1 Thursday, 3 July 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is the case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the Prosecution wanted to raise a
12 preliminary issue.
13 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours. Just very briefly.
14 The Prosecution is requesting if the Chamber could devote five to
15 ten minutes tomorrow, simply to discuss the schedule before the summer
16 recess. I believe that if that were firmed up this week, it would allow
17 all of us to make the plans that we need to make in the remaining weeks
18 before the break.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We reserve time for that.
20 If today's witness would finish before quarter past 2.00, would
21 that be -- is it tomorrow or not later than tomorrow?
22 MR. GROOME: I'm just suggesting tomorrow to give the Defence
23 adequate time to finalise their arrangements.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll -- that request is granted.
25 Before we continue, I have a few matters which I'd like to raise
1 as well, one of them in private session. That will not take very long.
2 But we move into private session which will last not more than a couple
3 of minutes.
4 [Private session]
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
3 The next item is about Witness GRM246.
4 On the 11th of June, the Defence has filed a Rule 92 ter motion
5 for the admission of the statement of Witness GRM246 as well as 45
6 associated exhibits.
7 On the 25th of June, the Prosecution filed a response in which it
8 indicated that the majority of the associated exhibits are not on the
9 Defence Rule 65 ter exhibit list and had not yet been uploaded into
11 The Prosecution requested that the motion be dismissed without
12 prejudice and that the witness's testimony be postponed.
13 The Chamber notes that the last opportunity for the Defence to
14 file a reply, if any, would be today. Given the extent of the unnoticed
15 evidence indicated by the Prosecution in its response, the Chamber has
16 some concern whether it would be efficient to hear the testimony of this
17 witness before summer recess. This Wednesday, for trial scheduling
18 purposes, Chamber staff had inquired with the Defence through an informal
19 communication whether it intends to call this witness before the summer
21 And, Mr. Groome, to some extent it also deals with the matter you
22 raised in your preliminary matter.
23 But would the Defence be able to provide an update on the issue;
24 that is, the timing, the scheduling, of the evidence to be given by
25 Witness GRM246?
1 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we already rescheduled this witness and
2 it's most likely that he is not coming before the summer recess.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, therefore --
4 MR. LUKIC: I will finally deal with that tomorrow morning.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That would then be part of what Mr. Groome
6 raised as well because there is also still another motion pending in
7 relation to that witness and the Chamber would also like to know how
8 urgent that is.
9 Having dealt with all this -- Mr. Weber, you're half on your
10 feet. Now you're fully on your feet.
11 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. If I could just address
12 one other matter.
13 It's in relation to Exhibit P654 -- excuse me, P6594, currently
14 marked for identification. This related to a set of BiH MUP photographic
15 documentation concerning the shelling of Vlaska Miskina Street on the
16 27th of May, 1992, that came up during the course of
17 Witness Batinic's evidence.
18 The Prosecution has spoken with the Defence and it's the
19 Prosecution's understanding that the Defence has agreed to withdraw its
20 objection to the admission of the exhibit, and based on that, we'd be
21 retenderinging the photographs into evidence.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: If you need my confirmation, that's true. We talked
24 yesterday and we are withdrawing our objections.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: P6594 is admitted into evidence.
3 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Tusevljak.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you are still bound
8 by the solemn declaration you have given yesterday at the beginning of
9 your testimony.
10 WITNESS: SLOBODAN TUSEVLJAK [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic will now continue his examination.
13 Mr. Stojanovic.
14 Examination by Mr. Stojanovic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Well, we will go through this formal part.
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And with your leave, Your
19 Honours, I think we stopped yesterday when I was about to tender the
20 following exhibits. So I would like to tender documents for this
21 Witness 1D02066; document 65 ter 1D02067; The next document is
22 65 ter 1D02069; Then document 65 ter 1D02068; Document 65 ter 1D02070;
23 And, finally, I would like to tender the following 65 ter document,
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, I tried to identify these
1 documents in the statement of the witness. I only found two references
2 with respect to 1D02067 and 1D02069. Could you please indicate where we
3 can find the other documents mentioned in the statement of the witness?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I can say the
5 following: In the proofing of this witness for the Karadzic case, he was
6 shown the following paragraphs: 1D --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could we have the statement on the screen so that
8 we can follow.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And could you indicate the paragraph number and
10 which page in e-court you would need.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. In
12 paragraph 9, this is page 2 of the statement with ID number 1D02065.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Well --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we see the paragraph now on the screen,
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Before the English translation appears on the
17 screen, I have to correct myself. I don't know if I misspoke. On line
18 23 of page 5, I see 1D02069. It should be 1D02068.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to point out,
20 Your Honours, in paragraph 9 the document used was the one from the
21 Karadzic case, 1D08548. That document corresponds to our document
23 Document -- in paragraph 8 of Karadzic's statement is 1D047 --
24 08547. Pursuant to 65 ter in our case, it is document 1D02066.
25 If we can look at paragraph 25, this is two pages along in the
1 statement from the Karadzic case where document 1D8549 is referred to.
2 It corresponds in its entirety to our document 1D02068, Your Honours.
3 And with your leave, I would now like to put questions to the
4 witness and present these documents to him that were used during the
5 examination-in-chief, 1D02070 and 1D02071.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I think you clearly pointed out
7 where to find the ones Judge Fluegge had found already. What we're more
8 interested in to find out where the associated exhibits are dealt with
9 which are on your list of associated exhibits but which we could not find
10 in any statement because you nicely referred to the ones we had found.
11 Could you please deal with the others, like 1D02066, -69, -70, -71.
12 Those are the ones we have trouble with. Where do we find them in the
13 statements, which statement, where?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. If you just
15 allow me to put the questions to the witness, then I will go through
16 these documents as well. They will be used now when I put the questions
17 to the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you tender these documents as
19 associated exhibits. Associated exhibits are exhibits that are directly
20 linked to the statements, the 92 ter statements you tender into evidence.
21 Mr. Shin.
22 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honours. I hesitate to be of assistance
23 here, but I think what Mr. Stojanovic may be indicating is that their
24 chart -- that there is a correlation between the document ID numbers in
25 The Karadzic statement and the 65 ter numbers for this case. I think
1 that's what he was getting at and I think he was pointing to where in the
2 Karadzic statement these documents were associated.
3 If that's of assistance -- but I'll leave that with
4 Mr. Stojanovic to confirm or to take that elsewhere.
5 JUDGE ORIE: But I think as a --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- matter of fact --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- you are absolutely right in that
9 respect, but, nevertheless, I didn't find the numbers in the statement
10 itself because I think it's -- at least I personally am really confused.
11 The document we see on the screen is not that one which was attached as
12 annex A to your reply to Prosecution's response 92 ter, where in the
13 other statement, which was attached as annex A to the original motion,
14 has only - how many? - very few paragraphs so without, for instance,
15 paragraph number 25.
16 Which statement is which? Perhaps in another version of this
17 statement from the Karadzic case there will be a reference, but I don't
18 find it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, we have already looked at the comparison
20 table as contained more or less in the latest Defence exhibits for
21 Witness Tusevljak where both the 65 ter numbers for this case and the
22 Karadzic 65 ter numbers are mentioned, so we kept that already in mind
23 when making this puzzle but still have not resolved it.
24 If you have a better solution --
25 MR. SHIN: Yes. I hesitate again to --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. SHIN: To explain again what the Defence is trying to say.
3 So Mr. Stojanovic should feel free to stop me if I'm incorrect.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. SHIN: There has been since the 92 ter filing a confusion
6 about two statements from the Karadzic case: One an unsigned document
7 and one a signed document.
8 Now, we had pointed out in our response that there appeared to be
9 to be this confusion. That was not taken up nor explained by the
10 Defence's reply --
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [No Interpretation]
12 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry. Should I stop, Mr. Stojanovic?
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Correct.
14 MR. SHIN: I'll continue unless stopped.
15 Now, Your Honours had correctly pointed out by informal
16 communication that there was a confusion there, the same confusion that
17 we had noted in our response, and I believe where the Defence now is
18 clarifying that a document ID number which was buried in the footnotes of
19 their 92 ter motion is actually the Karadzic statement they intend to
20 tender pursuant to 92 ter.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But --
22 MR. SHIN: And --
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- they have tendered yesterday --
24 MR. SHIN: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: -- the documents as we have them now before us. I
1 mean, D539 and D540 are admitted and those are the documents, as they are
2 uploaded into e-court, and that at this moment we are looking at those
4 Now, if there is any footnote that Mr. Stojanovic wants to draw
5 our attention to, that's fine, but then he should do it.
6 MR. SHIN: Yes, of course. I mean, I'm happy to leave this but
7 I'm just trying to assist. It may be that Mr. Stojanovic can take it
8 from there.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, Mr. Shin suggests that there may be
10 a footnote in one of the statements which refers to another statement --
11 oh, in the filing, and that we should look at that. At this moment we
12 are focused exclusively on what you tendered yesterday on what you
13 uploaded into e-court and what we admitted as such. Where in those
14 documents, if at all, we can find the references? Yes, when I said D540
15 admitted it was only MFI'd because there was only one language version.
16 But --
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In fact, the Defence was instructed to redact a
19 part of paragraph 25 and to upload a new version and it would be helpful
20 if we can have that and then we can decide about admission.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honours.
22 That is correct. Thank you. I think that this has already been done.
23 We were a bit late with it this morning because of some technical issues,
24 but I think this is already now in the system.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do agree with you, a number had been
1 reserved for that. And for D540, as a matter of fact, when I said
2 MFI'd it was not even MFI'd; it was just a number reserved.
3 Now, we are looking at those documents which are in e-court and
4 you're invited to tell us where in those documents we find reference to
5 the numbers I just mentioned; that is, 1D02066 and to last two digits
6 -69, -70, and, -71. Or are they in another document?
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like
8 to note paragraph 1 of statement D539, which was admitted yesterday,
9 where we indicated in the footnote a document indicated as 1D02006,
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- a footnote -- one second, please.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that on the screen.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P539. Which page do we find the footnote? And I
14 wish you good luck, Mr. Stojanovic, because on my version it's on none of
15 the pages. Where do we find the footnote which refers to what you want
16 to draw our attention to?
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Page 2 of the document, if I
18 noted it correctly, 65 ter 1D1627, 1D1627. I think that is D539 or D540.
19 I'm not sure. I didn't have time yesterday to note it down.
20 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's the right number.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check that -- which one that is. I think the
23 one which was admitted yesterday as D539, Madam Registrar, that is
24 1D1627. Now -- and let's have then -- that's D539. You said page 2. I
25 do not find any footnote on page 2, but could we have it on our screen.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: In the B/C/S version, I see a footnote but not a
3 JUDGE ORIE: But not in English.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Not in English and I don't know where --
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think there is a
6 misunderstanding there. It's simply not been recorded. If you can see
7 in the B/C/S version, there is the footnote and the marking indication
8 for it in paragraph 1 and reference to 1D02006.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: If --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed the --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't have a footnote in my B/C/S version.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But let's see, you say --
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We can see it on the screen. There is a footnote
14 but this is missing in the English translation.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, Mr. Stojanovic, let's be clear: You
16 quickly, without any delay, give clear insight on what we have, what
17 means what, et cetera. You draft that immediately. You provide that to
18 the Chamber within the next two hours, because to be quite honest the
19 Chamber is not amused by spending 15 minutes on these kind of puzzles.
20 Is that clear to you?
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then please put any question you want to put to the
23 witness and take care that this matter has been resolved without delay.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [No interpretation]
25 JUDGE ORIE: We do not receive interpretation at this moment.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] So I propose that at this point
3 we admit into evidence those documents that have some support, as you
4 noted yourself, in the statement. And those are documents 65 ter 12 --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No, wait --
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No? All right, then later.
7 JUDGE ORIE: No way that under these chaotic circumstances we are
8 going to commit anything. We pointed clearly out that we had
9 difficulties in finding in the admitted materials or the materials
10 appearing under the reserved number the references. Now for all those
11 Judge Fluegge mentioned, you can clearly tell us within the next two
12 hours where we find them as associated exhibits, and that's it. The only
13 thing we'll do is to reserve numbers for all of the documents you
15 Madam Registrar, I think the first one Mr. Stojanovic mentions
16 was 1D02066. Which number would be reserved for that?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Reserve number would be D541, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then 1D02067, the number reserved would be?
