 23284

 1     in principle I never used such terms.

 2        Q.   So do I take it that you agree, as you sit here, that this is

 3     inappropriate, to find something like this in an order from a senior

 4     officer of the VRS?

 5        A.   I'd rather not comment.

 6        Q.   Do you agree that its plain meaning to soldiers on the black and

 7     white is that:  Despite your wish to liquidate all "poturica," we must

 8     conserve our ammunition.  That's what's being communicated here on its

 9     face; correct?

10        A.   Well, this is a rather unfortunate order.  It is not skillfully

11     drafted and basically every sentence of it could be commented on.  The

12     fact is, though -- well, you can even see that some parts of it are

13     contradictory:  Do away with as many and yet be very careful with

14     spending ammunition.

15        Q.   Sir, does the fact that this language could be you used by a

16     high-ranking VRS officer in a written order suggest that Marcetic

17     believed that his superiors would not object to the use of some language?

18        A.   There would certainly be no objections because we were also

19     called by the ABiH army different names.  I'd rather not go into that

20     because some of them are far worse than this one.

21        Q.   So it is true that Marcetic used such offensive language without

22     reservation because the army that General Mladic had created was an army

23     in which senior officers --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Mladic is supposed to be seated.  If he wants to

25     consult with counsel, he has an opportunity to do so at a volume


Page 23285

 1     inaudible for anyone else.

 2             MR. GROOME:

 3        Q.   Marcetic -- I put to you that Marcetic felt that he could use

 4     such language in an order to his subordinates because the army created by

 5     General Mladic was an army in which senior officers could openly talk and

 6     write about murdering Muslims and have no fear of disciplinary action

 7     being taken against them.  Is that not true?

 8        A.   Probably.  This -- had this order been sent to the Main Staff as

 9     well, it wouldn't have been drafted like this.  All I can say is that I

10     never used terms like this in my orders.  I would always use the term "B

11     and H army members."

12        Q.   Colonel Radojcic, that's all the questions I have.  I do want to

13     thank you for answering so many questions.  Thank you.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Groome.  We'll first take a break.

15             Could the usher, apart from escorting the witness out of the

16     courtroom, provide the witness with a copy of the statement -- or a copy

17     of the document he asked to further review.

18             Mr. Ivetic, you're on your feet.

19             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honour, I was hoping to bring to your attention

20     the document that we just saw on the screen.  The English, obviously as

21     we all saw, had some errors, among them the name of the officer who

22     signed it.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Apart from the other matter that sometimes --

24     apparently the translation "Turks," which Mr. Groome used when reading

25     and which was -- we received through interpretation today, is apparently


Page 23286

 1     dealt with on an equal footing with those converted to -- into Islam, not

 2     T Islam, but to Islam, and there were many, many others mistakes.  So I

 3     think that it would be wise to have the document we had last on our

 4     screen to be reviewed.  I don't know who prepared the translation.

 5             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, we had those concerns when we read it.

 6     We've asked CLSS to do that.  I will ask Ms. Stewart to forward that

 7     document, the CLSS official translation of this document to Mr. Ivetic,

 8     and leave it to Mr. Ivetic then to perhaps replace the --

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  And you did read from that --

10             MR. GROOME:  I read from the -- what the translated -- what the

11     booth did.  I just read from the transcript.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, from the transcript.

13             MR. GROOME:  I didn't read from that document.  I'll leave it to

14     the Mr. Ivetic to see whether he agrees with CLSS about that.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  That explains why the word "Turks" appeared again,

16     different from what --

17             MR. GROOME:  Yes.  I didn't want to use a different word than had

18     been translated.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, it will be taken care of.

20             Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.

21             We take a break of 20 minutes.  After that, some re-examination

22     may follow.  And you are provided with the document.

23                           [The witness stands down]

24             JUDGE ORIE:  We take a break and will resume at five minutes past

25     11.00.


Page 23287

 1                           --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.

 2                           --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

 3                           [The witness takes the stand]

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, I'm just wondering, since the witness

 5     now has been given an opportunity to review that document, whether - and

 6     I'm also looking at Mr. Ivetic - if you have one or two questions whether

 7     you want to put them now or we would -- yes, I see Mr. Ivetic would not

 8     oppose if you do it now.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I think I made the point that I wanted

10     to do without it, but certainly if the witness has a comment that he

11     thinks might assist the Chamber, I have no objections.  So maybe I'll

12     simply ask him --

13        Q.   Is there any comment that you wish to make about the document

14     that you've seen?

15             MR. GROOME:  That's P6523.

16        Q.   And the portion that I had drawn your attention to was

17     paragraph 8.

18        A.   Yes, it's a general order of 31 paragraphs.  It's generally

19     imprecise, and I really wouldn't want to comment on it.

20             MR. GROOME:  Perhaps then we leave it there then, Your Honour.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  We leave it there.

22             Mr. Radojcic, Mr. Ivetic will now put questions to you in

23     re-examination.

24             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.

25             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you, Your Honour.


Page 23288

 1                           Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

 2        Q.   Good day again, Colonel.  I'd like to first return to the issue

 3     of semi-encirclement and paragraph 5 of your statement, D535.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Page 2 in the English and page 3 in the B/C/S.

 5        Q.   And, in this paragraph, you say that the only communication our

 6     brigade had with the rest of Republika Srpska was through Rajlovac.  And

 7     I'd like to ask you how wide or how narrow was the area, you know, of

 8     this communication by way of Rajlovac?

 9        A.   Perhaps 10 kilometres as the crow flies.  The B and H army on one

10     side and on the other side the Croatian Defence Council.

11        Q.   And did either the ABiH army on the one side or the Croatian

12     Defence Council on the other side have ability to fire upon this

13     communication route?

14        A.   Yes.  At certain points, the road was some 50 to 100 metres

15     close.  For example, the entrance to the Pretis factory was 50 metres

16     away from Muslim positions.  It was very unsafe to move around.  We had

17     to put up shields for protection.

18             As for the Croatian Defence Council, they never created any

19     problems for us while we were using that corridor.

20        Q.   Now, sir, in the statement and in the answers that you gave

21     during cross-examination, you kept using the term "communication."  Could

22     you define for us what, in layman's terms, in layperson terms, what is

23     meant in the former Yugoslav military as a communication or a

24     "komunikacija"?

25        A.   "Komunikacija," it's a general term for moving on land, sea, and


Page 23289

 1     area.  In this case, it's land roads and the network of land roads.

 2        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And now you've identified that the ABiH did fire

 3     upon this area.  What kind of weaponry did the ABiH utilise to fire upon

 4     this area of this communication?

 5        A.   Most frequently they used rifles, semi-automatic and automatic

 6     rifles.  They didn't use snipers because, in that area, there was no need

 7     for that kind of fire.

 8        Q.   And were casualties incurred by your troops in this area of

 9     Rajlovac, this communication of Rajlovac?

10        A.   I don't remember that the Ilidza Brigade had any casualties while

11     moving along that road.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now I'd like to move on.  In one of the prior days, at

13     transcript page 23122, lines 8 through 15, you were asked by Judge Orie

14     about the procedure for taking follow-up shots with a mortar to destroy a

15     target.  The question I have for you:  Is there always a need to destroy

16     a target to consider a mission successful?

17        A.   There are two terms in military terminology:  To neutralise a

18     target and to destroy a target.

19             What we're talking about the first term, neutralising a target,

20     then the weapon and the ammunition expenditure is noted and the purpose

21     is not to destroy but to throw it out of action for a certain period of

22     time.

23             When there is an order to destroy a target, there is no limit to

24     the ammunition that can be used and the target is destroyed completely.

25             So these two targets were used to neutralise or destroy a target.


Page 23290

 1     It's up to the commander to evaluate the weapons he will use.  He would

 2     use those weapons which would, in the quickest and most efficient way,

 3     destroy or neutralise a given target.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  And I'd like to raise another matter raised this time

 5     by Mr. Groome, at transcript page 23138, when he said that the Plamen

 6     rocket put in a launch tube was analogous to a bullet being put in a

 7     chamber of a long-barreled weapon and being fired.  Now, as an

 8     infantryman, could you focus for a moment on an infantry rifle and could

 9     you describe for us the inside surface of the rifle tube?

10        A.   I'm an infantry officer but not an artillery officer, but I can

11     answer your question.  But if you can just repeat exactly what it is that

12     you want to know.

13        Q.   Thank you.  The interior of a rifle tube, could you describe that

14     for us?

15        A.   The interior of a rifle tube has four grooves and four fields.

16     They are slightly curved as you move from the chamber of the bullet

17     towards the mouth of the barrel, and that is how you provide the rotation

18     of the bullet and additional stability while it is flying towards its

19     target.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Can I just inquire whether there is any dispute

21     about the, at least inadequacy on this point, about the tube and a

22     rifle - how do you call it? - because rotation is typically for a rifle

23     bullet to be done and that's not the same with tubes for rockets, is it?

24             MR. GROOME:  I certainly agree with that.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.


Page 23291

 1             MR. GROOME:  Although --

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  There seems to be no disagreement that the

 3     comparison is not accurate in this respect but is mainly about being in a

 4     tube of wider or lesser, but the difference I would have been surprised

 5     if there would have been any dispute about it, whether this is not --

 6             MR. GROOME:  And also, my recollection is that the witness said

 7     that the mortar tube is the more relevant example and then I abandoned

 8     any discussion of a rifle.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And the mortar tube, I think the parties agree

10     on that as well, does not have any grooves and fields.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.  And that was what the Prosecution --

12             JUDGE ORIE:  No rotation --

13             MR. IVETIC:  -- the witness testified to.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then let's move on.

15             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

16        Q.   Now I'd like to return with you to the topic of video which was

17     played by Mr. Groome the other day.  It was at transcript 23145 and

18     onwards and was admitted over my objection as Exhibit P6614.  In that

19     video, we saw the name of the 21st Sabotage Detachment.  Have you ever

20     heard of any unit of the VRS that has been called by that designation?

21        A.   I must admit that I did not hear much about that unit.  I know

22     that there was a sabotage detachment, but I didn't know about this

23     particular one.

24        Q.   Now in the video that was shown, there were the names of certain

25     military operations flashed on the screen, including Grude 77.  Have you


Page 23292

 1     ever heard of any VRS military action labelled or called Grude 77?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   And there was another name, Spreca 94.  Have you ever heard of a

 4     VRS military action called Spreca 94?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   Was the army of the Serb Krajina, according to your

 7     understanding, a formational element of the VRS?

