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
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
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
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
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
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.
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;
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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 way.
15 Q. I guess what I'm getting at, if you had not taken such quick and
16 decisive action, is there a likelihood that other soldiers would have
17 thought that they could have assaulted officers and do so without being
18 held to account for having done so?
19 A. Yes.
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
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;
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."
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
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;
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
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,
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 --
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
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,
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:
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
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
1 Romanija Corps, including the Ilidza Brigade.
2 And my first question to you is: Do you recall receiving this
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,
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
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:
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
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
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 --
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
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
4 A. In the heading, it states that it is to deal with the opening of
5 artillery fire on urban parts of Sarajevo:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
25 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
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
25 A. "Komunikacija," it's a general term for moving on land, sea, and
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
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.
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
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.
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
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 --
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
23 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we leave that in the hands of Mr. Ivetic for
24 the time being.
25 Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
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
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
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
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:
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
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 --
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
1 judging that. So could you please make that part of your examination as
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
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
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
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 internal communication within the VRS, rather than what happened after
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: 10. It shouldn't be -- it should be 6610 --
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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 --
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.
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.
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.