19 THE REGISTRAR: D542, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: 1D02069.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Reserved number D543, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: 1D02068.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Number D544, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: 1D02070.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Number D545, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: 1D02071.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Number D546, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Those numbers are reserved.
4 Immediately now continue with any questions you may have for the
5 witness, Mr. Stojanovic.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you do that, Mr. Stojanovic, and I don't
7 intend to add any further confusion or further problems to you. I just
8 want to -- can I go to page 8 of this document on the screen, please. I
9 beg your pardon, to paragraph 8.
10 This is -- the document I would like is a statement of an accused
11 that was attached to the Defence reply -- The witness's reply, yeah.
12 It's the statement with 25 pages. About 25 paragraphs. I keep saying
13 "pages." Twenty six paragraphs. That's the statement I would like to
14 See on the screen.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that it received no number. It's a
16 document which you attached to the 92 ter motion but is not since then
17 uploaded into e-court under D539 or D540.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: When?
19 JUDGE ORIE: This is the chaos we are finding ourselves in.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: The point I wanted to raise about that is that the
21 English version --
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you have a lot of work to do in your
25 next break. We'll not further confuse you. You've confused us
1 sufficiently. Please proceed.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] We will correct ourselves,
3 Your Honour, and it's true you have noticed that there is a difference
4 between these two statements.
5 Now I would like to read the summary for this witness,
6 Slobodan Tusevljak.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Witness Slobodan Tusevljak lived
9 and worked in Sarajevo until the war broke out. He testifies about the
10 deterioration of interethnic relations in the city, the loss of job from
11 his company, and the fact that until May 1992 he was not recruited
12 militarily nor did he have any weapons.
13 On the 8th of June, 1992, Muslim units attacked his settlement
14 and pushed back the locals and their guards some 200 to 250 metres to the
15 rear, killed five to six men, and wounded about ten people and then
16 torched their houses. After this attack, a new defence line was
17 established which remained undisturbed until the end of the war because
18 his units engaged only in defensive operations defending their positions.
19 In this unit, the witness was a platoon commander of a platoon
20 That belonged to the 4th Company of the 2nd Battalion of the
21 1st Sarajevo Brigade. The position of his platoon was of great strategic
22 importance because he secured the road Lukavica-Pale. Throughout the war
23 they were under intense artillery, infantry, and sniper fire and a lot of
24 soldiers and civilians in the rear of his unit were killed.
25 According to official information, during the war at this
1 position - especially in Ozren Street - 230 soldiers were killed and
2 scores of civilians. The fire was opened from civilian areas and the
3 command of the opposing unit was at the Hrasno Brdo MZ. Never throughout
4 the war did he receive from the superior command any oral or written
5 orders to open fire on civilian targets nor did he issue such orders to
6 his men.
7 The witness specifically comments on the sniping incident marked
8 As F4 in the indictment and claims that during this incident there were
9 no snipers in his unit and precisely so that in order to avoid the
10 sniping of the other side of their positions they erected screens of
11 various kinds at the most sensitive portions of the separation line.
12 And finally, this witness will speak about his knowledge about
13 the supply of parts of Sarajevo that was under the control of the
14 BH Army, the supply of electricity, water, and gas to these areas.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin.
16 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honours, I note that the summary --
17 JUDGE ORIE: There is something with the translation. I do not
18 hear you through your earphones. Now it is okay. Please proceed.
19 MR. SHIN: I note that the summary includes a reference to an
20 event on the 8th of June, 1992, where Muslim units attacked this
21 witness's settlement and pushed back the locals.
22 I would appreciate if Mr. Stojanovic could point out where this
23 is. I do see a reference to an event on the 8th of June involving an
24 attack on positions which sounds more like a military action. Now --
25 I'll leave it at that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, could you point at where in the
2 written evidence an attack on the witness's settlement on the
3 8th of June, 1992, is referred to?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's paragraph 11,
5 Your Honours. The witness there speaks about an attack on the
6 8th of June, 1992. And the exhibits that we will see a little later,
7 this separation line is marked before and after the attack.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that portion on the screen? I'm not
9 sure if it is really paragraph 11 or paragraph 8.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, could we see
12 Document D540, and there I make a reference to paragraph 11. D540.
13 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
14 Mr. Stojanovic, paragraph 11 of D540, still without a status,
15 refers to Muslim forces constantly attacking the positions of the
16 witness and --
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The previous paragraph also
18 mentions that, Your Honour, 9, 10, as an introduction to this entire
20 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's have a look then at paragraph 10.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, paragraph 10 refers to a time
22 before the attack on 8th June, 1992, And paragraph 11 after the attack of
23 the 8 June, 1992.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Nine, Your Honours.
25 Paragraph 9.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, really, you take us from
2 paragraph 11 to paragraph 10 to paragraph 9. Please be organised. We
3 are spending half an hour on resolving your chaos. This Chamber is very
4 kind in its wording when we are saying we are not amused by it. There
5 are stronger words to express our real feelings about what happens over
6 the last half an hour. Which paragraph?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Paragraph 9 also talks of after the 8th of June.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you have until after the next break
9 to find out where the attack, the 8th of June, on the settlement is to be
10 found. You have another task there. Perhaps we should take a little
11 longer break but --
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, paragraph 8
13 discusses that. Paragraph 8.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, paragraph 8 says:
15 "On map," so-and-so, "I have marked Serbian and Muslim houses and
16 the original line disengagement near Zagorska Street."
17 That is not a reference to an attack on the witness's settlement
18 on the 8th. It's something different.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, I will read the
20 third sentence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The third sentence of what paragraph? Paragraph 8?
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The third sentence speaks of
24 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph 8, as we have it uploaded into e-court.
25 But that's the confusion again and again and again, that there are two
1 Karadzic statements, you've uploaded one with a paragraph 8 which has
2 only two lines and you are constantly referring to some document which
3 you have attached to your 92 ter statement which is a different
4 statement. Let me be clear: We have three statements now - and this is
5 how I want you to refer to it - we have one 26-paragraph unsigned
6 statement, undated, attached to the 92 ter application, that is 26
7 paragraphs; then we have another long statement, 28 paragraphs,
8 signed, and dated at the end the 5th of November, 2012; then we have a
9 third statement which contains 13 paragraphs which was taken in the -- in
10 the course of 2013 in three or four different interviews.
11 From now on, if you refer to any statement it should be clear
12 whether you refer to the 28-paragraph statement, the 28-paragraph
13 statement being D54; to the 13 -- D540, yes. D540. Whether you refer to
14 The 13-paragraph statement, which is D539. Or whether you refer to the
15 26-paragraph statement, unsigned, undated, attached to the 92 ter
16 application but not a number.
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
18 D540 in paragraph 9 speaks of this in the second and third line or second
19 and third sentence.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This is exactly the problem, Mr. Stojanovic. I
21 found this sentence in another paragraph. I really want to know which
22 statement you want to deal with during your examination-in-chief. I've
23 no idea. We have differences and I'm not willing to compare every single
24 sentence of this and that and the third of the statements.
25 And to add to that, if you look at the statement given for the
1 Mladic case, for our case, some references to the other statements with
2 respect to numbers of paragraphs are wrong. That should be checked too,
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, we take the break now. You get
5 organised. What you want to put to the witness or when you want to ask
6 him any questions about his statement, it should be a statement that
7 exists in e-court - that is, uploaded into e-court - and to which a
8 number has been assigned. At this moment that's D539 and D540. We'll
9 not spend any time on any statement which is not uploaded into e-court
10 which is not assigned a number because it's non-existent for us. Is that
11 clear to you?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We will do
13 so. After the break, we'll inform you thereof.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then you have 20 minutes to put questions
15 to the witness. You wasted now more than half an hour. We'll
16 nevertheless not cut you short on the 20 minutes, but again that we are
17 not amused is the soft language.
18 We take a break after the witness has left the courtroom.
19 [The witness stands down]
20 And we'll resume at 20 minutes to 11.00.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.20 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Stojanovic, I take it that
24 you're now fully on top of the various versions of the various statements
25 by the witness.
1 Can we agree that whenever you refer to any statement that you
2 refer to that statement by the number of paragraphs contained in that
3 statement. We have the 26-paragraph statement which was attached to -- I
4 think it was to the reply of the 92 ter filing; we have the 28-paragraph
5 statement which is found in e-court under number D540; and we have a
6 13-paragraph statement which is in e-court as D539.
7 If you use this system, unless you have a fourth or a fifth or a
8 sixth version of whatever statement, if you use this reference there
9 should be no confusion. Clear?
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] It is clear, Your Honours. And
11 if you allow, I would like to address in a few sentences.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] And if I err, please let me
15 In keeping with instructions that I received from you that I
16 should decide which one of the statements from the Karadzic case I will
17 use, in the Veljevic case, we contacted the Prosecutor regarding this
18 issue that has to do with the statements because there are two statements
19 in the Karadzic case.
20 And we agreed, and Mr. Shin will correct me if I'm mistaken, that
21 the statement in this case - in the Karadzic case for this witness, D540,
22 today, which was MFI'd - shall be the only statement from the Karadzic
23 case that will be used here on the proviso that paragraph 25 of this
24 statement should be redacted, the portion of the paragraph that deals
25 with the F10 incident. In keeping with this agreement, we entered into
1 e-court D540 and tendered it as an exhibit.
2 Now a supplement to this statement, Your Honour, is what can be
3 found at D539. And we are going to use, as agreed with the Prosecutor,
4 one statement only in keeping with your instructions for the Veljevic
5 case. So we will use only one statement from the Karadzic case which is
6 the current D540.
7 And with your leave, Your Honours, fully accepting that I may
8 have caused confusion, I apologise, and I will now answer the question
9 that Judge Fluegge put and also the question that Mr. Shin put to me. So
10 please bear with me and use this document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you do so, the version which is uploaded now
12 in e-court as D540, the -- that should be redacted. But the one uploaded
13 until now is a non-redacted version; is that clear? So we still are
14 waiting for your redactions to be uploaded and then we'll decide --
15 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- on admission of what is now not even MFI'd but
17 what is linked to reserved number D540. Okay. So we are still waiting
18 for that.
19 Please proceed. Now you're going to respond to Judge Fluegge's
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, that's correct,
22 Your Honours. The Honourable Judge Fluegge asked us where he can find in
23 D540 support for the documents that we were tendering, and I will go in
25 1D02066 -- I apologise, 1D02066 corresponds to the Karadzic
1 document, the Karadzic statement D540 in paragraph 8 of the D540
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have it on our screen. Oh, it is. I'm
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it 540 of the Karadzic or is it 8547 of
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours.
8 It has the number 1D8547. With your leave, I will continue.
9 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Our --
11 JUDGE ORIE: One second. This seems to be correct.
12 Madam Registrar has provisionally assigned number D541 to that.
13 Any objection, Mr. Shin?
14 MR. SHIN: No objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: D541, which corresponds to 1D02066, although known
16 under a different number in the Karadzic case, it being 1D8547, is
17 admitted into evidence.
18 Next one please, Mr. Stojanovic.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document which in our
20 case has the 65 ter number 1D02067 corresponds to document which in the
21 statement D540 is mentioned in paragraph 9, 11, and 12, Your Honours.
22 And in the Karadzic case it bears the --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have it complete, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 Any -- D542 was provisionally assigned to this document.
25 Mr. Shin?
1 MR. SHIN: No objection.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No objection. Which means that 1D02067, known in
3 the Karadzic case under 65 ter number 1D08548, is admitted into evidence
4 as D542.
5 Next one please, Mr. Stojanovic.
6 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The next document that we
7 tendered, which in our case has the 65 ter number 1D02069, corresponds to
8 document mentioned in this witness's statement D540 in paragraph 18 in
9 the Karadzic case. It had the 65 ter number 1D8550.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's complete.
11 Any objections?
12 MR. SHIN: No objection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore 1D02069, known in the Karadzic case as
14 1D08550, is admitted under number D543.
15 Next one Mr. Stojanovic. If you -- for the next ones, I think if
16 you just refer to where we can find them and I have all the numbers so
17 that we don't have to put it on the record twice.
18 The next one is to be found where?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] 1D1 -- 1D02068, paragraphs --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stojanovic please repeat the
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the paragraph,
23 Mr. Stojanovic.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Paragraph 25.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now 25 would be redacted. Will this also be
1 redacted or not? No. I think this would not be redacted. Which
2 means -- Mr. Shin, any objections?