 8        A.   It was never part of it, and there was never any direct link

 9     between those two armies.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, a search of the internet by myself

12     encountered the whole video, not the edited portion presented by the

13     Prosecution.  I've asked for a stipulation from the Prosecution that the

14     video, indeed, refers to another army in another theater of war, not the

15     VRS.  I have not yet received a response.  I just wanted to bring that to

16     your attention.  Depending to the results of that, I may seek to tender

17     the entire video once a transcript is prepared of the same.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

19             MR. GROOME:  Mr. Ivetic has not provided me with this video.  If

20     he does, I'll look at it.  I'm happy to consider any offer he may wish to

21     make regarding it.

22             MR. IVETIC:  I would direct counsel to his e-mail where the link

23     for video on YouTube was provided.

24             MR. GROOME:  And I responded to that this morning.

25             MR. IVETIC:  -- oh --


Page 23293

 1             MR. GROOME:  And I said I do not have access to YouTube.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  YouTube is a prohibited area for the --

 3             MR. IVETIC:  For all of us, yes.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  -- for those working in this Tribunal, Mr. Ivetic,

 5     as you may know.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  I'll be happy to provide that to Mr. Groome at the

 7     next break.  I have it on USB.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that would be -- and could you also -- we had

 9     some experience with some sources which were perhaps not always extremely

10     reliable on videos, the presentation of videos.  Does it originate from

11     the same source as the video we've seen in relation with Mr. -- what was

12     his name --

13             MR. IVETIC:  Vulliamy.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

15             MR. IVETIC:  It does not come from the same source as I believe

16     that was 1D44 or thereabouts.  And I found multiple sources with the same

17     video --

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

19             MR. IVETIC:  -- that also identify it as being another army.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then --

21             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I would say at this stage I only

22     offered it based on Colonel Radojcic's evidence that it was similar for

23     that purpose.  The Chamber admitted on that limited basis, that it showed

24     a similar device.  So I'm happy to agree at this stage that the sound and

25     the titles be ignored by the Chamber as the witness did not give evidence


Page 23294

 1     about them.  If that solves the problem.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  I'm only asking for a stipulation.  I'm not asking

 3     for any substantive evidence.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand you're only asking for a

 5     stipulation.  Mr. Groome was unable to open it, and Mr. Groome says

 6     apparently the issue why you're asking for a stipulation is not the issue

 7     on which the Prosecution relies in this respect.  So, therefore, what

 8     Mr. Groome more or less offers is that -- to create a situation in which

 9     the stipulation might lose its importance.  And if you --

10             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours --

11             JUDGE ORIE:  If you --

12             MR. IVETIC:  -- this video was used with another witness, a

13     protected witness, and questions were asked of that witness implying that

14     this was a VRS weapon.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  It -- my recollection is not such that I could

16     either at this moment --

17             MR. IVETIC:  I don't know the pseudonym of the witness.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.

19             MR. IVETIC:  [Overlapping speakers] ...

20             JUDGE ORIE:  What I suggest is the following:  Mr. Groome looks

21     at the video and you consider whether the issue would be in full or in

22     part be resolved by the offer Mr. Groome made.

23             Please proceed.

24             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

25        Q.   Now I wish to turn to the topic of the so-called Plamen launcher.


Page 23295

 1             MR. IVETIC:  And if we could please turn to Exhibit P6616 in

 2     e-court, at transcript page 23148.  Oh, I'll wait for the picture.

 3        Q.   Mr. Groome pointed to this picture labelled as the Plamen

 4     launcher and asked you if it was the Plamen launcher and you said yes.

 5     Now --

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Did your brigade have this particular weapon system in your heavy

 8     weapons arsenal?  And now I'm talking about the weapons system depicted

 9     in the photograph.

10        A.   No, we did not have Plamen in any shape or form.

11        Q.   Are you familiar with a weapons platform or weapon called the

12     M-77 Oganj, O-g-a-n-j?

13        A.   Only from photographs and shooting practice, otherwise no.

14        Q.   Are you able to describe for us any of the main differences

15     between the M-77 Oganj which differentiated from M-63 Plamen, especially

16     in relation to the ammunition used.

17        A.   Yes.  This Plamen rocket launcher has 32 rockets, and Oganj, I

18     think, has 16.  They are longer range and heavier charge rockets and have

19     a greater effect.

20             MR. IVETIC:  I would like to call up alongside this Prosecution

21     photo image 1D7031.

22        Q.   And I would ask:  Does the upper right photograph appear to be

23     the identical vehicle as we just saw in the Prosecution's photograph that

24     we just looked at, P6616?

25        A.   Yes.


Page 23296

 1        Q.   Now this web page identifies this weapons system as M-77 Oganj.

 2     Do you permit that you and perhaps Mr. Groome did not look closely at the

 3     photo when identifying it as a Plamen launcher?

 4        A.   Probably.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  I would now like to call up alongside the

 6     Prosecution image P6616, 1D7030.

 7             MR. GROOME:  Your Honours, I'm seeing all of these for the first

 8     time.  Has Mr. Ivetic given us notice of these documents?

 9             MR. IVETIC:  I believe the procedure during the Prosecution case

10     was that we found out about redirect documents that arose out of

11     cross-examination at the time they were presented.  I do not recall

12     having received them.  I can tell you that they're all photographs that I

13     was able to find on the internet following Mr. Groome's

14     cross-examination.  I can give you the numbers of all the photographs

15     that I wish to use.  There's only, I think, two more.

16             MR. GROOME:  That's okay.  I'll look at them for the first time

17     when they come up on our screens.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

19             MR. IVETIC:

20        Q.   Now, sir, looking at the photograph on the right, which is

21     1D7030, this appears similar to the photograph on the left except that

22     the launch tubes are much smaller.  Do you recognise this system from the

23     arsenal of either the JNA or the VRS?  And when I say "this system," I'm

24     talking about the picture on the right.

25        A.   Yes, this is the Plamen system.


Page 23297

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can then --

 3        Q.   I don't think I need to show you the next picture since you have

 4     recognised it.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  If I can pull up 1D7032.  And if we could zoom in on

 6     the top-right photograph.

 7        Q.   Sir, this purports to be the M-63 Plamen VBR 128.  Now I'd ask

 8     you to look at the first image and tell me if you can confirm that this

 9     does accurately depict the rockets when they are loaded into the Plamen

10     system, in this case a wheeled version not a turreted version.

11        A.   Yes, there were several versions.  We see the M-63 version here

12     on its mobile platform installed with two rockets ready to fire.

13        Q.   And is it correct that the rockets, when ready to fire, actually

14     protrude from the launch tube as is depicted in this photograph?

15        A.   Yes, it means that they were placed into the tube and that they

16     are ready to fire.

17        Q.   And this type of rocket-launch system, can you tell us if you

18     recall this as being a weapon that was within either the JNA or the VRS

19     arsenal?

20        A.   These were weapons in the Yugoslav Peoples' Army.  And, as I

21     said, they were placed in operational units.  Not tactical units.  As far

22     as I know, they were part of the corps and army artillery pieces.

23        Q.   And this particular version on the top right of this page, does

24     it appear to have an axle of the type that you and Mr. Groome discussed

25     yesterday in cross-examination, or turret?


Page 23298

 1        A.   I don't see a turret here, specifically.  But I can see a handle

 2     that can be turned and that is how you would move the system from left to

 3     right and by height.  I don't see a turret here.

 4        Q.   Okay.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  If we can zoom out, I think there is other

 6     photographs.  I don't know that any of them actually assist except that

 7     maybe the fourth from the top.

 8        Q.   Does this view help you to determine if there is a turret for

 9     this particular multi-rocket launcher system?

10        A.   If you're thinking about the part that makes it possible to move

11     the system left and right and up and down, then it's there.  But if you

12     think of some -- if you're thinking of something else, then I don't see

13     it.

14        Q.   Okay.  I was thinking of -- in terms of --

15             MR. IVETIC:  If we can have again P6616 on the screen.

16        Q.   When I'm using the word "turret," I'm referring to the part that

17     is identified by Mr. Groome's red arrow.

18        A.   Yes, but I don't think that that part is called a turret.  It has

19     a different name because a turret would be placed above the system, not

20     below.  Since I don't know what that part is called precisely, we can

21     define it as a system ensuring that the system is moved left and right

22     and up and down.

23        Q.   Okay.  Fair enough.

24             MR. IVETIC:  And if we can go back to 1D7032.

25        Q.   And perhaps I can ask the question this way:  Do you recall what


Page 23299

 1     the length of a Plamen rocket was from its head to its tail?  In

 2     approximation.  It doesn't have to be exact.

 3        A.   Well, maybe 70 or 90 centimetres.  Perhaps more than that.  I

 4     cannot say.  I don't really know.

 5        Q.   Okay.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, the witness redefines the -- what

 7     Mr. Groome introduced.  I understood Mr. Groome, when he was talking

 8     about the turret, irrespective of whether that's the right name or not,

 9     to refer to a system which would allow for horizontal movement.  Not

10     vertical movement.  But since the witness now has redefined it, I'd like

11     to verify with Mr. Groome whether he simply used the kind of, if I could

12     say, a kind of a circular system which allows for horizontal movement.

13     Perhaps even up to 360 degrees but turn in every direction.

14             MR. GROOME:  Yes, Your Honour.  So when I used the word "turret,"

15     I meant the horizontal left to right movement.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

17             MR. GROOME:  And I think the Chamber will recall Colonel Radojcic

18     talking about the pistons that accounted for the up and down movement.

19             I'd also note that just reading the text here apparently all of

20     these have traverse movement and up and down elevation movement despite

21     whether or not we can see them, so I'm wondering the purpose of these

22     questions.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, we leave that in the hands of Mr. Ivetic for

24     the time being.

25             Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.


Page 23300

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

 2        Q.   The document states the Plamen rocket is 0.814 metres long.  Does

 3     that correspond to your recollection, sir?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could I ask the witness a question,

 6     apart from how leading your previous question was, you give us details up

 7     to the -- up to the millimetre what is your recollection of the Plamen

 8     rocket.  But in your previous testimony, you were not even able to

 9     identify what was a Plamen rocket or not because apparently you were

10     mistaken when you confirmed that what was shown to you by Mr. Groome that

11     that was or was not a Plamen rocket.  What explains your detailed

12     knowledge about these weapons systems where last, when was it, Thursday

13     or Friday, you were not even able to identify the systems shown to you

14     correctly.  And looking at the pictures now, they are really not the

15     same.  They are quite different.  What is it that you -- made it unable

16     for you to identify them last week and why you can even tell us up to the

17     millimetre at this moment the measurements of the system shown to you

18     now?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, even now I cannot say exactly

20     to the millimetre.  I said 70 to 90 centimetres.  And it is Mr. Ivetic

21     who gave this information in millimetres, .814.  So I stand by what I

22     said.  My understanding is that what is accentuated here is --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  You were asked when the measurement was given to you

24     by the millimetre, does that correspond to your recollection, sir.

25             Now I do now understand from your answer that you say it's more


Page 23301

 1     or less in line with what I remember but don't ask me about details.

 2     That's not what you said.  You said yes.  So you just confirmed it.  But

 3     even if it's not up to the millimetre, you are not able even to

 4     recognise -- to identify what was shown to you by Mr. Groome as not the

 5     Plamen but the Oganj.  You were unable to even see those -- well, rather,

 6     big differences.  What makes you now so confident in knowing all kind of

 7     details if it's not to millimetres then at least in centimetres and

 8     construction and whatever?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My knowledge about multiple-rocket

10     launchers is limited.  I've pointed that out several times.  My basic

11     knowledge about this is that the Plamen has 32 rockets and that the other

12     rocket systems have less and longer barrels, and I think that I didn't

13     say anything different beforehand.  So the only difference is that here

14     we see some new systems that I am not familiar with.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  You're not familiar with the systems you see

16     now?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.  I've already said that I saw

18     the Plamen system firing, and I saw it on photographs, television, and so

19     on.  I know that this system has 32 rockets, and I know that there are

20     several versions of this system that were made, and I know that the Oganj

21     system has less rockets but they have a longer range.  This is the basic

22     knowledge that I have about these systems.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

24             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

25             MR. IVETIC:


Page 23302

 1        Q.   Now having reviewed these photographs both by the Prosecution and

 2     the ones we've just gone through, what is your recollection of the type

 3     of rocket engines that were used for the three aerial bombs launched by

 4     your brigade?

 5        A.   I think that Plamen rocket systems were used.

 6        Q.   Okay.  And are you familiar with -- that is, have you heard of a

 7     weapon system called the BM-21 Grad?

 8        A.   Just superficially.  But I know that this is a rocket system that

 9     has rockets that are a lot longer and the range is longer, but the

10     principle according to which it functions is the same.

11        Q.   Between the Plamen and the Oganj system, how did the rockets

12     compare in size?

13        A.   I would kindly ask you that we do not go into detail because I am

14     really not familiar with the details.  I don't want to be imprecise and

15     therefore I would rather not discuss the topic.

16        Q.   Okay.  That's fair enough.

17             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, then at this time I would tender

18     1D7030, 1D7031, and 1D7032 for purposes of the photograph illustrations

19     only.

20             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I would ask that Mr. Ivetic then

21     prepare the photographs.  There is a lot of written text, including blog

22     posts and advertisements on the -- on the document.  I would object to

23     him putting -- admitting it in its current form.  We should --

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Should we then mark it for identification,

25     Mr. Ivetic, and that you prepare a cleaned copy --


Page 23303

 1             MR. IVETIC:  That's fair enough.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

 3             Madam Registrar, the numbers for these documents to be marked for

 4     identification are.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 1D7030 receives number D536.  Document

 6     1D7031 receives number D537.  And document 1D7032 receives number D538,

 7     Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  They're all marked for identification.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

10        Q.   Sir, and now I'd like to focus on the launcher that was used to

11     launch aerial bombs by your brigade.  Could you describe the rail or

12     track on which the bomb was launched.  Was there any mechanism to keep

13     the bomb steady or straight?

14        A.   When I said that there were rails, what I meant was that this is

15     something that makes it possible for the air bomb to get the right

16     trajectory.  As for the mode, the mechanisms that enabled this, I'm not

17     familiar with that.

18        Q.   How would the launch rail of this modified launcher compare to

19     the launch tube of the M-63 Plamen which we saw in a picture, in terms of

20     its length?

21        A.   In the case of Plamen it is shorter, and these rails through

22     which the air bomb was launched are longer.

23        Q.   Thank you.  Now today you were asked about the sound made by

24     these rocket engines when they ignite.  Do you know how long these rocket

25     engines would burn and create sound upon being launched?


Page 23304

 1        A.   I am not familiar with the details.

 2        Q.   Okay.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  If we can call up again P6616.

 4        Q.   And I would like to focus for the moment on the items that are

 5     grey and cylindrical in nature that are in front of the truck, in front

 6     of the launcher.  Could you identify for us what are those items?

 7        A.   I don't know.

 8        Q.   Then I will move on.

 9             MR. IVETIC:  If we could move to some follow-up questions about

10     the air bomb launched at Hrasnica.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I just ask.

12             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Apparently you're interested to know what it is.  Is

14     there any way to agree with the Prosecution on it?  Are these perhaps

15     rockets that could be loaded into the launchers?  I don't know but --

16             MR. IVETIC:  I could ask for a stipulation on that.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. --

18             MR. IVETIC:  I believe they are rockets rather than launch tubes,

19     but I don't know what Mr. Groome's position on that is.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  But then we have to be very clear.  But I see 32

21     cylindrical features a bit higher up on what Mr. Groome referred to as

22     the turret, right or wrong, and you were referring to the -- what we

23     see --

24             MR. IVETIC:  In front of.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- between that, in front of that, just behind the


Page 23305

 1     cabin of the truck.

 2             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, absolutely.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Is there any understanding as to what that could be.

 4     Is that projectiles launched by this --

 5             MR. GROOME:  That's certainly my understanding, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  And that's the Defence understanding as well.

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay.  Then -- so it's more or less ammunition for

 9     this launcher.

10             MR. IVETIC:  Correct.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, please proceed.

12             MR. IVETIC:

13        Q.   The other day, at transcript page 23202, you stated that you

14     received information from international observers and UNPROFOR and after

15     you received information from your observers, and that you reported to

16     General Milosevic where the bomb had fallen.  What is it that you were

17     told about where the bomb had fallen when you reported to

18     General Milosevic?

19        A.   I received my first information from my own observers who

20     observed the flight of the air bomb and its dissent, and they said that

21     it fell near the target.  And the next information I received a few hours

22     after it was launched from the members of the French battalion of

23     UNPROFOR who said to me that a bomb had been launched from my positions,

24     a bomb that fell close to the school, and that it hit a house.  They said

25     that there were guards in that house, and I think that they showed me an


Page 23306

 1     image showing the leg of a soldier in uniform.

 2             So that is the information -- the first information that I

 3     received about the landing of that air bomb.

 4             Also they said to me that they cannot give me anymore specific

 5     information because the commander of the 104th Brigade does not allow the

 6     military observers or the members of UNPROFOR to get even close to the

 7     place where the air bomb fell.

 8        Q.   Now today when you were dealing with the photograph P6618 of the

 9     school, you mentioned some photos shown to you by UNPROFOR.  Are these

10     the photos you're now talking about or are they some type of different

11     photographs?

12        A.   I did not see any photographs here that I had seen at the

13     UNPROFOR members.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I seek clarification of one issue.

15             You said UNPROFOR was not allowed to come any closer to the point

16     of impact.  Nevertheless, they told you that there were guards in that

17     house and that you think they showed you an image showing the leg of a

18     soldier in uniform.  How can you produce such a photograph if you're not

19     allowed anywhere close to the point of impact?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not familiar with the details.

21     I don't know, believe me.  I just know that I was told that even the

22     military observers, or they, were not allowed to get close to the spot

23     where the bomb had impacted.  They could not carry out an on-site

24     investigation even.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  But you told us that you were shown a photograph


Page 23307

 1     which would give those details, not just a leg but even a leg in uniform.

 2     If -- and, at the same time, you told us that they were not even allowed

 3     to get even close to the place where the air bomb fell.  I'm asking about

 4     your testimony.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know where they got that

 6     photograph and who they got it from, whether it was taken by some

 7     official of theirs or somebody else.  But I know for sure that I did,

 8     indeed, see that photograph.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  When did you see that photograph?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think a few hours after the

11     explosion they showed me this photograph.  I don't know what this camera

12     is called now.  You take a picture and the picture is there straight

13     away.  So that's the kind of picture that they took and that's what they

14     showed me.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  I have a follow-up question to this topic.

17             You said:  "They showed me the photograph."

18             Who is "they"?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the French battalion of

20     UNPROFOR who went to the scene to see where the bomb had fallen and in

21     order to carry out an on-site investigation.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You said members of the French battalion.  How

23     many were there when you had this discussion with them?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I can remember,

25     there was one leader of a patrol, and there were or two or three other


Page 23308

 1     men with him:  An officer, a captain, and two men escorting him.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Who was talking to you?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The captain.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What did he say exactly with respect to the

 5     photograph?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He came to see me to inform me that

 7     he had received information that from our positions an air bomb had been

 8     launched, and he came to find out whether that was correct, whether it

 9     came from our positions.  When I confirmed that to him, then I asked

10     him," were you there?"  And he said, "Yes."  And he showed me this

11     photograph, and he said," here it is, where it fell, and how it fell."

12     And that's what we talked about.  Nothing more than that.  Nothing in

13     great detail.

14             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Did he hand over the photograph to you?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he did not.  I'm didn't ask for

16     it and he didn't want to hand it over.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  How do you know that he didn't want to hand it

18     over?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, from experience, I know that

20     it is their document.  They don't give it to us.  They just let us see it

21     and then they keep it.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  That means that he did not hand it over but you

23     don't know if he didn't want to hand it over; correct?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.  I assume that he did not

25     want to.


Page 23309

 1             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Could I ask one more question in this respect.  When

 3     Judge Fluegge asked you about who "they" were, you said:

 4             "Members of the French battalion of UNPROFOR who went to the

 5     scene to see where the bomb had fallen in order to carry out an on-site

 6     investigation."

 7             Now less than a page before this, you said:

 8             "They could not carry out an on-site investigation even."