3 MR. SHIN: Just briefly.
4 We won't take the position that it needs to be redacted, but we
5 do note for the record that given the redaction that is forthcoming that
6 the reference to F10 --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. SHIN: -- on this exhibit is not associated.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We do understand that and that's how we will
10 deal with it.
11 Therefore 1D02068, in the Karadzic case known as 1D08549, is
12 admitted as D544.
13 Mr. Stojanovic, the next one is to be found where?
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Document 1D02070 and 1D02071 are
15 mentioned in paragraph 27 of statement D540.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If I'm not mistaken, both documents have no
17 English translation yet?
18 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, these are names.
19 If you think that that needs to be translated - it's a list because of
20 the headings - then we suggest that these two documents are MFI'd for the
21 time being until the translation is done.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have a look at those exhibits. To start
23 with, 1D02070. Could we have a -- is there no English version at all?
24 If not, Mr. --
25 Yes, Mr. Shin.
1 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honours. I'm told by Ms. Stewart that there
2 is, in fact, an English version that has now been uploaded. I'm not sure
3 at what point that was but is apparently available. There it is.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as always it's there. Yes. I see that the
5 handwriting is copied from the original. It is the list of weapons of
6 the 1st Platoon of the 4th Company and apparently gives numbers. And it
7 seems that the English version is even giving more than what is found in
8 the original I see, or does AP stand for "automatic rifle"? Is that how
9 we have to understand it? And that M stands for "machine-gun" and that
10 P -- AP stands for "semiautomatic rifle"? I take it that that's a --
11 yes. And I see that there is handwriting on it. Yes.
12 Could we also have a look at the next one to see whether there is
13 any English translation for 1D02071. Yes. There is now a translation
14 for this one as well.
15 Then no objections, Mr. Shin, against any of the two?
16 MR. SHIN: No objections. We will take a look to see if there
17 are any issues but that can be dealt with later. Any issues with the
18 translation, that is.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you provided the translations I take it
20 that there should be no problem there.
21 Mr. Stojanovic, 1D02070, also known in the Karadzic case as
22 65 ter 1D06090, is admitted into evidence as D545. 1D02071, in the
23 Karadzic case known as 65 ter number 1D06091, is admitted into evidence
24 as D546.
25 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
1 Mr. Shin --
2 MR. SHIN: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- you're on your feet.
4 MR. SHIN: Yes. Your Honours, the Prosecution's inquiry about
5 this reference to an attack on a settlement still stands.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. SHIN: And we would be happy to hear that when the witness is
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, if you had time to find in any of
10 the three statements an attack on the 8th of June at the settlement the
11 witness lived in, we'd like to hear where to find that.
12 Mr. Stojanovic, you can't tell us where to find it?
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm prepared to answer that
14 question, but I understood you to mean that I could do it once the
15 witness entered the courtroom.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you make a summary of a statement of a
18 witness, even without the witness you should be able to point at where it
19 is to be found. So we'd like to hear from you now in which statement we
20 find it, in what paragraph, before you put any further questions to the
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. When we
23 clarified this question regarding the documents, I wanted to indicate
24 paragraph 9 of D540, the statement. Paragraph 9, could we please look at
25 that in the electronic courtroom system.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will start from the second
3 sentence in paragraph 9 where the witness said, and I would say I quoted
4 it 90 per cent in my summary:
5 "That day Muslims attacked our positions and pushed us back some
6 200 to 250 metres. First, they attacked us with the mortars and
7 then ..."
8 JUDGE ORIE: The issue was whether positions were attacked, which
9 is a rather military expression, or whether the settlement in which the
10 witness lived was attacked. Mr. Shin told us that he had some doubts as
11 to where to find a settlement to be attacked. If you can tell us, please
12 tell us where that is found. If you can't tell us, then --
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I will tell you where I got
14 that from. If we look at the next sentence when it's mentioned that it's
15 the same event, from the lines: "... to which we had retreated we
16 watched Muslims setting fire to our houses." That is his settlement. In
17 his settlement they were setting fire to houses in this settlement.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So it's a -- more or less a summary of your
19 interpretation of the middle of paragraph 9.
20 Mr. Shin, shall we leave it to that?
21 MR. SHIN: Yes, I'm happy to leave it to that. And, again, that
22 paragraph does refer to a line of engagement and our positions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and at the same time it also deals about
24 burning down houses. Whether that's an attack or whether that is a
25 follow-up of an attack is another matter. But we leave it to that.
1 Mr. Stojanovic, you have got 20 minutes for any further questions
2 to the witness.
3 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I will not use all of that time,
4 Your Honours. I will be shorter. I hope that we have resolved some of
5 the confusion. I think that we were in a situation where I wasn't even
6 sure if I was clear about the paragraphs that I pointed out here.
7 Could we now look at paragraph from D546, please.
8 JUDGE ORIE: It's the list of names, D546, Mr. Stojanovic, or did
9 you want to refer to D5 --
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's the
11 document. I am just going to put a few questions regarding the document.
12 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, are you able to remember whether throughout the
13 entire period of the war there were members in your company who were not
14 ethnic Serbs?
15 A. Yes, there were Croats and Muslims from the beginning until the
17 Q. Were these all people who lived in the settlement that you held
18 your lines in?
19 A. Yes, precisely.
20 Q. I would like to ask you to look at the list of these members of
21 the 4th Company on the 18th of February, 1994, and are you able to tell
22 us whether this was the company that you belonged to?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The number -- the name of the man next to number 6, Karlo, Bauer,
25 what ethnicity was he?
1 A. He was a Croat.
2 Q. And his family and his house, were they in the settlement where
3 you had your front lines?
4 A. No, I don't think so. I think that he was from Grbavica. But
5 the rest of them were from that settlement.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the next page of
8 this document, please.
9 Q. Number 73 there is Ivo Pejic, recorded as a member of your
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what ethnicity was he?
13 A. He was a Croat. He was my neighbour. He lived on the lines. So
14 his house was left below the line after the attack occurred.
15 Q. After the attack on the 8th of June after you withdrew to new
16 lines, what happened with his house?
17 A. It burned later. It was knocked down. Not just that house but
18 all of those houses. There were a lot of them.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
20 be asked to speak up.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, could you please speak a bit louder so that
22 the interpreters are better able to hear you.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Stojanovic.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 I would now like to ask the witness to look at the name next to
2 Q. He was also a member of your company, Dragan Pejic. What
3 ethnicity was he?
4 A. He was a Croat as well. He's the son of Ivo Pejic. That's his
5 son. He was wounded then and then he went for medical treatment to
6 Belgrade and after that he didn't come back.
7 Q. Thank you. The name under 90, Himzo Sulejmanovic.
8 A. Yes, he was a Muslim.
9 Q. Could you please tell the Trial Chamber where his house was?
10 A. He was not from our settlement. He was somewhere from the
11 Grbavica area.
12 Q. When you say Grbavica, how far is that from the positions where
13 you were at?
14 A. Perhaps some 15 minutes by foot if you went along Ozrenska
16 Q. Thank you. The name of the person next to number 96,
17 Zrinko Sigel. What ethnicity was he?
18 A. He was a Croat, also. I think that he lived with his mother in
19 Grbavica, also.
20 Q. And finally number 98, Petar Svalina, a member of your company.
21 What was his ethnicity?
22 A. He was a Croat and my neighbour. He lived near my house. His
23 house also burned down. It was torched on the 8th of June. His wife and
24 her mother were in the house, they were captured, but they let his wife
25 go. She came out of the house and then they torched it.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm going to end with this question: You mentioned
2 that about 230 members of your unit were killed during the war?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can I please ask you to tell the Trial Chamber, do you have any
5 information or any estimates as to how they died? What kind of fire were
6 they killed by?
7 A. They were killed in fighting. Most of them were killed in sniper
8 fire. That street was exposed to sniper fire from the city and
9 Asimovo Brdo. So it was mostly sniper fire but then shells and other
10 things. The documentation remained and then after the signing of the
11 Dayton Agreement, the documentation was left in that command. The
12 territory fell under the federation authority. They found those
13 documents with the list of all the fighters that were killed from the
14 company. This number, 200-odd person, refers to the whole Ozrenska, not
15 only my company but that street and other streets towards Grbavica. This
16 is something I discussed with the commanders. This is not only the
17 documentation for the company but there were also others who were not
18 recorded in the -- this company but in their own companies as casualties,
19 as people who were killed in the fighting.
20 Q. Thank you. During the war as the platoon commander, did you have
21 any crisis as a human being and did you have problems? Did you ever wish
22 to leave this kind of position where there was fierce fighting?
23 A. Yes. And we frequently sought support because there were a lot
24 of people, elderly people on this line who fought there and it was hard
25 to hold this line. And then for about 15 days I left the lines because I
1 just couldn't take it anymore. You know, I couldn't sleep, I couldn't
2 rest, and anything. But then I returned later when the lines were manned
3 with more personnel. It was improved a bit. So then we somehow
4 continued, although these two were elderly men.
5 Q. During the war did at any point -- your company commander was a
6 company commander, a person of nonethnic Serb?
7 A. Yes, there was a commander. He was a Croat. He was a major in
8 the JNA. We put him as a commander because he was an active duty
9 personnel. I believe he was a retired major.
10 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, thank you for answering my questions.
11 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
12 questions and I will sit down.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, before I give an opportunity to
14 Mr. Shin to cross-examine the witness, the Chamber wonders what the
15 relevance is of most of your questions over the last ten minutes.
16 Casualties among soldiers. Is that a relevant issue in this case?
17 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in our view the
18 relevant issues are the following: First, the fact that his unit was
19 multiethnic through the war;
20 Number two, the composition of his unit shows that these people
21 fought for their homes and they fought near their houses and no one
22 minded what ethnicity anybody else was;
23 And that the victims of the BH Army in the killing and the
24 fighting and the destruction of the homes were Serbs and Croats and
1 That was the purpose of my question.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I see that. But I was asking for the relevance
3 for this case. I mean, that there may have been non-Serbs in VRS units,
4 is that relevant? They're a small minority. But is that relevant?
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in view of the
6 indictment that there was terror and that the -- there was an intent to
7 terrorise the citizens of Sarajevo, we felt the need that we should point
8 out here that the terrorising was not as it is presented in the
9 indictment. It was terrorising of all the people who lived in Sarajevo
10 who did not agree to the positions of the Bosnia-Herzegovina authorities
11 and not as it was presented here by other witnesses, and we would like to
12 say here that the suffering was equal for everyone in Sarajevo, for
13 Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin.
15 MR. SHIN: Yes, Your Honours, I fully appreciate that
16 Your Honours were putting questions to Mr. Stojanovic, but there may come
17 a point where such colloquy should be held outside of the presence of the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber is not
20 convinced yet that what you tell us makes the issues really relevant.
21 And especially in full respect for soldiers suffering sometimes fates
22 which you would not wish anyone to undergo, that nevertheless a soldier
23 being killed in war is not a crime. I mean, whether we like it or not.
24 but that's a reality of war. And it looks as paying so much attention to
25 soldiers having died may be based on a misunderstanding of what this case
1 is really about.
2 Let's move on.
3 Mr. Shin, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
4 MR. SHIN: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tusevljak, you'll now be cross-examined by
6 Mr. Shin. Mr. Shin is counsel for the Prosecution and you'll find him to
7 your right.
8 Please proceed.
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Shin:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Tusevljak.
11 A. Good morning, Mr. Prosecutor.
12 Q. I'd like to begin by making sure we understand what unit you were
14 MR. SHIN: I think there may be something wrong with the
16 JUDGE ORIE: It's now okay.
17 MR. SHIN: We're back. I'll start again.
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, I'd like to begin here by making sure we
19 understand what unit you were in so there is no confusion. We'll start
20 with your platoon. That was the 1st Platoon; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. And you took over this platoon when Vito Kapuran was wounded?
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. When did that happen? What did you take over?
25 A. I think this was in 1992 in the summer or thereabouts, after this
1 attack on the 12th. It was either in July or in August.
2 Q. Now your rank was a private; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And --
5 A. But then later I became a -- I was promoted to junior-lieutenant
6 as a commander of this platoon.
7 Q. Well, does that mean that you became a junior-lieutenant in the
8 summer of 1992 when you say you became platoon commander?
9 A. Yes, yes. That's what I mean.
10 Q. And that's a rank you held until the end of the war?
11 A. No, I returned that rank, if I may put it that way, when the time
12 came when I just couldn't bear it there anymore, when we didn't have
13 support and no personnel on that line, and then I was just a simple
14 private. I believe this was in late 1993 or 1994. I tend to believe it
15 was in 1994.