 9             So one moment you tell us that they could not carry out an

10     on-site investigation, and one page later you tell us that they showed

11     you a photograph and "they" were those who went to the scene to see where

12     the bomb had fallen and in order to carry out an on-site investigation.

13             Have you any explanation for this apparent inconsistency?  Please

14     proceed.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly.  Probably I didn't

16     explain it properly.

17             They went to the scene and they wanted to carry out an on-site

18     investigation; that is to say, they got close to the place where the air

19     bomb had fallen and they wanted to carry out an on-site investigation.

20     At that moment, the commander of the 104th Brigade came up and he

21     prohibited them from approaching the scene.  They had to leave and he no

22     longer allowed them access to that place.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  Earlier you said that they were not -- they would

24     not allow the military observers or the members of the UNPROFOR to get

25     even close to the place, and now you say they went closely there, then


Page 23310

 1     they moved away again, and then later on they were not given access to

 2     the scene any further.

 3             Is that how we have to understand your testimony?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, probably I did not speak

 5     with full precision.  The last thing I said is fully accurate

 6     information.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Please proceed.

 8             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  And now again the photograph.  Did they explain

 9     where this leg was found by them and photographed?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they said that the bomb fell

11     and destroyed a house and they managed to take this photograph.  What was

12     clearly depicted in that photograph was the leg of a soldier from the

13     knee downwards in uniform.  I don't know.  It was a long time ago.  I

14     cannot recall all the details involved but that is the way it was,

15     basically.

16             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Where did they tell you where they found this

17     leg?  Inside the house, outside the house?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The house had been destroyed and

19     it's on the rubble, on this pile of bricks.  That's where this leg was

20     protruding.  That's the way it was, roughly.

21             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  It was exactly there where the house was

22     destroyed.  What does that tell you?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was there.

24             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic.


Page 23311

 1             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 2             If we can call up P6618, please.

 3        Q.   And while we wait for it, sir, I can identify it as a picture

 4     that Mr. Groome showed you today.

 5             MR. IVETIC:  And I'd like to turn to page 3 of that exhibit.

 6        Q.   Now the building that has an A-S and an arrow pointing to it, I'd

 7     like to direct your attention to a structure or building that appears to

 8     be of a grey colour that is perpendicular to that building marked A-S and

 9     that goes toward the location that is marked G10.  Are you able to

10     identify what is that building, perpendicular to the building marked A-S

11     and going toward the location marked G10?

12        A.   I don't know.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now for artillery or mortars, how close is a shell

14     required to land to the intended target in order to be qualified as a

15     successful fire mission under both categories of fire missions that you

16     identified earlier?

17             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

18             MR. GROOME:  Objection, compound question.  It deals with both

19     artillery and mortars.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, could you please split up --

21             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  And could you also give a kind of framework in which

23     you should judge whether it was successful or not.  I mean, sometimes I

24     hear people considering matters being very successful where I would have

25     some doubt, but then the problem is that there is no clear framework for


Page 23312

 1     judging that.  So could you please make that part of your examination as

 2     well.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

 4        Q.   First of all, sir, you have told us that you are not an

 5     artilleryman.  Do you feel that you are able to tell us about, let's say

 6     first, mortars?  What is the beaten zone of a mortar launcher?

 7        A.   It depends on the calibre of mortar.  It is considered that the

 8     target had been hit if it falls within the zone of a diameter of a

 9     successful mission for that projectile.  If it's 82 millimetres, for

10     instance, if I remember correctly, it's about 30 metres.

11        Q.   Okay.  And do you feel comfortable to answer a similar question

12     in relation to artillery rounds and their beaten zone?

13        A.   Yes.  With artillery pieces, since they are of larger calibre,

14     the diameter of a beaten zone is larger.  It ranges from 70 to 80 metres,

15     depending on the type of asset.  And if it's a Howitzer, it depends on

16     the type of Howitzer, if it's a compact fuse or some other type of shell.

17             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, neither the cross-examination nor the

18     direct examination dealt with this concept of beaten zone.  Could we

19     establish that the witness knows what this means and, maybe for my own

20     edification, understand what he understands that term to be?

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, you're invited to follow up the

22     suggestion made by Mr. Groome.

23             MR. IVETIC:

24        Q.   Now, sir, in your answers you've talked about a zone of a

25     diameter, and you've identified that diameter for purposes of both an


Page 23313

 1     82-millimetre mortar and an artillery.  Can you explain for us what you

 2     mean by "this zone"?  What is this zone called in the military parlance

 3     of the former Yugoslav armed forces?

 4        A.   It is the radius of lethal zone.

 5        Q.   Okay.  And is it -- what is your understanding of a beaten zone,

 6     which was the terminology that I used?  If you have one.  You may not.

 7        A.   I did not understand the question.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  You nevertheless answered it, Witness.  Or do you

 9     mean the previous question or the question now?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand the last

11     question.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, what was your understanding of a beaten zone?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My understanding of the concept of

14     radius of lethal zone?  If a shell hits a target, if the target is within

15     the area of the radius of lethal zone, it is considered as a successful

16     hit.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  But the question was what do you understand by

18     beaten zone, or are you unfamiliar with that expression?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not familiar with that.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Nevertheless, you answered a question which used

21     that expression.

22             Could I, before we take a break, invite the parties to make a

23     clear distinction between the effect of an exploding shell and the

24     precision in firing such a shell, because these are two different

25     matters.  The effect of a shell, depending perhaps on fuse used or


Page 23314

 1     surroundings, may -- is expected to be the same because it depends on the

 2     characterisation of the shell itself; whereas, the precision of firing a

 3     shell and hitting a target or landing where it was intended to land is a

 4     different matter and has more to do with the technology of firing than

 5     with the characteristics of the shell itself.  And I got the feeling that

 6     the two are perhaps a bit confused in the last few questions.

 7             We take a break.

 8                           [The witness stands down]

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, apart from number of questions, any idea

10     on how much time they would take if not interrupted by the Judges?

11             MR. IVETIC:  I think 35 to 40 minutes should suffice.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, the witness was thoroughly cross-examined and

13     therefore the Chamber allows you to use such time.

14             We take a break and will resume at half past 12.00.

15                           --- Recess taken at 12.10 p.m.

16                           --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.

17             JUDGE ORIE:  While we are waiting for the witness to be brought

18     in, Mr. Ivetic, I don't know whether it will ever come to tendering the

19     complete video, perhaps depending on your conversations with Mr. Groome.

20     But for a video to be tendered and therefore potentially be admitted into

21     evidence, the Registry would need three copies of the video on a CD with

22     a 65 ter number indicated on the CD:  One for the OTP, one for the

23     Chamber, and one for the Registry --

24                           [The witness takes the stand]

25             JUDGE ORIE:  -- and a related surrogate sheet and, if need be,


Page 23315

 1     transcripts uploaded in e-court under the same 65 ter number.  That's

 2     what it would require to have it in evidence.

 3             MR. IVETIC:  Yes, that's my understanding as well, Your Honours.

 4     That's why I did not seek to tender it to it.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  Yup.

 6             MR. IVETIC:  One other matter I could direct Your Honours'

 7     attentions to, the questions before the break about the -- about the leg.

 8     I can direct Your Honours to another witness who testified about this, an

 9     eye-witness, 9173, lines 18 through 25.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  We'll have a look at it.

11             MR. IVETIC:  Yes.

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you for assisting us, Mr. Ivetic.

13             Please proceed.

14             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

15        Q.   If we could please revisit P592.  And this will be the order of

16     General Milosevic which was discussed in cross-examination relating to

17     the Hrasnica incident.

18             Now, first of all, sir, General go not identify a specific target

19     for you.  What maps did General Milosevic have at the corps level as

20     opposed to the maps at the brigade level in relation to targets?

21        A.   If you have the scale in mind, the difference was that at corps

22     level, the scale was 1:100.000.  At the brigade level, the scale was

23     1:50.000 and 1:25.000.

24        Q.   My question was a little bit more specific.  Did

25     General Milosevic have access to your map identifying brigade targets?


Page 23316

 1        A.   Yes, he did have knowledge of the basic targets.

 2        Q.   Okay.  Now returning to this order on our screens, the area that

 3     is mentioned where the ABiH is attacking in the first paragraph, are you

 4     familiar with the terrain and the positioning of the forces so as to tell

 5     us what would have happened if the ABiH further advanced in this area?

 6        A.   In this case, the ABiH carried out an attack on the 2nd Sarajevo

 7     Brigade.  There was a danger of its position being taken, which would

 8     mean that they would be able to enter Vojkovic.  In that settlement,

 9     there were several thousand Serb inhabitants, some local and some

10     refugees.  The consequences would have been disastrous for the

11     population.

12        Q.   Now this order mentions in the second paragraph:

13             "In order to thwart the enemy and give them a warning so that

14     they are forced to accept this truce ..."

15             Do you know what truce General Milosevic is talking about in this

16     order?

17        A.   Since there was combat, obviously there was no truce to speak of.

18     However, to force them into asking for a truce, General Milosevic issued

19     this order.

20        Q.   Now we also watched a video from Martin Bell during

21     cross-examination --

22             MR. IVETIC:  P839.

23        Q.   -- dated 7 April, 1995.  And the voice-over on that video starts:

24             "The cease-fire appears to go crumbling rapidly."

25             Do you recall if the Muslim offensive and, indeed, the Hrasnica


Page 23317

 1     aerial bomb firing occurred during the period of time of a cease-fire?

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 4             MR. GROOME:  The answer has been given, but I just wonder about

 5     the appropriateness of asking such a question when the witness has said

 6     just a few lines before "obviously there was no truce to speak of."

 7             MR. IVETIC:  Well, Your Honours, I believe we are allowed to

 8     refresh the recollection of a witness.  And surely by a video that the

 9     Prosecution tendered, I think that is an appropriate question.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  There is no need for a ruling.  Mr. Groome asked

11     himself whether it was appropriate, yes or not.  Apparently there is some

12     difference of view.  The question has been answered.  We'll proceed.

13             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

14        Q.   Now, Colonel, at transcript page 23224, you stated that a

15     commander is duty-bound according to international law of war to evacuate

16     civilian population to avoid civilian casualties.  And this was in

17     relation to Fikret Prevljak.

18             In your opinion, what Prevljak did during this time-period in

19     Hrasnica, was it in compliance with that duty?

20        A.   I don't think so.  I don't think he did that.  His population --

21     or the population on his side did not even go to shelters.  They freely

22     moved about.  I don't know whether it was on his orders or whether they

23     disobeyed any of his orders is something I cannot discuss.

24        Q.   Can you tell us what you did as a commander when picking

25     locations for your own military headquarters so as to comply with this


Page 23318

 1     duty?

 2        A.   My command post was situated at the beginning of a large avenue

 3     outside the urban part of Ilidza towards the source of the Bosna River.

 4     It is several hundred metres away from the nearest houses.  In doing so,

 5     we made sure that any enemy artillery fire or mortar fire aimed at our

 6     command would be received by us, rather than having civilians as

 7     collateral damage.

 8        Q.   And where was this location in reference to the front line with

 9     the ABiH?  How close was it?

10        A.   The nearest position was near the forestry school and the

11     institute, so several hundred metres away.  I would say between 250 and

12     300 metres away.

13        Q.   And did your headquarters encounter incoming fire from the ABiH;

14     and, if so, how frequently?

15        A.   Certainly we did.  The trees around the headquarters were torn

16     apart and branches broken.  They mostly received artillery fire.  We also

17     had two people killed, or perhaps three.  They were guards securing the

18     command post who were killed by their artillery from Hrasnica, Igman, and

19     Sokolovic Kolonija.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Now I'd like to move to another topic.  Today at

21     temporary transcript page 20, line 1, you started talking about the

22     investigation into the first Markale incident and you were interrupted by

23     Mr. Groome.  I'd ask you to complete your answer as to what happened

24     after you were named a member of a commission to investigate the first

25     Markale.


Page 23319

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the question that I asked the witness

 3     was whether he had any paperwork.  I did not ask him to go into any kind

 4     of detailed explanation, so I'd suggest that any re-examination should be

 5     limited to my query, which was simply whether there was the paperwork.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Ivetic, it's really my recollection that

 7     Mr. Groome was primarily interested in any documentation and that in

 8     relation to his previous question about how written documents would

 9     support whether there was any investigation ordered or ...

10             Would you please stick to that rather than to revisit the whole

11     of the --

12             MR. IVETIC:  Okay.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- Markale.

14             MR. IVETIC:  I could perhaps then come to a more pointed

15     question.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Okay, please.

17             MR. IVETIC:

18        Q.   Sir, was the commission that you were part of permitted to

19     perform an investigation as to the Markale shelling, the first Markale

20     shelling?

21        A.   No.  Our UNPROFOR liaison officer provided information to the

22     extent that the Muslim side disagreed with our being part of an expert

23     team that was to analyse what had actually happened.

24        Q.   Okay.  And was there anything for you to report as a result?

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.


Page 23320

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, we didn't even go --

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I renew my objection.  This was all in

 3     reference to paragraph 108 where the witness says this bit about the

 4     commission.  He wasn't challenged on that in any way.

 5             The second part of the paragraph says:

 6             "General Milosevic called me and ordered me to establish the

 7     facts."

 8             It was whether there was any paperwork with respect to

 9     General Milosevic asking him to establish the facts.  That's what I was

10     talking about.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  That's how I understood it as well.

12             MR. IVETIC:  And, Your Honour, my question was based upon your

13     guidance at temporary transcript page 62, lines 5 through -- pardon me, 9

14     through 13, where you said:

15             "Mr. Groome was primarily interested in any documentation and

16     that in relation to his previous question about how written documents

17     that would support whether there was any investigation ordered."

18             I think this information does go to that question that

19     Your Honour raised and introduced into the record of whether there was

20     any evidence of it being ordered, and this explains why there isn't any

21     documentation.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Let me read the question again.

23             I think even the question as rephrased did not follow my

24     guidance.  It's about ordering to investigate rather than how another

25     party may have permitted.  It was about the ordering.  It was about the


Page 23321

 1     internal communication within the VRS, rather than what happened after

 2     that.

 3             Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.

 4             MR. IVETIC:  Thank you.

 5        Q.   Now, Colonel, I'd like to talk about the attack or the firing

 6     upon a UN convoy on the Igman mountain road that Mr. Groome asked you

 7     about at transcript page 23246.

 8             First of all, can you tell us if you had any understanding or

 9     agreement with UNPROFOR about the use of that road.

10        A.   The official route for UNPROFOR movement was the highway between

11     Sarajevo, Ilidza, Blazuj, and Kobiljaca and onto Kiseljak.  And for the

12     most part during the war, that was the route used.  However, in the last

13     year of the war, for reasons unbeknownst to me, they started using the

14     road via Igman.  It is a forest, unpaved road which had been cut through

15     the woods in order to pull out tree trunks from Igman that had been done

16     before the war.  Until then, the road had been used by the ABiH alone.

17     But at some point in the war, UNPROFOR began using it.  We frequently

18     discussed that topic, and they told me that they only relied on the road

19     not to escort anything but simply for their personnel to return from

20     touring positions on Mount Igman.  However, in this specific case, the

21     road was also used at the time UNPROFOR soldiers were pulling back to

22     their base at around 6.00 p.m.  At 6.00 p.m., all UNPROFOR members

23     withdrew from all roads and positions to their base.

24             I also tried to explain that it starts to get dark at the time,

25     and there is a large spring of water there causing much fog in the area


Page 23322

 1     often; thus, limiting visibility.

 2        Q.   Could you please tell us what was the specific agreement you had

 3     with UNPROFOR as to the use of that mountain Igman road?

 4        A.   There was a specific agreement that the road would not be used

 5     for humanitarian convoy movements because there was no need to do so.

 6     There was a route agreed upon by the Main Staff which was supposed to be

 7     used.  Even if they did the Igman -- use the Igman road, it was to be

 8     used during the day-time, and that is why this happened.  That road is

 9     partly shaded, and it started getting dark, and taking into account

10     everything about what the Prosecutor said about the time of day, this

11     could only be applied to a clear area.  But, in this case, it is a

12     forested area frequently covered in fog, and visibility is truly limited.

13     For that reason, I agreed with UNPROFOR not to use the road to escort any

14     convoys but that convoys should use the route I described a moment ago.

15        Q.   Prior to this incident where the convoy was fired upon, did

16     UNPROFOR use the road during daylight hours?

17        A.   Yes.  UNPROFOR used the route, as I said, in order to move their

18     combat vehicles which were visibly marked and painted white.  They used

19     it to move between Hrasnica, Igman, and further in the field towards

20     Bjelasnica where they toured ABiH positions and the lines of separation,

21     but they exclusively did so during daylight hours.

22        Q.   On those occasions when they used the road during daylight hours,

23     did your forces engage and fire upon UNPROFOR on that road?

24        A.   No, never.

25        Q.   Now after this shooting occurred, first of all, when is the next


Page 23323

 1     time you had direct contact with an UNPROFOR officer?

 2        A.   The next day.  The French UNPROFOR commander came to see me.  It

 3     was his custom to stay in touch with me frequently.  I understood his

 4     visit as his wish to find out what had actually happened on the Igman

 5     road, but I did not tackle the topic first, and he didn't put any

 6     questions in that regard.  It was my impression that it was his tacit

 7     understanding as to why we engaged him on that road.  That was my

 8     understanding.  He didn't even refer to it, but I understood it to mean

 9     that he was aware of the agreement that the road should not be used for

10     movement of humanitarian convoys for reasons of abusing it to that end.

11        Q.   Now, did either this UNPROFOR officer from, I believe, the

12     French -- you say the French commander or any other UNPROFOR officer ever

13     lodge a complaint with you in relation to this incident of the firing

14     upon UNPROFOR vehicles on the Mount Igman road?

15        A.   Never.  There were no protests coming from their side because

16     there was no engagement.

17        Q.   Now this meeting with the UNPROFOR French commander that occurred

18     the day after the incident, how would you describe the tone of that

19     meeting and the demeanour of the French general -- pardon me, French

20     commander?

21        A.   It was a routine meeting.  We discussed the existing problems and

22     how best to deal with them.  As I said, at no point in time did he refer

23     to the incident on the Igman road.  I understood it to mean that he saw

24     it as a misunderstanding and that they actually moved during the time of

25     day when -- which did not include the agreement.  And the responsibility


Page 23324

 1     was brought to bear on UNPROFOR for escorting the humanitarian convoy at

 2     the specified time.

 3        Q.   Now I want to clarify with you something that you raised in

 4     response to a question from Mr. Groome.  Did your forces fire a warning

 5     shot at the convoy on the Igman road that evening?

 6        A.   Although we could have hit the convoy with the very first shell,

 7     because we had the route plotted, we fired the first round over their

 8     heads.  Since they continued movement without ever stopping, we used the

 9     second round to hit a vehicle and it was then that the convoy stopped.

10        Q.   How many total projectiles did your forces fire, including the

11     shot over their heads?

12        A.   One.  Actually, one plus one, meaning two.

13        Q.   Okay.  Now the other day at transcript page 23250, you were

14     describing this section of the road where you could target the vehicles

15     and you said it was a couple of hundred metres with a mask and trees.

16     Could you explain what you meant by this description?

17        A.   We could follow the convoy visually, especially during the night

18     because of the flashes it created.  We could follow it from the general

19     area of Igman.  However, the area of engagement of our cannon, T-12,

20     which had been posted there exclusively for that person [as interpreted],

21     they passed over only the lower part of the route we saw on the

22     photograph shown by the Prosecutor.  That is exactly the stretch I refer

23     to.  It is forested.  And there is only one part of the road that is

24     visible and only there can you engage anyone.  I think the stretch is no

25     longer than -- not longer than 2- or 300 metres.  Had they gone through


Page 23325

 1     that stretch, they would have become unavailable.  They would have been

 2     masked by trees.  That is why they tried to cover that stretch as quickly

 3     as possible in order to avoid being hit.

 4        Q.   Now you say:

 5             "Had they gone through that stretch, they would have become

 6     unavailable."

 7             Unavailable for what?

 8        A.   We could no longer control their movement.  What is important at

 9     this moment is to know that we didn't know who it was.  We didn't know if

10     it was UNPROFOR or the ABiH.  Because on the infrared device, due to the

11     quality of the image, one cannot tell if it's an UNPROFOR or an ABiH

12     vehicle.