16 Q. Okay. Now in the Karadzic case you testified that Vito Kapuran
17 was an activist in the local commune; do you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Was this the same person as the Vito you mentioned in your
20 Karadzic statement, paragraph 7, as a person who distributed small arms
21 to Serbs prior to the war?
22 A. Yes, yes, that's the same person, Vito Kapuran.
23 Q. In your Karadzic testimony, you were asked about the organisation
24 of people in Lukavica, and the provision of weapons, you said, was done
25 through the Crisis Staff. You stand by that; correct?
1 A. Yes. Vito was the activist, an activist of sorts, and they
2 obtained these weapons somehow and then they distributed them.
3 Q. Now, in your Karadzic statement in paragraph 13, you say that -
4 and we've heard that here - your platoon was part of the 4th Company; is
5 that right?
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. And we've heard also that it was part of the 2nd Battalion.
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. And your brigade was the Sarajevo Mechanised Brigade; correct?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. Actually, in 1992 wasn't the 4th Company part of a battalion that
12 was designated the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade?
13 A. Well, yes, there was some kind of reorganisation later on, but I
14 know that 1st -- later it became the 1st Platoon of the 4th Company, but
15 then later that changed something per establishment.
16 Q. Okay. Let's be clear here because we're going to be looking at
17 documents. We want to avoid confusion. Throughout the war, you were in
18 the 1st platoon except when you stepped down. Throughout the war you
19 were in the 4th Company?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. At the beginning of the war, the 4th Company was part of the
22 3rd Battalion of the 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade and at some point it
23 became the 2nd Battalion of the 1st Smbr; correct?
24 A. I think that at the beginning of the war it was the latter, what
25 you mentioned as the latter. But then later on when it was reorganised
1 it was designated as the 4th Company, the 1st Platoon of the
2 2nd Battalion. Which means later on and throughout the rest of the war.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, could you check whether the question as
4 recorded reflects exactly what you said.
5 MR. SHIN: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. In fact, I'd asked
6 whether at some point it had gone from being the 3rd Battalion of the
7 1st Romanija Infantry Brigade and then became the 2nd Battalion of the
8 1st Smbr.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think that's what I heard and since the
10 witness referred to the 2nd Battalion as well I think there is no
11 confusion as far as the witness is concerned.
12 MR. SHIN: Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
14 MR. SHIN:
15 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, we'll see some documents that reflect this.
16 But let me ask you now: Despite the change in the designation of the
17 battalion and the brigade the 4th Company reported to, there was no
18 change in the composition of your platoon; is that right?
19 A. I think so. I think the same personnel remained. Our platoons
20 were there. So for the most part it remained understanding changed, at
21 least in our company.
22 Q. And you just referred to "company," so that may -- you may have
23 answered my next question which is: No change in the composition of your
24 company resulted from the change in the designation of battalion and
1 A. No, no. Everything remained as it was. It remained the same for
2 the most part.
3 Q. Let's take a look at a document now.
4 MR. SHIN: Could we please have 65 ter 30890.
5 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, while we're waiting for this document to come up
6 on the screen, let me explain a little bit about what it is. It's from
7 the command - and now you can see it, you can see in the upper left-hand
8 corner - it's from the command of the 3rd Battalion. It's dated
9 26 February 1993.
10 MR. SHIN: We see at the bottom in B/C/S and the second page in
11 English we see that it's signed by the commander Aleksandar Petrovic.
12 Q. Now Aleksandar Petrovic, he's also known as Aco Petrovic;
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. We see here that Major Dragutin Lancaric [phoen] is appointed the
16 commander of the 4th Company. Now this is the major you were just
17 speaking of; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And we see that Sergeant Ljubomir Bozic is appointed as deputy.
20 And among other appointments, we see that you are appointed commander of
21 the 1st Platoon and we see that Lieutenant Dusan Zurovac is appointed the
22 company supplies officer. Now, just a point of clarification, you've
23 told us that you became platoon commander in the summer of 1992. Is that
24 when you became platoon commander or is that in February of 1993 -- in
25 fact, the 26th of February, 1993, as this document shows?
1 A. Well, when Vito was wounded then I was there right away to
2 replace him. But perhaps this order came later on. But I was the
3 commander as of 1992. It is possible that this order was dated later,
4 that it was send later. Vito was there, he was the commander at first,
5 but then he was wounded and he was sent for treatment and then I took
7 Q. Okay. Now -- and before we leave this document, again we see
8 that it says the 3rd Battalion but I think we've -- we understand now
9 that that doesn't -- if we later see a reference to 2nd Battalion we will
10 not be confused.
11 MR. SHIN: Could I please tender this document, Mr. President.
12 It's 30890.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30890 receives number P6621,
15 Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P6621 is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. SHIN:
18 Q. Mr. Tusevljak --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, I wouldn't mind if you still
20 participate in the proceedings when evidence is admitted, et cetera, and
21 to listen to the next questions that are put to the witness.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. SHIN:
24 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, on this document, now we've seen that
25 Lieutenant Dusan Zurovac was the company supplies officer. He succeeded
1 Major Lancaric as company commander at some point, didn't he?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. That was around late 1993 or early 1994, would that be correct?
4 A. I think so. I can't recall the exact date because these
5 commanders were frequently replaced - company commanders, I mean.
6 Q. This position, this position of company supplies officer, when
7 you were platoon commander, that's the person at the company command that
8 you would go to request or to receive supplies for your platoon; isn't
9 that right?
10 A. Well, yes, he was the company clerk, actually. Kept records of
11 what was required and how. So that's what we called him, basically. He
12 was called the company clerk.
13 Q. So some of the records he kept would be records of uniforms that
14 were issued; right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And --
17 A. Perhaps that, too.
18 Q. -- he kept records of ammunition and weapons that were issued?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. He even kept records of cigarette rations; correct?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. Now when the 1st Platoon received supplies, who would sign for
23 it? Would that be you as the platoon commander?
24 A. If I was there, yes. But if I wasn't, then there would be
25 someone who would be standing in for me so that's how it usually worked.
1 Q. And that someone standing in for you, of course, that's from your
3 A. Yes, yes. Of course. There was also the squad commander. He
4 would stand in for me if I was on leave or something like that.
5 Q. Okay. Let's go to another document now.
6 MR. SHIN: Could we please have 65 ter 30885.
7 Q. Now, this document is headed -- well, we'll wait for the English
8 to come up.
9 Mr. Tusevljak, you can see that this document is headed:
10 "4th Company of the 3rd Battalion, list of names of soldiers." So this
11 would be before it became the 2nd Battalion.
12 Now, on the first page of both, we see that your name as the
13 1st Platoon commander appears. Do you see that?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. And on the second page of the English and the bottom of the first
16 page of the B/C/S, under the heading "Wounded," you see the name
17 Vitomir Kapuran and that is the full name of Vito; correct?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 MR. SHIN: The Prosecution would tender 30885.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30885 receives number P6622,
22 Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
24 MR. SHIN:
25 Q. Having clarified these matters, I'd like to turn briefly to your
1 platoon's zone of responsibility.
2 MR. SHIN: And for that if I could please have the document that
3 is now D541 brought to the screen.
4 Q. And while we're waiting for that to come up, Mr. Tusevljak, this
5 is a map that you've made some marks on in a previous case.
6 MR. SHIN: If we could zoom in on the bottom middle of this map.
7 Q. Now at the bottom of this map in the centre, we can make out some
8 faint writing in red. You placed the S to indicate VRS held territory;
9 is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. And the M indicates ABiH territory? Do you see that?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. And that faint red line we see between the M and the S, that is a
14 line of disengagement where the line of confrontation -- is that right?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. Now if we look just right of the area with the M and the S --
17 MR. SHIN: And I would ask if we could zoom in a little bit.
18 Q. And I'll be focusing just above the 90 of that bottom margin and
19 a little to the right of it. Here --
20 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know what you want to do with it later, but
21 could we move it slightly so that the scale is visible as well which --
22 MR. SHIN: Yes, of course. Could we --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Could we move a little bit to the left because I
24 only need the last 200 metres from the 1 kilometre. Yes, that will do.
25 MR. SHIN: Yes, that's -- that's perfect. I think that's good.
1 Q. We see just above the 90 and to the right, Mr. Tusevljak, we see
2 the word "Ozrenska"; correct?
3 A. Yes, that's Ozrenska Street.
4 Q. Yes. And that marks -- yes, you've already answered my question,
5 then. Okay. Now, I'm going to turn back for the next few questions to
6 your statement for this case.
7 MR. SHIN: So we don't need that map anymore.
8 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, yesterday you made a correction to paragraph 4 of
9 your statement for this case so that it no longer includes the phrase "it
10 was not possible to hit a tram from the Metalka building." When asked
11 about this, you told Defence counsel that "it has nothing to do with me";
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. Indeed, this topic of hitting a tram from the Metalka building,
15 that never comes up in your Karadzic statement or your Karadzic evidence;
17 A. Yes, that's right. It is somewhere in Grbavica and I wasn't down
19 Q. Yes. It has nothing to do with you, so you knew immediately upon
20 reading that sentence that it had nothing to do with you; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, you knew when you were giving this statement that it might
23 be used in legal proceedings before this Tribunal; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you understood the need to be truthful and accurate to the
1 best of your knowledge and recollection?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. This statement for this case is one and a half pages. You've
4 confirmed that that's your signature on this statement.
5 MR. SHIN: And if we could please have that brought up, now.
6 That's D539.
7 Q. So I'd like to ask you now --
8 MR. SHIN: But we can -- I'm sorry. I'll wait a moment until
9 it's come up on our screen.
10 Q. I'd like to ask you, this is one and a half pages. Did you read
11 this statement over before putting your signature on this statement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When was that?
14 A. I signed it -- let me see, I can't recall the exact date. But
15 this interview was on the days that are mentioned there, but I believe I
16 signed it sometime in May.
17 MR. SHIN: Let's go to the last page of this document.
18 Q. And while we're waiting for that, Mr. Tusevljak, where were you
19 when you reviewed this statement and then signed it?
20 A. If you mean this signature?
21 Q. I do mean this signature right here. Is there another signature?
22 A. Well, the interview was earlier on. And at the time when I
23 signed this I was in Budva. I work there in Montenegro. So I read it
24 and I signed it.
25 Q. Who gave you this statement when you were in Budva in Montenegro?
1 A. Well, I don't know exactly who of the Defence counsel was there,
2 but I believe it was sent by mail to me and then I signed it and returned
3 it to The Hague address.
4 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, you've explained to this Court that you knew
5 immediately upon looking at the reference to the tram and the Metalka
6 building that it had nothing to do with you. Did you note that problem
7 when you reviewed the statement before putting your signature on it?
8 A. Well, I signed the statement but I believed -- I thought that as
9 previously when I was at the Karadzic trial, this could be corrected, you
10 see, because the Defence counsel wasn't there present so I couldn't
11 correct it right then and there. I sent it by mail and --
12 Q. Let's --
13 A. -- I didn't sign this in Sarajevo.
14 Q. Let's be clear about something here: You did see that that was
15 incorrect; right?
16 A. Yes, I read it down there quickly because I was working, so I had
17 to go to copy it and I simply signed it thinking that I could correct it
18 once I came here, of course.
19 Q. So it's clear that you signed it even knowing that it had
20 something that you say had nothing to do with you?
21 A. Yes, I signed it. Again, I repeat that my intention was to
22 correct it here. I didn't think that it was that important. I thought
23 it would be corrected later. It has nothing to do with Metalka. It was
24 far from my positions. I was never there.
25 Q. So you did not think it was important to sign a statement that
1 you knew was materially incorrect?
2 A. Yes, because I had nothing to do with it. I thought it was a
3 mistake, typed there by error, and the attorneys probably know that I had
4 nothing to do with the Metalka building. I thought that that was there
5 inserted by error and that it's something that could be corrected.
6 Q. How would the attorneys know that that was incorrect and had
7 nothing to do with you? Did you tell them?
8 A. I did tell them, yes. I have it here in my statement. I
9 submitted a copy of the statement. I underlined that as something that
10 would need to be corrected.