13        Q.   If they had passed that 2- to 300 metre stretch, did you have

14     other heavy weapons more inward in your lines that could reach and

15     prevent those vehicles from coming closer to you?

16        A.   No, there would have been no other possibility to target them.

17     We could engage them risking to hit another target which we did not

18     intend to do so.  I now only have in mind my brigade, whereas some other

19     brigades may have had the opportunity to engage them along other

20     stretches, but this was the only stretch where my unit could.

21        Q.   Okay.  Sir, I thank you for answering my questions.

22             MR. IVETIC:  Your Honours, that exhausts the questions that I had

23     for redirect examination, and I thank you for the time given for the

24     same.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.


Page 23326

 1             Judge Fluegge would have a question before we give an opportunity

 2     to the Prosecution to put further questions.

 3                           Questioned by the Court:

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Witness, I would like to clarify one matter and

 5     take you back to one portion of your testimony of today just to better

 6     understand.  This is in relation to page 45, lines 13 to 17.  Mr. Ivetic

 7     asked you:

 8             "What is your recollection of the type of rocket engines that

 9     were used for the three aerial bombs launched by your brigade?"

10             Your answer was:

11             "I think that Plamen rocket systems were used."

12             Last week you were also asked about the Plamen system, and you

13     said -- and this can be found on page 23162, line 10.  You were asked

14     about the Plamen rocket system, and then your answer was, I quote:

15             "Not a single brigade of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps had a Plamen

16     multi-rocket launcher."

17             "Q.  Did you have any rocket launcher system?"

18             Your answer was:

19             "My brigade didn't.  And I say that categorically.  The Plamen

20     rocket system, according to the establishment of the JNA, could only be

21     found in operative units of the corps and in the land forces, not as part

22     of the equipment of tactical units."

23             A little bit later on page 23180, you added to that the

24     following.  I quote:

25             "When I stated that my brigade did not have this, I know that


Page 23327

 1     with 100 per cent certainty.  The adjacent brigades they didn't either,

 2     according to establishment.  Quite simply, a Plamen is not supposed to be

 3     in brigades, according to establishment."

 4             Can you help me to understand your testimony in that respect,

 5     especially in relation to the use of any Plamen equipment for the three

 6     aerial bombs?

 7        A.   I stand by what I said, that my brigade didn't have multi-barrel

 8     rocket launchers, Plamen or any other weapons that could fire the Plamen

 9     rockets, other than air bombs.  My logistics commander, or logistics

10     assistant, obtained the required quantity of rockets from the logistical

11     corps command only for air bombs, not for any other weapons that would

12     use this Plamen ammunition.

13             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  What I understood from your answer is that you

14     didn't have any Plamen system in your brigade or in the adjacent brigades

15     but your people were able to receive some parts of the system for use for

16     the firing of the aerial bombs.

17        A.   Yes, correct.  As I said, we would receive the necessary elements

18     to build the air bomb through our logistics organ.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Which parts of the Plamen system were used for

20     the aerial bombs?

21        A.   The engine.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Can you explain that further?  I don't fully

23     understand what you mean by that.

24        A.   What was used were the projectiles of Plamen without the warhead,

25     just the body of it with gunpowder charges that would enable the


Page 23328

 1     projectile to fly.  They were used without the warheads.  Only the body

 2     of the Plamen rockets was used.

 3             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you very much.

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  I would have a few more questions for you as well

 5     about what the chronology on what happened during the day of the modified

 6     aerial bomb being fired at a target in Hrasnica.

 7             What time was it that the aerial bomb was fired?

 8        A.   As far as I can recall, it was fired in the morning.  I don't

 9     know exactly what time it was, though.  I think it was in the early part

10     of the morning.

11             JUDGE ORIE:  At what time did you get in touch with, as you said,

12     the French -- the UNPROFOR French unit which reported to you about and

13     gave that photograph?  At what time was that, approximately?

14        A.   I think that it was a few hours after the launching.  I cannot

15     remember all the details.  This was 19 years ago, after all.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Where did you meet with them?  Did they come to you,

17     did you come to them?

18        A.   They came to my command.  And the main reason that they came was

19     to inform me that a bomb was launched from my positions, and they wanted

20     information.  So the goal of the visit was to establish whether it was

21     launched from my brigade's AOR.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Did they tell you anything about what had happened

23     to them when they went to the site of impact?

24        A.   I stated a few times in my testimony that I'm not able to quote

25     what they said, but the sense of it was that it was reported by their


Page 23329

 1     observers that an aerial bomb fell in Hrasnica and that they immediately

 2     sent out a patrol.  When the patrol arrived on the scene, they wanted to

 3     conduct an investigation.  They told me that military observers were

 4     present as well; I don't know from which country.  But then they said

 5     that Fikret Prevljak came, the commander of the 104th Brigade, and told

 6     them to leave the area where the aerial bomb fell, and he did not allow

 7     them access there for the rest of the day.

 8             JUDGE ORIE:  And when was it then that they had taken those

 9     paragraphs?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably before the commander

11     arrived.  They came, they were standing around, and then somebody

12     reported to the commander that they had arrived and then he intervened.

13     But I assume that they made the photographs while they were in Hrasnica.

14             JUDGE ORIE:  This Chamber heard evidence that the French came

15     after the UNMOs had been more or less restricted in their freedom of

16     movement; apparently the site of impact being under control of the

17     opposite armed forces.

18             Do you have any explanation as to where the UNMOs were kept out

19     and even lost their freedom of movement, why UNPROFOR would then have

20     come and be free to photograph, take photographs, before, as you said,

21     they were told to leave?

22        A.   I can only assume what happened.  The UNMOs had less authority

23     than the UNPROFOR.  There were more members of UNPROFOR and they were

24     more robustly equipped, and you tried to avoid conflict with them as much

25     as possible.  UNMOs, however, were something else.  And this is the only


Page 23330

 1     way that I can explain that.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Have you any explanation as why these photographs

 3     that were shown to you never appeared anywhere in any document?

 4        A.   I don't have an explanation.  I might have some thoughts about

 5     it.

 6             When I suspected that there was a tunnel underneath the airport,

 7     I tried through my channels to find out some details.  I was given a

 8     diagram by an UNPROFOR member, with the title:  "Entre the tunnel," and

 9     that was where I suspected it was.  Later, in a conversation with their

10     commander, I tried to find out whether this tunnel existed or not, and he

11     said, "No, no, this is just talk.  It's unconfirmed information."

12             It was a matter of them trying to co-operate with one or the

13     other side.  In this case, this was about people that I was frequently in

14     contact with, and they showed me as a gesture of good will what it was

15     that hit that particular area.  That would be that.

16             JUDGE ORIE:  Now I have some difficulties in understanding

17     exactly what you're telling us.  Are you saying that UNPROFOR was

18     friendly with you and for that reason they have shown the photograph to

19     you but not to anyone else?

20        A.   No, that's not what I meant.  I understood it as a gesture of

21     good will that they showed it to me.  They didn't want to give it to me.

22     I was shown the photograph.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  I do understand that.  But if you take a photograph

24     of a scene immediately after an impact of a modified aerial bomb, showing

25     to you is one.  My question was about why that photograph never appeared


Page 23331

 1     anywhere in any report or that it was shared with the UNMOs or -- but

 2     it -- you seem to be the only one who have seen it apart from the person

 3     who showed it to you.

 4        A.   In my testimony in the Karadzic case, I had the opportunity to

 5     see this photograph among the documents that were presented to me at the

 6     time.  If you look carefully probably you can find this photograph.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Well, if it was shown to you in the Karadzic case, I

 8     would expect the parties to -- to produce that, but -- any party -- this

 9     Chamber has no access to the evidence in the Karadzic case, so --

10             Mr. Groome.

11             MR. GROOME:  Could we enquire who showed it to him?  Who was the

12     person that showed it to him?

13             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Could you tell us who showed it to you in the

14     Karadzic case?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that during the preparation

16     phase, one of the attorneys who was proofing me here in The Hague showed

17     it to me.  When I was talking on that topic, he showed me that

18     photograph.  Yes, yes, and that's when I saw it.  I think that the lawyer

19     in question was a Mr. Sladojevic.

20             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, that makes the puzzle even greater.  Because it

21     might have been clearly in the interest of the Defence of Mr. Karadzic to

22     bring that photograph to court and to confront you with that photograph.

23     But that did not happen, if I understand you well?

24             I think Mr. Mladic wants to consult with, again, admitted, even

25     if at an inaudible volume.  Could you ...


Page 23332

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said what I had said.  I remember

 2     the photograph well.  I think that I saw it here.  As for how you can get

 3     it now, I don't know, but I can guarantee that you have the photograph,

 4     and I'm surprised that you haven't seen it yet.  That's why I was talking

 5     about these details because I thought you -- you had seen it yourself.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Was the report about one leg coming out of the

 7     rubble?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

 9             JUDGE ORIE:  This Chamber received evidence that to the extent

10     there were any body parts, that it was two legs rather than one, and that

11     did not originate from members of the French unit of UNPROFOR.  Do you

12     have any explanation for this -- oh, apparently there is some

13     interpretation problem.

14             Has it been resolved now?  Yes.  Okay.  Then I restart.

15             This Chamber received evidence that to the extent there were any

16     body parts, that it was two legs rather than one, and that information

17     did not originate from members of the French unit of UNPROFOR.  Do you

18     have any explanation as for the two legs against one and for another

19     source than the French UNPROFOR members?

20        A.   I have no comment.  It's possible that you could see the other

21     leg really well, but I noticed really well one leg up to the knee with

22     camouflage uniform and a boot on the foot.

23             JUDGE ORIE:  And they came to see you in your headquarters?

24        A.   Yes.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  To the extent you know, did they immediately go from


Page 23333

 1     the site of the impact to your headquarters?

 2        A.   I couldn't really say.  On the way from Hrasnica to me, they

 3     passed through the airport.  Their base was at the airport.  I don't know

 4     if in the meantime they stopped off at the battalion regiment command and

 5     then went on to visit me.  I don't know that.  But any road would lead

 6     them through their command.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  I also have one or two questions on a totally

 8     different topic, but Judge Fluegge would like to ask a follow-up question

 9     on the matter we just tackled.