11 MR. SHIN: And, Your Honours, we do note that the witness has
12 some documents with him. And if the Defence do not object, we would
13 request to review them at the next break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the Chamber would like to first have a look at
15 it before --
16 MR. SHIN: Yes, of course, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, the witness apparently has a
18 statement with him. Any problem if the Prosecution would inspect it?
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, no, Your Honour. I don't
20 know what it is, but no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers]
22 Could you please give what you have in front of you to the usher
23 so that we could have a look at it and then ...
24 MR. SHIN:
25 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, you were telling us --
1 MR. SHIN: I'll pause a moment, here.
2 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, you were telling us that you told the lawyers that
3 it needed to be corrected. When did you do that?
4 A. When I arrived at The Hague, when I had a conversation with them,
5 when I received this statement. I think that was the day before
6 yesterday. The day before yesterday, I think it was.
7 Q. So between the 10th of May and the day before --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Before --
9 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Shin, we are close to the
11 point anyhow where we take a break.
12 Mr. Stojanovic, you have no idea what that is? No. Let me --
13 let's first ask the witness to be escorted out of the courtroom.
14 We take a break and we would like to see you back in 20 minutes.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojanovic, you said, I don't know what the
17 witness has in front of him. It seems to be his statement. But quite a
18 lot of other documents apparently relevant to this case, with a kind of a
19 typewritten cover page. Is that totally unknown to you? You have no
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I think that
22 I've seen now that these are documents that I used during the proofing of
23 this witness here in The Hague. It's the same as the copy that I have
24 that lists all the documents and perhaps three other documents that I
25 found during the investigation which I asked -- which I was wondering
1 whether I should include in the witness's -- in the documents that go
2 with this witness.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Stojanovic repeat the last half of
4 his answer.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the last part of your
7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] What I've seen are all documents
8 that I tendered in this case and that I went through with the witness in
9 the proofing. I showed all the documents to the witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And apparently you also gave a copy to the
11 witness, is that true?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I provided a copy to the
13 witness, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Is it true that there was one report of an
15 investigation among those documents?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I don't know what you're
17 thinking when you say report of an investigation. I don't know what you
19 JUDGE ORIE: I saw at the end the type of a report, of course I
20 can't read it because it's in B/C/S, but it looked a bit as if it was a
21 report about a specific event. I saw a few maps. But I also saw
22 something which looked very much as if it were a report. Is that -- it
23 was pretty much at the end.
24 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] If this is a report that I have
25 in front of me, then that's a report by the security services centre in
1 Sarajevo, signed by Simo Tusevljak. And while searching documents, I
2 asked the witness during proofing if he knew anything about this
3 document. He said no, so I didn't even go on to ask him anything else
4 about it. There are two or three other documents like this in this
5 particular bundle.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if the witness -- is it -- it is about
7 what security service centre in Sarajevo dealing with what event or what
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] This is a report of the
10 6th of October, 1992, from the Sarajevo security services about the
11 number of crimes, the type of crimes, how many operative actions they
12 undertook, signed by Mr. Tusevljak. But it turned out that that's not
13 this witness.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. When did you then -- why did you then provide
15 him with a copy of that report if he doesn't know anything about it?
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I provided the document so that
17 he could prepare himself before we started to work, before the proofing.
18 I then thought that the document was not even relevant for our case, so I
19 didn't tender it at all.
20 JUDGE ORIE: My question was why you left a copy with the
21 witness. Why does he need to be in -- why does he need to have a
22 document with him which is totally irrelevant to your case which he
23 doesn't know anything about? Of course, I'm wondering what kind of
24 materials you gave to the witness which contain information which he's
25 not otherwise aware of. That is the gist of my question to you.
1 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. I gave him
2 this set of documents to read, to acquaint himself with the documents
3 before I started to talk with him. I wanted to go through the documents
4 so that we could work more efficiently later. I mean, there is nothing
5 of dispute there. If I'm not permitted to give any documents to the
6 witness, all you need to do is to say that.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not -- I'm not --
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps it could have been
9 relevant. I didn't know.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not saying the one, I'm not saying the other. I
11 asked myself what the purpose is of giving the witness information on
12 matters he doesn't know anything about.
13 But we'll further consider this at a later stage.
14 We'll first take a break and we'll resume at quarter past 12.00.
15 --- Recess taken at 11.56 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, the Chamber would like to put a few
18 questions to the witness before we ask you to continue.
19 MR. SHIN: Yes, of course, Mr. President.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 [The witness takes the stand]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, before Mr. Shin continues his
23 cross-examination I'd like to look again at your statement, that is D539.
24 And I only need the original on the screen, please. Oh, it's
25 already on the screen. Yes, I have it. Last page, please.
1 Witness, you told us that you signed this when you were where,
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in Budva. I work there.
4 JUDGE ORIE: And where is that exactly? And you said in
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Now, how did you receive the statement you signed?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received it by e-mail on the
9 e-mail address of the gentleman that I worked for. I copied it, I signed
10 it, and then I sent it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: How did you send it. Did you do that yourself?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, myself. I did it myself.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What exactly -- so you had a print-out. You signed
14 it. Could I ask you did you put the date on it yourself as well?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And then what did you do to send it back? What was
17 needed to be done to send it back by e-mail?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a copy shop, so I made a
19 copy, I gave it to them, and they sent it to an address in The Hague. In
20 this copy shop.
21 JUDGE ORIE: They sent it to an address in The Hague, an e-mail
22 address. What happened with the original, the one you signed yourself?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I kept it. I think that I have it
24 here in the hotel or at home. I'm not sure. But I think I have it here.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you bring it for us.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think it's at the hotel. I
2 have some documents here.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that would then be the copy you received by
4 e-mail which was printed out for you. You didn't print it out yourself?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This was done at the copy
6 shop by the people who work there.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said you received it through your
8 employer. Is that true? The person to -- you are employed by someone
9 in --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- Budva? And why didn't you send it back through
12 your employer? Why did you go to a copy shop?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I went with him because the copy
14 shop is very close to his house. He went to show me where it was and I
15 gave it to the people who work there, so that they could print it so that
16 I could sign it so that it could be scanned and sent back to The Hague.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And did you write down the e-mail address to which
18 it was to be sent?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, usually people who are using an e-mail are --
21 using the e-mail system on their computers, they usually have a way to
22 print out their mails and any attachments to it. So I'm still wondering
23 why your employer who received that e-mail did not print it out himself?
24 Why send you to a copy shop?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That young man just had a
1 telephone. So he received that on his phone. He didn't have a printer
2 to be able to copy it. That's why we had to go to this shop, copy shop
3 that was close by that had the option to print it and then send it back
4 to this e-mail address.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Had you given the e-mail address of your
6 employer to whom so that they could send it to you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the gentleman who works at the
8 copy shop who sent it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: No. I mean, when you received the statement through
10 your employer, had you given the e-mail address of your employer? And if
11 so, to whom did you give it?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I was called by the
13 Defence attorney and I gave him the address of my employer. I don't
14 remember which attorney it was but it was one of the attorneys, and I
15 gave him the address to which he could send the document. It was my
16 employer's e-mail address.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Do you know by heart your employer's e-mail
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know the name. I think it's
20 Racanovic, that's the surname. I think his first name is Jovo. He lives
21 in Budva. He had the phone and the address. I didn't have my own e-mail
23 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand. But were you able to give the
24 e-mail address to the attorney who called you?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, on the telephone. It was a
1 telephone conversation. So that's how I sent the address of the
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you said you know his name. But a name in
4 itself is not sufficient to send an e-mail. Did you have any additional
5 information, and where did you get that from?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The employer gave me his e-mail
7 address. I think there's a dot there. I think that the code was his
8 date of birth. He gave it to me. I asked him if he had an e-mail
9 address, he said he did, so he allowed me to use his address so that I
10 could give it to the lawyer so that the lawyer could send the document to
11 me. I don't remember this date, though. I don't remember the exact
12 address. But his name was Racanovic, Jovo. He was a young man.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now, do I therefore understand that you had two
14 telephone conversations with the attorney?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. When he called me, I
16 said that I was in Budva, that I was working, that I couldn't come to
17 Sarajevo. And then he said if I have an address he could call me -- he
18 would call me again so that I could give him this address so that he
19 could send this to me to this address so that I could sign it. Then he
20 gave me the address of the lawyer here in The Hague to whom I could send
21 this signed paper, or wherever the lawyer was. But anyway, it was his
22 e-mail address.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You did sign it using your own pen or ...?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I took my pen with me. I
25 knew the lawyer would call me. I didn't know exactly at what time, so I
1 had a pen handy and I signed -- so that I could sign it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But when you called him, you didn't have the copy of
3 your statement there yet, isn't it? Because he first called you, then
4 you said you couldn't come, then you got the e-mail address from your
5 employer, he called you again and said that he would send it to that
6 e-mail address. Now, was that all done in one day or ...?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: And was that all done on the day you signed?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I think that he called me the
10 day before and then the next day we went to sign it. I always had a
11 piece of paper and a pen with me so that I could write down the
12 address -- actually, I had noted down the address of the employer so that
13 when I got a call from the lawyer I would be able to tell him to which
14 address he could send the document.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, do I understand that the signed copy was
16 sent by e-mail but not from your employer's computer or phone but from
17 the copy shop's computer or phone? Is that correctly understood?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So the computer of your employer was used only to
20 receive the statement and not to send the signed statement?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you bring for us the signed statement
23 once you've found it. You said most likely you have it in The Hague but
24 perhaps it's at home. Could you please provide that to the Chamber.
25 THE WITNESS: Okay.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin -- well, yes, Judge Fluegge has one or more
2 questions for you.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Two additional matters. When the copy shop
4 printed the statement for you, how many pages did they print?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember, but I think it
6 was three, four, five pages. I don't remember exactly.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You were in the copy shop when you signed?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I read it quickly and I
9 signed it and I gave it to the gentleman to send it.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You said you read it quickly. And you saw that
11 this sentence which had nothing to do with you was included in this
12 statement; correct?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think that it was there. I
14 had provided this statement earlier. I knew what was written. I had
15 provided the statement earlier in Sarajevo to the attorneys, and here it
16 was perhaps an additional thing or change in the statement. And I read
17 it and I signed it.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And you realised that one information contained
19 in the statement was wrong; correct?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that it didn't have
21 anything to do with me. But I thought that it was a printing mistake and
22 I could correct it when I came here.
23 JUDGE FLUEGGE: [Overlapping speakers]
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I thought then that it
25 could be deleted from the statement.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why didn't you just strike it before signing?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I was working at the
3 time. Everything was being done very quickly. I had to come back to
4 work. I think later I crossed it out. I think here in the hotel or
5 something when I was reading it more carefully, that's when I did it and
6 I told the attorney that it had nothing to do with me and that it would
7 need to be deleted, the matter about Metalka.
8 And, Your Honours, I saw also there some issues about which
9 battalion it was. I underlined it. I think it was the 2nd Battalion,
10 4th Company, 1st Platoon. I underlined it. I wanted to see with the
11 lawyer what this was about. So it's these two or three issues.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you still about the same matter about:
14 Were you aware of incident F4, as your statement says, which is in the
15 indictment against Mr. Mladic? Do you have any personal knowledge about
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this F4 was discussed
18 when I was testifying in the Karadzic trial. I think it was the same
19 incident at that intersection. That's when I learned about it. Before
20 that, I didn't even know that it happened.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any person knowledge about that
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know that this
24 happened at all until I came to the trial of President Karadzic and
25 that's when there was discussion about it. Before that, I didn't know
1 about it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Metalka building, as you said, had got nothing
3 to do with you. Why did it enter into -- why did it arrive at the
4 statement at all?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I assume when we
6 talked with the lawyers in Sarajevo we were in a room in some premises in
7 Spasovdanska Street. There were several witnesses. After I was done,
8 another witness came in, then another witness, perhaps they had something
9 to do with this Metalka. Maybe the lawyer simply made a mistake and put
10 it in, but it has nothing to do with me. It was in Grbavica. I was
11 never there at those lines.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think if I understood the Defence well, it is only
13 the sentence "it is not possible to hit the tram from the Metalka
14 building" which will be taken out.
15 What then remains -- and I read it to you -- what then remains --
16 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then in your statement there remains:
19 "A sniper as a type of weapon was not even needed in order to
20 fire in this specific case, as it was possible to target this sector and
21 fire at it with a regular automatic rifle."
22 Could you explain to us exactly what you meant with that,
23 specifically to fire from where to what if you say it's possible to do it
24 with an ordinary rifle, a regular automatic rifle?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I meant here was that we
1 didn't use snipers; we didn't need them. The lines were so close
2 together, some 10 to 15 metres apart, so that we just used automatic
3 rifles. We didn't see that place. You couldn't really see the place.
4 The lines were so close together that snipers were not required, so we
5 didn't have any snipers by establishment. This is what I meant.
6 JUDGE ORIE: But you say that you don't need a sniper rifle was
7 even not needed in order to fire in this specific case, and you said it
8 was possible to target this sector and fire at it with a regular
9 automatic rifle, which suggests that you could hit the target with an
10 automatic rifle. Now, to say that you couldn't even -- let me just check
11 what you said exactly. You didn't see that place. How can you fire with
12 an automatic -- regular automatic rifle if you don't see that place?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, I say, Your Honours, you
14 don't see that place, so I didn't mean that place. What I meant was the
15 line in front of us which was some 10 to 15 metres apart. I wasn't
16 thinking about that place at all. We don't see that place from our
17 positions at all. It's impossible to see it, even a building. I had a
18 photograph. We don't even see the building. We see much farther above
19 the building. I was thinking of opening fire up to a range or the
20 distance of 50 metres at those enemy lines. This is what I was thinking
21 of. We didn't need snipers. We didn't have them because the lines of
22 the enemy were so close.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, do I understand that you have no
24 knowledge whatsoever about incident F4?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, as I said, I didn't know about
1 it until I attended the trial of President Karadzic. And, as I said, we
2 didn't even see that from our positions --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- this line where I drew
5 indicating that place on the map, our lines.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, in your statement given afterwards,
7 the statement given to the Mladic Defence, you're still commenting on
8 incident F4. How could you if you have no knowledge whatsoever to say
9 anything about whether in that specific case you could hit the target
10 with a regular automatic rifle, if you don't know where it happened, if
11 you don't know from where the shot was fired? What is it that you
12 make -- that you are confident to make these kind of statements?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when I talked to the
14 lawyers they explained to me about the incident. This was in Sarajevo.
15 As I was looking at the map -- I was born there. I know the line. I
16 went to school there, so I know how far it is but you cannot see it. And
17 I know that if it's possible to see it from some other area, then it's
18 possible to use an automatic rifle. This is just what I commented upon.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat what he said.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But we did know about it. The
21 lawyers told us about what happened.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you were commenting on what you were told
23 had happened, and on that basis and with your personal knowledge of the
24 area you commented as you did in your statement?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Now did they not also say something about the
2 Metalka building which then resulted in you saying something about
3 hitting a tram from the Metalka building? That -- apart from whether you
4 withdraw it, but, of course, I am puzzled by why it ever entered your --
5 came into your statement. And on the basis of what you explained to us
6 just a minute ago, I'm wondering and I'm asking you whether it was
7 perhaps that the lawyers came up with the Metalka building and that you
8 commented on it but that you are not confident now to keep that on the
9 record and rather withdraw that? Is that what happened?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. It's possible
11 that we mentioned something. Perhaps the lawyer did mention Metalka but
12 I don't remember that. I said I didn't know anything about it. It was
13 not in my area of responsibility. All I know is that -- where the
14 building is, but I don't know how it came about that this was in my
15 statement. This was a completely different line. I don't know.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
17 Mr. Shin.
18 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 Q. Before I go to the documents, I have just one question,
20 Mr. Tusevljak, to follow-up on His Honour Judge Fluegge's questions.
21 Now, you were asked a short time ago whether you saw the
22 statement. I think you've been clear that you saw this reference to the
23 tram in Metalka before you signed this document, but you actually said:
24 "Yes, I think that it was there."
25 You don't think. You knew it was there and you saw it before you
1 signed the statement; correct?
2 A. Yes, I read it quickly, I saw that, but the lawyer was not there
3 with me at the time so that I could correct it. As I said, I sent the
4 address to The Hague thinking that this will be possible to correct when
5 I came here before testifying, and I underlined it.
6 MR. SHIN: Your Honours, we have a photocopy of the document. We
7 can return these to the witness now. I would ask the witness -- I have
8 some questions about it, actually. Maybe we can go do them right now.
9 If the usher --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the --
11 MR. SHIN: -- could please assist.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- original will be returned to the witness.
13 Witness, you should consult that document only if asked
14 permission to do so.
15 MR. SHIN:
16 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, I would like you to return to the second page
17 of the document that's in front of you? And I believe Your Honours have
18 given you --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. SHIN:
21 Q. -- permission on this occasion to do that. Now, actually, the
22 paper is in front of you, not on the screen. Now, the second page is a
23 chart; correct? Yes. And you see on the right-hand side of it some
24 handwriting; correct?
25 A. I don't see anything --
1 Q. Could we --
2 A. -- by hand here.
3 MR. SHIN: Could the usher please assist.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could Mr. Lukic --
5 MR. LUKIC: If we can have a copy, so we can follow.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we could also use the old fashioned ELMO. Why
7 not use the ELMO?
8 MR. SHIN: Yes, I'm just told that we still use the ELMO. I am
9 sorry. I had not --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Earlier days.
11 MR. SHIN: -- realised that was the case. So we can have the
12 second page which is the first page of the chart, Mr. Usher.
13 Q. Now, the chart is a horizontal document -- yes. We've got it
14 right there. You see that handwriting, Mr. Tusevljak? We all see that
15 handwriting. Whose handwriting is that?
16 A. This is not my handwriting. I don't know who wrote this but it's
17 not my handwriting. I didn't even read what's there on the table. It's
18 in English.
19 Q. I'm not sure that it is in English. I'm going to ask you to read
20 that handwriting.
21 A. Yes. I didn't think of the handwriting but I meant the table in
22 English, the writing of Mladic's diary of the 27th of June, 1992, action
23 on Hrasno and Asimovo Brdo.
24 Q. And now that you see what text I'm pointing to, this handwriting,
25 whose handwriting is that? Whose handwriting is it?
1 A. No, it's not mine. I don't know. When I got the statement, it
2 was already there.
3 Q. Okay. Maybe we will leave that for now.
4 MR. SHIN: Unless Your Honours have some questions.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have any questions.
6 Could you tell us one thing: When did you receive this bundle of
7 papers? When did you receive it?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received it when I came to
9 The Hague, Your Honour. Actually, a day after I arrived. But it was
10 here in The Hague.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now did you receive it before you were
12 interviewed by the attorneys or was it at the first interview? And what
13 was told to you when this bundle was given to you?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I arrived at the Hague, the
15 following day I had a talk with the lawyers and that's when I received
16 this document. They told me that was my statement, that there was some
17 maps there, that I would need to read it. But I asked them, What does
18 this mean, because it's in English. And the lawyer said that it's a map
19 as if it wasn't really that important in relation to me. I asked because
20 I don't know what it says in English, and he explained that it's a map of
21 sorts which is not really something that applies to me, so I didn't
22 really pay much attention to it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, once you had been given this and when you were
24 invited to read it all, were you then interviewed later again? Or was
25 that the last time you saw the lawyer before you came to this courtroom?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I got the
2 document, I read it. And during the talk with the lawyer, then I took it
3 to the room with me and I read it, I took it with me so that I could
4 refresh my memory before the trial. We just had that one conversation
5 before the trial. That's when I got the document. It was this proofing
6 preparation. Of course, I took the document. And my statement is there
7 just so that I could refresh my memory.
8 JUDGE ORIE: But you had not received it before this meeting with
9 the lawyer. You received it when you met with the lawyer. Is that
10 correctly understood?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now the striking of the Metalka. You told us that
13 there was a line stricken through there. Was that there already or did
14 you raise the matter during that -- at that occasion?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I said that Metalka had
16 nothing to do with me, and I underlined that portion, and I told the
17 counsel that. He said that that would be corrected, that it just was
18 inserted there by error. He did not know himself how it happened to be
19 there, and that's how it went.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Now, apparently you read your statement at that
21 occasion. Now, did you read during that meeting all of the other
22 materials in that bundle as well, or did you just read your statement
23 when you met with the lawyer?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I read the statement.
25 They also showed me a couple of maps. And I looked at that, too, and
1 said about this thing and that was it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But it was not given to you before you met with
3 them. It was during that meeting that you read the materials and that
4 you went through those maps. Is that correctly understood?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 MR. SHIN: Before -- I'm sorry.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I just find out. You say you received this
9 statement in Budva. When the person who sent the statement to you sent
10 it to you, where had he got the information on the statement from?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not sure I
12 understood this well. This person was probably a member of the Defence
13 team. He had received information before that because I met the
14 attorneys in Sarajevo in 2013 and that was the statement at hand. I just
15 didn't sign it then. I don't know why I didn't. But I actually
16 frequently went to Montenegro, and when they came to Sarajevo I wasn't
17 there so I didn't have an opportunity to see them before.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't follow you. Now, your last sentence you
19 say you didn't have an opportunity to see them before but you then say
20 that you were in Sarajevo before in 2013. I'm not quite sure what you
21 are saying. Surely before this document was composed, was written out,
22 the person who wrote it must have received this information that you put
23 in there. Where did he get it from? Do you know?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I really don't know. What
25 I'm saying is in 2013 we met - I met - the attorneys two or three times
1 and that's when I made my statement. Now, later on in May 2014, they
2 sent this for signing because at the time I was in Budva. I wasn't in
3 Sarajevo. Had I been in Sarajevo, I would have signed it there probably
4 because they did come to Sarajevo and that's why I signed it in this
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, when you were in Sarajevo and when you made
7 the statement, what did you tell them about the contents of the
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time I did not sign the
10 statement in Sarajevo.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Stop, stop.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, what I was saying --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just stop there. I'm not asking you about your
14 signature. I'm asking you what did you tell the lawyer in Sarajevo about
15 the contents of the statement that he then later put on paper and sent to
16 you to sign. What did you tell them?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean in Sarajevo?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers]
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not following.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, in Sarajevo when you met them in 2013. You
21 say you met them three times. What did you tell them about the contents
22 of this statement which they later then wrote down?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, again, I don't follow you.
24 When I was in Budva, I called. After sending the statement I called them
25 up on the phone. I had a number from which this attorney would call
1 me --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers]
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but he wasn't there.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We don't seem to know. You say at page 47,
5 lines 9 to 16:
6 "Your Honour, I am not sure I understood this well. This person
7 was probably a member of the Defence team. He had received information
8 before that because I met the attorneys in Sarajevo in 2013 and that was
9 the statement at hand. I just didn't sign it then. I don't know why I
10 didn't, but I actually frequently went to Montenegro. And when they came
11 to Sarajevo, I wasn't there so I didn't have an opportunity to see them
13 Now, you say he received information before that because "I met
14 the attorneys in Sarajevo in 2013." I'm asking you: When you met them
15 in 2013 in Sarajevo, what did you tell them about the content of that
16 statement? Because as I understand you, after you told them what you
17 told them, they went and wrote the statement. You went to Budva. They
18 then sent the statement to you by e-mail recording what you told them for
19 you to sign. Is that how it within the?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, for the most part.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I want to know what is it you told them about
22 the content of this document in Sarajevo in 2013.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I provided my
24 statement they were taking notes. And later, when we finished this
25 interview, they said that we would meet again and that's why I didn't
1 sign the statement there in Sarajevo. They said we will have to meet
2 again, if there is anything you want to add, and so on and so forth.
3 However, when they called me later on, I was in Budva. And then
4 I read the statement and I noticed this --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers]
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- reference to Metalka and --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you were talking to them in Sarajevo, did you
8 say -- talk about Metalka building?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. Maybe they
10 asked, but I probably said I didn't know anything about that because that
11 wasn't in my zone of responsibility. It was in another area. Now, I
12 don't know where this confusion came from. We never discussed Metalka.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you talk --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We didn't talk about it.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you talk about anything related to something
16 called F4?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean at the time when I
18 talked with the attorneys?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers]
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They did -- yes, I believe that was
21 the incident we -- we are discussing here.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they told me there was this
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is F4?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that's the incident
2 relating to the positions below our positions that we cannot really see,
3 that a woman and a child were killed there, if that's what you mean. And
4 that the Prosecution thought that this was by fire from our positions,
5 but I didn't see that. So I think that's the incident in question.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in addition to the
7 question that Judge Moloto has put to you.