10             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Just to be very clear about that, you said you

11     saw the photo which was shown to you during proofing for your testimony

12     in the Karadzic case.  Shown to you by a lawyer.  And you thought it was

13     Mr. Sladojevic.  Can I take from your answer it was not used during your

14     testimony in court?

15        A.   It was not used, that's right.  Nobody put any questions to me on

16     that matter.

17             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ORIE:  Then I have a question on a total different subject.

19             You were asked about not destroying a target but nevertheless

20     having been successful in engaging that target.  Now, if you would target

21     the headquarters or from -- at whatever level, company headquarters,

22     battalion headquarters, would you -- would the aim be to paralyse them or

23     to destroy them or ...

24        A.   Probably neutralise.

25             JUDGE ORIE:  And when do you consider such a headquarter to be


Page 23334

 1     neutralised?  Let's just assume that somewhere in a basement of a

 2     building there is a suspicion that there is headquarters of a company or

 3     whatever.  When would you consider it to be neutralised?

 4        A.   When it's destroyed, it means that the target cannot be used.  If

 5     it's neutralised, then it can be used again after a certain period of

 6     time.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  And if, for example, let's just take the same

 8     example.  Now a mortar shell falls at a distance of 100 and 150 metres

 9     from the building in which basement that headquarters was suspected to be

10     present.  Would that neutralise it?

11        A.   I wouldn't strike that target with a mortar shell because that's

12     something that's used for destroying a target out in the open.  I would

13     use, rather, a gun or a more precise weapon with a contact fuse which

14     would then go through and neutralise the target.

15             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.  Now let's stay away from whether the mortar

16     would be the best one or you would rather find another type of shell.

17     But if it would land at a distance of 100 metres from that headquarters,

18     would the headquarters then be neutralised or would they not be

19     neutralised?

20        A.   The target was not neutralised.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  So if a shell would fall at a claimed entrance of a

22     headquarter, company headquarter, whatever headquarter, and it would miss

23     by 100 to 150 metres, you would need to follow up because the target was

24     neither neutralised nor destroyed.  Is that how I have to understand your

25     testimony?


Page 23335

 1        A.   Yes.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome, any further questions.

 3             MR. GROOME:  Yes, just a few Your Honour, thank you.

 4                           Further cross-examination by Mr. Groome:

 5        Q.   I just want to return to this photograph again that you say you

 6     were shown by Mr. Sladojevic in your preparations for your Karadzic

 7     testimony.

 8             The first question that I have for you is:  Is it your evidence

 9     that the picture that Mr. Sladojevic showed you was the same picture that

10     was shown to you by the French UNPROFOR person?

11        A.   I cannot say that with any disagree of decisiveness.  I don't

12     know if the picture is the same.

13        Q.   Did the -- are you able to say with any degree of certainty

14     whether the subject matter was the same; that is, maybe a photograph

15     taken of the same scene but from a different angle and perhaps by a

16     different person?  Are you able to say that the subject matter was the

17     same?

18        A.   Yes, probably.

19             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Was it a Polaroid photo, what Mr. Sladojevic

20     showed to you?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not sure, Your Honours.

22             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Thank you.

23             MR. GROOME:

24        Q.   Now, through e-mail, I've just checked with my colleagues in the

25     Karadzic team, and no such photo has ever been tendered in that case, so


Page 23336

 1     my question to you is:  Did Mr. Sladojevic inform you that a decision had

 2     been taken to not use this photo which on its face appears to be rather

 3     important evidence?

 4        A.   He did not tell me that it would not be used.  When we spoke

 5     about the point of impact and the damage it caused, I think that was when

 6     they showed me the photograph.

 7        Q.   Okay.  Now I want to go -- or return to the topic of the attack

 8     that you ordered on the convoy on Mount Igman on the 14th of July, 1994.

 9             MR. GROOME:  Could I ask that 65 ter 10638 be brought to our

10     screens.

11        Q.   While we're doing this, you gave some detailed evidence about

12     conversations you had with a French commander, a French UNPROFOR

13     commander.  Can you tell us his name?

14        A.   This is not difficult to check.  I cannot remember his name, but

15     you can find out who it was there in that period, what the name of the

16     person was.  I think they changed.  Every 12 months or so there would be

17     a new officer, so I don't remember that name.

18        Q.   The way you described your interaction with this officer, I had

19     the impression that you had a good working relationship.  You seemed to

20     know each other quite well; is that correct?

21        A.   All members of French UNPROFOR were officers I had daily

22     communication with.  They came to my location every day.  It was nothing

23     unusual.  The same officers, when they went to the other side, probably

24     had relations that were just as good.  So it was not a question of

25     friendship or anything.  We're just talking about the usual good


Page 23337

 1     professional relationships, and we would be in contact any time that

 2     there would be a problem.

 3        Q.   Do you recall the person's first name or any part of their last

 4     name?

 5        A.   This is probably more of a question for my UNPROFOR liaison

 6     officer, and I could give you his name if you would like, and then you

 7     can find out more details about this.

 8        Q.   Well, it's your evidence that he showed you the photograph, so

 9     I'm interested in what you remember about the person.  Do you remember

10     what he looked like?

11        A.   No, they always had helmets.  I don't remember any details now.

12        Q.   Okay.  Now --

13             MR. GROOME:  Okay.  The document I want is on the screen.

14        Q.   Now, you said in your evidence just a few minutes ago in response

15     to Mr. Ivetic that during the last year of the war the UNPROFOR started

16     to use the Igman road, and you said:

17             "However, in the last year of the war, for reasons unbeknownst to

18     me, they started using the road via Igman."

19             Now this is a report, UNPROFOR weekly situation report, from the

20     8th of July, 1995.  And I want to just focus on the highlights.  If you

21     look at the first page, we read:

22             "Denied any freedom of movement by the Serbs" --

23             MR. GROOME:  I'm sorry, we need to go to the second page of the

24     B/C/S and I'll start again.

25        Q.   "Denied any freedom of movement by the Serbs.  UNPROFOR and UNHCR


Page 23338

 1     continue to use the Igman road."

 2             And then skipping to the next highlight, we read:

 3             "The humanitarian situation remains poor.  The air-lift remains

 4     suspended as it has been for three months.  The food warehouses are

 5     mostly empty.  There is almost no water or electricity and no gas at

 6     all."

 7             Colonel Radojcic, I put it to you that you do know why they used

 8     the Igman road, and that's because you and other VRS officers in the

 9     Sarajevo Romanija Corps ensured that UNPROFOR and UNHCR could not bring

10     any kind of humanitarian assistance into the city of Sarajevo by any road

11     or by the airport.  Isn't that the reason why they resorted to this dirt

12     road through the woods up on Mount Igman?

13        A.   The question of movement of humanitarian aid convoys went

14     considerably beyond the authority I had.  I only acted on orders in this

15     case.  So if there was a problem, it was resolved at a level that was

16     much higher than my own.

17             In this case, to accuse me of having prevented people of

18     obtaining humanitarian aid, that is incorrect, because I did not have

19     such powers.  It was for me only to carry out the orders I received.

20             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender

21     65 ter 10638.

22             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Document 10638 receives number P6620, Your

24     Honours.

25             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  10.  It shouldn't be -- it should be 6610 --


Page 23339

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours --

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You are right.

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  It's P6620.

 4             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  You are right.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  And is admitted into evidence.

 6             MR. GROOME:

 7        Q.   Finally, sir, you also said in response to questions of

 8     Mr. Ivetic today that there was an agreement that the UNPROFOR would only

 9     use the Igman road in daylight hours.  In fact, at T-65 you said:

10             "They used it to move between Hrasnica, Igman, and further in the

11     field towards Bjelasnica where they toured ABiH positions and the lines

12     of separation, but they exclusively did so during daylight hours."

13             Now, sir, P6619 is in evidence, and we know that sunset was

14     at 8.27 p.m.  Can you accept that an UNPROFOR convoy that's up on that

15     hill at 6.30 to 6.50 that day, honestly believed that they were using

16     that road per the agreement in the daylight hours?  Can you accept that

17     that's how they -- that they, in their view, they were abiding by any

18     agreement to use that road in daylight hours?

19        A.   As I've already said, this agreement meant that vehicles of

20     UNPROFOR could move around, not humanitarian aid convoys.  Because at the

21     level of the Main Staff, a route had been agreed upon along which the

22     convoy would move.  In this case, it wasn't the Igman route.

23        Q.   With respect to the issue of timing, can you accept that UNPROFOR

24     on the mountain at 6.30 to 6.50 in the evening honestly believed that

25     with sunset an hour and a half to two hours away that they were


Page 23340

 1     travelling in daylight hours?  Can you accept that?

 2        A.   I can ask you to speak to the UNPROFOR command, to ask them why

 3     their working hours were over at 1800 hours.  I'm not in a position to

 4     say why they did it that way.  They withdrew into their bases at 1800

 5     hours precisely because it became dark and in order to avoid incidents.

 6             It was a war zone.  We were only a couple of hundred metres away

 7     from the enemy, and it's very hard to say anything from this distance

 8     now.  But in that actual situation, it is very hard to establish who was

 9     where at a given location.

10        Q.   But it's not hard to establish that at 6.30 to 6.50 it was

11     daylight?

12        A.   It was not daylight.  I keep telling you that.  That was the time

13     I know -- I know what you're going to show me now and that is correct.

14     It is correct the sunset comes later.  But do go to Sarajevo and ask

15     people there at 7.00 on the slopes of Mount Igman whether visibility is

16     such at 7.00 p.m. that you can see whether that's an UNPROFOR vehicle or

17     a BH army vehicle.

18             MR. GROOME:  I have no other questions, Your Honour.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  Weren't you offered to go together with the Office

20     of the Prosecution to that place?  You said -- because you said "but do

21     go to Sarajevo and ask people there."

22             You were invited to join any mission which, on the 14th of July,

23     would see exactly how much light there would be, and I think you said you

24     were not inclined to do that, isn't it?

25             So the phrase:  "Do go to Sarajevo," in view of your response


Page 23341

 1     earlier, any comment?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My reason for not going to Sarajevo

 3     is purely personal, and I wouldn't like to comment on that.  It is

 4     nothing else but a personal reason.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  I nevertheless would like you to tell us why, what

 6     that personal reason is.  If you want to move into private session, fine

 7     as far as I'm concerned if you don't want the outside world.  But the

 8     Chamber, since you're invoking those reasons, would like to know.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would ask if --

10             JUDGE ORIE:  I am talking to you, you are talking to the Chamber.

11     There is no reason to seek any contact with the Defence at this moment,

12     eye contact.  So if you want to go into private session, we'll do it.