8 When you were interviewed, was the starting point open new
9 questions or did you start looking at your Karadzic statement and then to
10 go through that? I'm talking about the interviews you had on the three
11 dates in 2013.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, there was the Karadzic
13 statement. I had it. I read it. And we just added a couple of things.
14 In the Karadzic statement, the same incident was mentioned in that same
15 statement because I also -- I talked with the Prosecutor, whether it was
16 Christopher or someone else, about this particular incident. I think
17 there was another incident. I think number 10 or something and we
18 discussed that then. And --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Just a moment.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Practicably there were these two
21 incidents as far as my positions were concerned.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, I understand you well that during these
23 interviews the starting point was your Karadzic statement which you went
24 through and then added or changed to the extent you considered it
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, for the main part that's
2 how it went.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I see it's time for a break. Or no?
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm making a mistake.
6 Mr. Shin, you're on your feet.
7 MR. SHIN: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I don't think we have further questions from the
9 Bench at this moment.
10 Please proceed.
11 MR. SHIN: If we could please have a screen shot of the document
12 on the ELMO and the Prosecution would tender that into evidence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You mean the handwriting?
14 MR. SHIN: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. SHIN: Exactly as it's imaged right now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Can we have a screen shot from what is now on the
18 ELMO, Madam Registrar.
19 Madam Registrar needs to consult first with the technicians.
20 Another way of dealing with it is to -- Mr. Shin, another way of dealing
21 with it is to make a copy of your copy --
22 MR. SHIN: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: -- show it to the Defence and see whether it really
24 is what we looked at at this moment and then upload that into e-court.
25 MR. SHIN: Yes, I -- I think that perhaps that's the --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Most practical way.
2 MR. SHIN: -- more practical way of doing it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 Mr. Usher, please, could you assist Mr. Shin in showing to
5 Mr. Stojanovic what he intends to upload into e-court and then ask
6 whether there is any objection to that to be admitted.
8 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, could you already reserve a
10 number for the document still to be uploaded?
11 THE REGISTRAR: The reserved number would be P6623, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: And is reserved for a English chart with some
13 handwriting on it among which the date of the 27th of 06, that is June,
15 Please proceed, Mr. Shin.
16 MR. SHIN: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 And if Mr. Usher could kindly assist me with one more reference
18 in this bundle. It's ten pages from the back -- or ten pages from the
19 end. I recognise that that's double-sided. So it would be the tenth
20 page from the end of the bundle and the ERN in the upper right-hand
21 corner ends in a 3043. It's a typed list of names, not the handwritten
22 one. My -- thank you, Mr. Usher.
23 If we could just look at the left side of this document.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, you see that under the names number 5,
25 Petar Svalina, and number 11, Himzo Sulejmanovic, there is underlining.
1 Whose underlining is that, Mr. Tusevljak?
2 A. Well, I underlined that because these were my fighters of
3 Croatian and Muslim ethnicity.
4 Q. Okay. No further questions on that.
5 MR. SHIN: And I won't need that document further, Mr. Usher.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then it can be returned to the witness.
8 Mr. Usher, you can return the document to the witness, but the
9 witness should keep it closed and not consult it until having received
10 permission to do so.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Shin.
12 MR. SHIN:
13 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, we're going to go back to your statement.
14 MR. SHIN: If I could please have D539 on the screen again. Just
15 one question on this.
16 Q. If you -- the page that we have right now, this says
17 "Witness Acknowledgement." You read this before signing the document;
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Well, we have that text. I won't ask you anything further
21 about it.
22 Now, I'm going to go to -- you were just talking about a few
23 minutes ago about something about the 4th Company and the 2nd Battalion.
24 MR. SHIN: Let's turn to paragraph 2 of this document, that would
25 be on the second page of both the English and the B/C/S.
1 Q. Now in paragraph 2, you state that you were in:
2 "The 1st Company in which I was platoon commander of the 1st
4 Now, both the company number and the battalion number here is
5 simply incorrect; isn't that right?
6 A. That's right. And I mentioned this a little earlier to the Trial
7 Chamber when I talked about Metalka, that that was an error. There
8 was -- I also mentioned that there was an error of sorts here, because it
9 was the 4th Company -- the 4th Battalion -- 2nd Battalion, 4th Company.
10 So whoever wrote this down made an error. I made a mention to this, to
11 the attorneys, the numbers of the battalion and company were incorrectly
12 written down.
13 Q. Okay. First of all -- whoever wrote it down. But you're the
14 person who signed this document, this one-and-a-half-page document, you
15 reviewed and you signed it?
16 A. Yes, sir. But I've already told you how this happened. Had I
17 been in Sarajevo, I would have probably corrected it right then and there
18 and then signed it. But because I was in Budva, I was in no position to
19 correct it, and I thought it could be done here.
20 Q. Now, here in court during your testimony you, along with the rest
21 of us, have heard no correction of this designation of the 1st Company
22 and 1st Battalion, and yet you've said nothing; is that right?
23 A. Well, I believe this was something we talked yesterday, I
24 believe. I told the attorney -- my attorney that this was incorrect,
25 both this and the Metalka thing. I think we already talked about this
1 yesterday, that this should be corrected.
2 Q. Well, we didn't do that.
3 MR. SHIN: Now I'm going to move to paragraph 8.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
5 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE ORIE: One more question. You said you couldn't correct
7 it. Well, if you sign with your own pen, you can make small correction
8 on numbers as well, isn't it?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could have done that but the
10 attorney wasn't there so I just sent it as it was. And then I thought
11 that before I start testifying that could be done, corrected, and
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But you could have done it in Budva?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could have. But I've
15 already described it was quick.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Shin.
17 MR. SHIN:
18 Q. [Microphone not activated] And just to be clear --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone.
20 MR. SHIN:
21 Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Tusevljak, the company number and the
22 battalion number, those are material differences, aren't they?
23 A. Well, I don't know if they are material differences. But it is
24 well known that this was not the 1st Battalion. It was the 3rd Battalion
25 first, and then 2nd; and the company, the 1st Company was below us
1 towards Grbavica. We were the 4th Company and to the left of us was the
2 5th Company. Now, I don't know why this is so important, whether it was
3 the 1st or 4th, it's the same battalion. Now how this error occurred, I
4 don't really know.
5 Q. I think it's obvious --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Shin.
7 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry, I have to interrupt again.
9 Mr. Tusevljak, at the beginning of this paragraph 2, it says, "In
10 paragraph 7 of the said statement," the said statement is the statement
11 D540 of the Karadzic case.
12 When you read this document in Budva, did you compare it with the
13 statement given in the Karadzic case?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because I didn't have that. I
15 didn't have that with me.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: This I can very well understand.
17 In paragraph 7 of the Karadzic statement, nothing is written
18 about battalions and brigades. That is in paragraph 13 of the Karadzic
19 statement. There are similar mistakes as well, the references to the
20 Karadzic statement. I just wanted to put that on the record.
21 Mr. Shin.
22 MR. SHIN: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now I think it's time for the break, Mr. Shin.
24 MR. SHIN: Okay.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I was a bit early.
1 But, Witness, we'd like to see you back in 20 minutes from now.
2 You may follow the usher.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 1.44 p.m.
8 JUDGE ORIE: One second, please, Mr. Shin. I'm just dealing with
9 another matter for a second.
10 Mr. Shin, you wanted to raise a matter before the witness comes
12 MR. SHIN: Yes. Actually, I think it's fine even if the witness
13 comes in. But just in the interest of time, two points:
14 One, the document -- the screen shot document -- well, what we
15 had wanted to get a screen shot of is now in e-court under 65 ter 30922.
16 And I understand it is -- it was, of course, already signed a P number.
17 And --
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: 3-0?
19 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry, Your Honour?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: 3-0?
21 MR. SHIN: 30922. And Your Honour is correct, I sped up on the
22 numbers again.
23 Second matter, we have noticed that in the bundle of documents
24 that the witness has, there is at lease one confidential document. It's
25 a confidential. It's -- of course, it was disclosed. It's fine for use
1 by the Defence. But it would be inappropriate to let the witness take it
2 away from the premises, we believe, so we would request that the witness
3 be instructed to return that document to the Defence.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And perhaps the Defence should give an
6 explanation for that situation.
7 If you have one second, please.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, we don't have access to the bundle. So if
10 we want to ask the witness something, then at least you should guide us
11 what document to -- for the witness to return to the Defence.
12 MR. SHIN: Yes. It may be safest for the entire bundle to be
13 returned to the Defence --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. SHIN: -- after the witness's testimony.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. SHIN: And possibly even at the end of session today.
18 JUDGE ORIE: At the end of session today.
19 MR. SHIN: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I think that's the appropriate way.
21 And, Mr. Stojanovic, the Defence owes an explanation to the
22 Chamber for what Mr. Shin describes had happened; that is, that you leave
23 a confidential document with an outsider.
24 But could I --
25 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry, it's no a statement. I should be clear.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, I --
2 MR. SHIN: It's a document.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's a document.
4 Now, Witness, could I ask you: Were you instructed in any way
5 how to deal with specific documents in that bundle?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, I was just
7 instructed to read my own statement, and basically that was it.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you ask to keep them or were they just
9 left with you?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I asked to have them with me so
11 that I can go through them in my hotel room and look at the maps and
13 JUDGE ORIE: And you didn't receive any other instructions; for
14 example, how to deal with maps or how to deal with your statement or that
15 you did receive any specific instruction as how to handle each and every
16 of those documents?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, for the most part I kept
18 that in my bag. When I needed them, I would read them then and put them
19 back in the bag, and basically that's how it was. I understood those to
20 be personal documents that no one else should read them other than me,
21 and that's how cared for them.
22 JUDGE ORIE: But you didn't receive any instructions in that
23 respect, did you?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, no, nothing specific.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, you could have shared your statement with
1 your wife upon return, for example? I don't know whether you are married
2 or not. But ...
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I am married. But, no,
4 I mean, she is not interested in these things. So I just held onto them.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand.
6 Mr. Shin, we'll take appropriate measures at the end of this
7 session. Please proceed.
8 MR. SHIN:
9 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, now, when we left off you were just telling us
10 that you did not believe that company numbers and battalion numbers were
11 material facts. I'll just leave that there and go on to another issue.
12 But let me ask you just this: If -- you were a soldier, you were
13 in the war for four years. It did make a big difference what the company
14 of a unit was. That's a complete different unit, isn't it?
15 A. Well, yes, yes. But I know the unit I was in. I know what it
16 was called. I know where it was, where I was, and so I -- I said as much
17 that these numbers weren't correct. That this was an error. But I
18 didn't see it as particularly significant to me. I'm not a lawyer. So I
19 did mention to the lawyer that this should be corrected, that and the
20 Metalka issue.
21 Q. I'm going to move on now. But also staying with your statement.
22 MR. SHIN: If we could have the next page of what is D539. And
23 that's on our screens now.
24 Q. While we're turning there, Mr. Tusevljak, I'm going to ask you to
25 focus on paragraph 8. Now, in your statement you refer to a -- to a
1 train and a mortar, and you say that it was running along
2 Vasa Miskina Street, and you also refer to paragraph 12 of your Karadzic
3 statement. Now, Vasa Miskina Street, this is also an error, isn't it?
4 A. I don't think so. That is Vasa Miskina Street. There was a rail
5 track along that street and the train moved along those tracks. We
6 received information from people who could see it from Sarajevo. They
7 told us that there was this train that would fire the shells and then it
8 would enter a feature, a building where it would be hidden. I think it
9 was on Vasa Miskina street.
10 Q. Now, let's turn to the document that's currently under D540.
11 This is going to be your Karadzic statement, Mr. Tusevljak, and we will
12 go to paragraph 12.
13 MR. SHIN: And -- I'm sorry, that's the next page, then.
14 Q. Now, here you'll see --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We should have the B/C/S on the screen --
16 MR. SHIN: Yes.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- as well.
18 MR. SHIN: I'm sorry. If we could please have that back. Oh,
19 yes. I don't believe there is a B/C/S version of this document.
20 Q. So I will read it to you. The second sentence reads:
21 "In the attack, they fired mortars mounted on railway tracks in
22 depth of our territory from the centre of the city near the
23 Vaso Miskin Crni Enterprise."
24 Now, here, Mr. Tusevljak, you're talking about the
25 Vaso Miskin Crni Enterprise. That is a building near the Brotherhood and
1 Unity Bridge, isn't it?
2 A. Yes, yes, but I thought that street, too, was Vasa Miskina Street
3 and I know exactly where this enterprise is. I think that it -- that the
4 street, too, is called Vasa Miskina Street. That was my impression.