13     Otherwise, please answer my question.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, ultimately I am going to tell

15     you why I don't want to go to Sarajevo.  Actually, the Muslims filed

16     several criminal reports against me, and I'm afraid that my security

17     would be jeopardized if I were to find myself in that area.  That is the

18     only reason.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  And if for good reasons you would be immune for

20     arrest, would you go then?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know why my presence

22     there would be indispensable when --

23             JUDGE ORIE:  That's a different question.  You said the reason

24     why you wouldn't go there is you fear for being arrested.  If I said if

25     that fear for arrest would be removed, would you go there?  Are you


Page 23342

 1     willing to go there?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have to think about that.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

 4                           [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  No further questions triggered by the Bench.

 6             Then this concludes your testimony, Mr. Radojcic.  I would like

 7     to thank you very much for coming to The Hague and for having answered

 8     all the questions that were put to you by the parties.  You had to stay

 9     for quite a while in The Hague.  Now you can return.  I wish you a safe

10     return home again.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much indeed.

12                           [The witness withdrew]

13             JUDGE ORIE:  I would like to put the following on the record.  To

14     the extent there may be any confusion on the transcript, which is only a

15     temporary one, document 10638 has received number P6620 and not P6610.

16             We take a break.  And the parties -- well, of course, we still

17     have to deal with the -- with the associated exhibits.  I don't know

18     where we are in preparations for that.

19             MR. IVETIC:  I thought Your Honours had said we would do that

20     written.

21             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes.

22             MR. IVETIC:  So I would propose that we do it in writing since

23     there are quite a number of them, and it would be perhaps easiest for me

24     to prepare a written submission and for the Prosecution to respond to the

25     same.


Page 23343

 1             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Groome.

 2             MR. GROOME:  Your Honour, I had prepared a copy of the Defence

 3     exhibit list with the Prosecution's position.  I can hold it --

 4             JUDGE ORIE:  Well --

 5             MR. GROOME:  -- or I can distribute it.  So whatever suits the

 6     Chamber.

 7             JUDGE ORIE:  Would it be a good idea that you present it to

 8     Mr. Ivetic, that Mr. Ivetic considers your response when he considers

 9     whether or not to shorten his list of associated exhibits.  And already

10     also consider the reasons why you may oppose or not oppose in his further

11     written submissions --

12             MR. GROOME:  I'll do that.

13             JUDGE ORIE:  -- still to be prepared.  Then we'll wait for that.

14             I think it's still worthwhile to start with the next witness

15     after the break.  We'll have a break of 20 minutes.  We'll resume at 5

16     minutes past 2.00 and might forego the formalities with the next witness.

17                           --- Recess taken at 1.44 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 2.05 p.m.

19             JUDGE ORIE:  We're waiting for the witness to be escorted into

20     the courtroom.

21             I don't know who to address, but is it true that I see two

22     documents on the list of associated exhibits with the same 65 ter number;

23     that is, 1D02066?

24                           [The witness entered court]

25             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour.  We


Page 23344

 1     noticed that mistake, and yesterday we provided a correction; 1D02066.

 2     That's the document.  It has been corrected.  It's now 1D02067.

 3             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I see that.  I missed the correction.  But we

 4     should have looked at it.

 5             Good afternoon, Mr. Tusevljak.  Before you give evidence, the

 6     Rules require that you make a solemn declaration, the text of which is

 7     now handed out to you.  May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

 9     speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10                           WITNESS:  SLOBODAN TUSEVLJAK

11                           [Witness answered through interpretation]

12             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you.

13             Please be seated, Mr. Tusevljak.  Mr. Tusevljak, there are only a

14     few minutes further to go today but we'll make a start with your

15     testimony.  You'll be examined by Mr. Stojanovic.  Mr. Stojanovic, you

16     find him to your left, and Mr. Stojanovic is counsel for Mr. Mladic.

17             Mr. Stojanovic, please proceed.

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave

19     just one more thing.  Since we agreed with the Prosecution on how this

20     statement will be dealt with, 65 ter 1D02065, I would like to ask my

21     learned friend Mr. Shin to make you aware of the agreements that we have

22     reached and also in terms of the obligations that we have vis-à-vis the

23     Trial Chamber.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Mr. Shin.

25             MR. SHIN:  Yes, good afternoon, Your Honours.


Page 23345

 1             Mr. President, I discussed with Mr. Stojanovic the redaction of

 2     certain sentences in that statement because they relate to a Scheduled

 3     Incident which has been dropped from our indictment.  So in the interests

 4     of a more stream-lined process, we'd admit that agreement.

 5             My understanding is that -- specifically it's in paragraph 25 of

 6     that statement, and it relates to Incident F10.  My understanding is that

 7     my learned friend has not yet had a chance to prepare the redacted

 8     version but they will be able to do that before tendering the document

 9     tomorrow morning, but I'll leave that to them.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Yes, I think this is accepted by the Chamber to

11     leave out matters which are dropped from the indictment.

12             Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.

13             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Just

14     another piece of information, something that we agreed upon.  You know

15     that we have that obligation to stipulate on that exchange of maps.

16     Mr. Shin and I have been working on this, and I believe that we will

17     provide you with more specific information very soon.

18             And with your leave, I would now like to start examining this

19     witness.

20                           Examination by Mr. Stojanovic:

21        Q.   [Interpretation] Sir, could you please speak slowly and state for

22     the record your full name and surname.

23        A.   Slobodan Tusevljak.

24        Q.   Would you tell the Trial Chamber whether at one point in time you

25     gave a statement to General Mladic's Defence about various things that


Page 23346

 1     happened about which we had questioned you?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D1627, could we please have

 4     that in e-court now.

 5        Q.   Sir, we're just going to wait for a moment to have the English

 6     version up as well.  Thank you.

 7             The information on this page, are these your details and is the

 8     signature on this page yours?

 9        A.   Yes.

10             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please take a look at

11     the last page of this document.

12        Q.   Sir, is this also your signature?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Thank you.  The next thing I wish to ask you is as follows.  For

15     the purposes of Mr. Karadzic's defence, did you also provide a more

16     extensive statement about the same things that we from the Defence of

17     General Mladic discussed with you?

18        A.   Yes.

19             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 1D02065 in

20     e-court, the last page, please.

21        Q.   Sir, the signature on this last page of the statement that you

22     gave in Mr. Karadzic's case, is this also your signature?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Thank you.  During the preparations carried out for your

25     appearance in court today --


Page 23347

 1             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Actually, Your Honours, could we

 2     please go back to 1D1627?  1D1627.  Could we please have the second page

 3     on the screen now.

 4        Q.   Did you draw my attention to something that you noticed together

 5     with me that in paragraph 2 there is a typographical error.  When you

 6     speak about snipers, it actually pertains to paragraph 26 of the

 7     statement that you gave in the Karadzic case.

 8        A.   Yes, yes.

 9        Q.   And in paragraph 3 of this statement, did you also indicate to us

10     that there is a typographical error, and you say here:  "I discuss in

11     paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement," et cetera, it should be

12     paragraph 26 in relation to snipers?

13        A.   Yes, yes.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And did you also indicate to us that in paragraph 4

15     this sentence, which reads as follows:  "It was not possible to hit a

16     tram from the Metalka building."  And this has nothing to do with what

17     you were asked about and you did not notice this when you were signing

18     the statement?

19        A.   Yes, yes.  I noticed it only later and then I said to you --

20        Q.   That we should delete that from the statement.

21        A.   Yes, it has nothing to do with me.

22        Q.   And also in paragraph 7, you explain to us that the attack of the

23     Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina against your positions was on the 11th of June

24     and the second one was on the 12th of June.  And then the front line was

25     not moved.


Page 23348

 1        A.   Yes, yes.  There has just been this inversion of dates.

 2             JUDGE FLUEGGE:  Mr. Stojanovic, one clarification in relation to

 3     paragraph 4.  Are you suggesting to delete the entire paragraph 4 or only

 4     the sentence, or the part of the sentence, "it was not possible to hit a

 5     tram from the Metalka building."  What is it?

 6             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.  As I said to

 7     the OTP as well, that is what the witness cautioned us about, the

 8     sentence that reads as follows:"... it was not possible to hit a tram

 9     from the Metalka building."  That sentence should be deleted from

10     paragraph 4 and the rest remains unchanged.  Thank you.

11        Q.   Now, Witness, this is what I'm asking you.  This statement, now

12     that these corrections have been made, as for the typographical errors,

13     and also this phrase in paragraph 4 should be deleted, and then in

14     paragraph 7 you also made these corrections, given all of this, does this

15     fully correspond to what you wish to say and what you did say and what

16     your recollection is?

17        A.   Yes.

18             MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D1627, Your Honours, could that

19     please be admitted into evidence?  Whereas 1D2065, should that be

20     admitted into evidence only for identification.  However, we've already

21     agreed with the Prosecution, I think, that we would like to redact two

22     sentences from paragraph 25, those that have to do with Incident F10

23     which is no longer in our indictment.

24             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, number -- 65 ter oh, no, the doc ID

25     I -- 1D1627 receives number.


Page 23349

 1             THE REGISTRAR:  Number D539, Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ORIE:  D539 is admitted into evidence.

 3             For 1D2065, we'd like to have a number reserved.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  The reserved number would be D540, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE ORIE:  That number is reserved for the newly to be uploaded

 6     version of the statement with a redaction in paragraph 25.

 7             We adjourn for the day.  Mr. Stojanovic, it's time.

 8             Witness, before you leave this courtroom, I'd like to instruct

 9     you that you should not speak with anyone or communicate in whatever way

10     with whomever about your testimony.  Now, it's not that you've given that

11     much testimony today, although content, yes, because at least one of your

12     statements is now admitted into evidence.  But also for any testimony

13     still to be given tomorrow.

14             We'd like to see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30.  You may now

15     follow the usher.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.

17                           [The witness stands down]

18             JUDGE ORIE:  We adjourn for the day and will resume tomorrow,

19     Thursday, the 3rd of July, 9.30 in this same courtroom, I.

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.20 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 3rd day

22                           of July, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.

23

24

25