5 Q. You've lived in Sarajevo all your life, you say. Vasa Miskina
6 Street --
7 A. [No interpretation]
8 Q. Vasa Miskina Street, that's in Bascarsija, isn't it?
9 A. Possibly. I didn't really remember street names particularly,
10 but I guess because I mentioned the company, the enterprise, then perhaps
11 I made a small error. But certainly it was from that place. We could
12 see that part of the city from our positions, just that part where this
13 enterprise was. And so I probably made an error with the street name but
14 probably thinking about the enterprise.
15 Q. We'll leave that and move on, but I'll just ask you: The
16 location of the Vaso Miskin Crni Enterprise and the location of
17 Vasa Miskin Street, those are two completely different parts of town.
18 You'd agree with that; correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now we've reviewed some of the errors that were still in this --
21 some of the errors you've corrected and some of the errors that are still
22 in this one-and-a-half-page statement, and I have to ask you: Are you
23 sure you understand the importance of being truthful and accurate in
24 presenting your evidence before this Tribunal?
25 A. Well, yes. I do understand. But an error can slip in. For
1 instance, this Vasa Miskin Enterprises and I said "street," but I know
2 what I meant where this was because that's where the tracks were.
3 Q. I'm going to move on to different topic, now. And what I would
4 like to ask you about is the weapons that your platoon and your company
6 MR. SHIN: Could I please have on the screen the document that is
7 now D545.
8 Q. Now, Mr. Tusevljak, while we're waiting for this, you'll
9 recognise this list as a list of people in the 1st Platoon. But let me
10 ask you first: Your name does not appear on this list; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Could you explain briefly why that might be?
13 A. Well, this list was probably compiled after I moved to the other
14 platoon. I was no longer a member of the 1st but of the 2nd Platoon. So
15 that's probably why.
16 Q. Okay. But you recognise the names here; correct?
17 A. Oh, yes. Yes. These are all my neighbours and the fighters who
18 were with me.
19 Q. Now, we see a reference to an M-84 at numbers 9 and number 21.
20 That's a heavy machine-gun, correct, one that fires a 7.76 millimetre
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You testified in the Karadzic case --
24 MR. SHIN: And that's transcript 29958.
25 Q. You testified that you believed a target at 1200 metres would be
1 within the M-84's effective range if it had optical sights. You stand by
2 that; correct?
3 A. Yes. Yes, it could reach that far.
4 Q. Now, we're looking at that -- these M-84s and we see a number
5 next to them. In fact, we see numbers next to all of these weapons.
6 That is the weapon's serial number; correct?
7 A. Yes, that's correct.
8 Q. And that is a unique number that is listed there so the company
9 can keep track of weapons; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now let's look at -- a little further down at number 23, I
12 believe, where it says PM-M 53. That is also a machine-gun; correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct. That's a machine-gun, an older model.
14 Q. At number 5, we see a reference to a Zbrojevka-Brno. You
15 described that in your Karadzic testimony as a Czech-made weapon similar
16 to a machine-gun.
17 MR. SHIN: That's T29936 and -37.
18 Q. You stand by that testimony; correct?
19 A. Yes, yes. It's similar to a machine-gun.
20 Q. Now we see an M-48 appearing twice at numbers 18 and 25. That is
21 a rifle that was also known as a Tandzara; correct?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. In addition to these weapons we've seen here, did your platoon
24 have Zoljas?
25 A. Yes, we had several Zoljas and we had a hand-held launcher in
1 order to be able to breach the fortifications ahead of us.
2 Q. And you also had grenade launchers; correct?
3 A. Yes, it was a hand-held grenade launcher. It was an
4 impact-action launcher. It was meant for breaching trenches.
5 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, if you could just focus on my question. If I have
6 a question about how a weapon or what a weapon is for, I'll ask that.
7 Now, in paragraph 13 of your Karadzic statement, you state that
8 your platoon had a 60-millimetre mortar; is that right?
9 A. The company had that weapon, not the platoon. That's another
10 error. There was a mortar in the company which was in the rear of our
12 Q. Let me ask you: Was there only one mortar of 60-millimetre
13 calibre or were there more in your company?
14 A. I believe there were two. However, one of them was out of
15 service. There was something wrong with it so it wasn't in use, a
16 60-millimetre mortar.
17 Q. So when your statement in the Karadzic case --
18 MR. SHIN: And again, this is paragraph 13.
19 Q. -- says, "We only had one 60-millimetre mortar," even accepting
20 your clarification that that's for the company, that statement is
22 A. Well, as I've already said, the other one was out of order. So I
23 know it wasn't in use. There were some men who had been issued with that
24 mortar, but they said that it was out of order so it wasn't in use.
25 Q. Mr. Tusevljak, were there three mortars of 60-millimetre calibre,
1 one of which may have been out of order? Or were there two 60-millimetre
2 mortars, one of which may have been out of order?
3 A. Well, I am not sure. It wasn't really within my purview. It was
4 something that the company commander would be responsible for and the
5 supply officer. I know that one of them was out of order, but I don't
6 know if there were actually three of them. It's possible, but I don't
7 know. I was not responsible for mortars. I just knew that when there
8 was an attack I would communicate with them and tell them to send the
9 shells, and that was it.
10 Q. We will look into this further, but, for now, let me focus on the
11 latter part of your sentence in paragraph 13. That whole sentence reads:
12 "We had" --
13 "We only had one 60-millimetre mortar but no mortar bombs."
14 Now, we've already recognised the need to make a correction on
15 the first point. The second point: When you say, "We had no mortar
16 shells," is that the company you're talking about?
17 A. Yes, that's my company. And I believe I mentioned there that on
18 that day, on the 8th, we didn't have a single shell for that mortar.
19 That mortar. When I said "my" or "ours," I meant it was in our company,
20 but that was in -- the platoon was mine, I was the platoon commander, but
21 the company was also mine. We were all there together. So on the 8th,
22 we didn't have a single shell.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. SHIN: I'm going to ask if the document under D540 can be
25 brought back on the screen.
1 Q. It's only in English. And while we're waiting for that to come
2 up, I'm going to ask you: There's no reference -- and we can look into
3 this. But let me ask you this nonetheless, Mr. Tusevljak, there is no
4 limitation on this sentence that you are only talking about one day, the
5 8th of June, 1992. There is no such limitation, is there? And just tell
6 me if you remember. We can translate this document for you.
7 A. Well, yes, it is possible that I failed to mention that, but I --
8 that's what I meant. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. And when I said we
9 didn't have any shells, I meant the 8th of June. Of course, that was on
10 that first day. Later on, we did get shells that we used. Once we were
11 attacked, then we would use them to fire on their lines. Not us, but the
12 men who were in charge of that mortar.
13 MR. SHIN: Could we have the next page of this document on the
14 screen for -- for the convenience of the members of the Court. So we're
15 looking at paragraph 13.
16 Q. Now --
17 MR. SHIN: Just one moment, please.
18 Q. Yes. Mr. Tusevljak, you just said that, Later on we did get
19 shells. In fact, you said you had shells before the 8th as well, did you
21 A. Do you mean before the 8th?
22 Q. Yes, before the 8th of June.
23 A. Yes, yes. We had some shells. They had them before the 8th.
24 There were a few shells. Most of them were the incendiary, but on the
25 8th we didn't have any. These were just used to light up the sky at
1 night. Those are the kind that we had.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Shin, the Chamber needs a few more minutes for
3 other matters at this moment. We are aware that we interrupted so many
4 times the cross-examination. We would only change our plans if you would
5 say I'm about to finish in one or two minutes, but otherwise we'll have
6 to continue tomorrow.
7 MR. SHIN: I am pretty sure I cannot finish in one or two
8 minutes, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's understood.
10 Then, Witness, we expect that you'll conclude your testimony
11 tomorrow. We had already expected it already to be concluded today but
12 unfortunately we were able to achieve that. I again instruct you that
13 you should not speak with anyone about your testimony, whether already
14 given or still to be given. And we invite you to bring tomorrow or give
15 to the Victims and Witness Section the original of this statement you
16 said you kept after having signed it and after having sent a -- it by
17 e-mail to the Defence. If you would by any chance still have a copy of
18 that e-mail message, it would be appreciated if you could produce that as
19 well. I don't know whether you still have it or not. We'd like to see
20 you back tomorrow morning at 9.30 in the morning, and you're also invited
21 to now return, with the assistance of the usher, the bundle you received
22 to the Defence.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE ORIE: A few matters.
2 on any witness protection even if it's a name on a document or something
3 like that? Because then we would like to inform the Victims and
4 Witness Section about --
5 MR. SHIN: We don't -- we don't believe that it would. It's, in
6 fact, a simply a category of documents that are treated confidentially.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then if it's not to late for the witness
8 protection, I'll leave it to that.
9 Another matter: P6623 has been reserved for a chart with some
10 handwriting on it. Now, what you apparently have uploaded under 65 ter
11 30922 is including some metadata. Now, I don't know whether -- let me --
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that you did not add any metadata
14 but that Madam Registrar did add some metadata which -- so that you're
15 aware of that.
16 There was no objection against admission of the --
17 Mr. Stojanovic, there was no objection to admission of P6623. Then P --
18 no, I think we reserved the number. It's now P6623 is admitted into
20 Mr. Stojanovic, if you would carefully listen, I think
21 Judge Fluegge has a few matters he would like to raise with you.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Indeed, thank you very much.
23 We -- I would like to refer you, Mr. Stojanovic, to paragraph 2
24 of the statement which was prepared for this case. As I earlier
25 indicated, in line 1 there was a reference to a paragraph 7 of the
1 Karadzic statement. Do you agree that this should relate to paragraph 13
2 of the Karadzic statement which we just a minute ago had on our screens
3 and Mr. Shin was dealing with?
4 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would agree that
5 it would be more practical in paragraph 13. But if you read it in the
6 entire context, in preparation it was in paragraph 7 specifically that
7 the witness added this story about the sniper. He says there:
8 "On that same evening, Muslims opened fire on our houses but I
9 had nothing to return the fire with."
10 And then he adds that his unit was established in late May 1992
11 and that there was only one sniper who was a member of the battalion per
12 establishment. But perhaps it would be more appropriate to put it in the
13 paragraph that you have referred to.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think in that case we can agree that it refers
15 to paragraph 7 and paragraph 13.
16 What about paragraph 3 of the statement in our case. I see
17 there, the second sentence:
18 "This is the sharpshooter I discuss in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
19 statement I've given in the Karadzic case."
20 Two and 3 are not dealing with any sharpshooter, but is it
21 correct that you refer to paragraph 26?
22 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
23 And I believe that in the proofing notes that I sent to you before the
24 beginning, this correction was made and these proofing notes were also
25 forwarded to the Prosecution as soon as I had the interview with the
1 witness here at the Hague. And there we note that it is a correction and
2 that it's not paragraphs 2 and 3 but rather 26.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: If that is the case, which I can't confirm at the
4 moment, you didn't deal with that during your examination-in-chief and
5 you didn't confirm these corrections with the witness. It's not on the
6 record up to now. If you now agree to that, then it's fine. Then it's
7 on the record. But I don't think that this is in the proofing note we
8 received via informal communication.
9 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's possible, Your Honours.
10 But I am pretty certain that yesterday the questions that I put to my --
11 to the witness I did put this question and that the witness answered with
12 a "yes," but I can check that and I will give you the reference for it.
13 I asked -- I put this question yesterday at the end of the work here.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Stojanovic, I would like to move to another
15 topic. Paragraph 4 of the statement which was prepared for our case here
16 refers to the incident F4. We discussed it in detail. If I look into
17 the indictment F4, it refers to two people who were shot and wounded by a
18 single bullet while walking together in a certain street. Nothing about
19 a tram. A tram appears only in F8. Perhaps this reference to F4 was
20 taken from the Karadzic statement. I don't know the indictment in the
21 Karadzic case. Is that really -- are we really dealing here with the
22 incident F4, or is it something else?
23 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we are dealing with
24 incident F4. And as for the information, the mention of "tram," that was
25 taken out of this incident F4 and we took it out together with this
1 sentence: From Metalka it was impossible to actually hit the tram. This
2 sentence was deleted and this, too, was something that we forwarded to
3 you in our proofing notes as soon as we talked with the witness, as soon
4 as we had the interview with him. So this information, the whole bit
5 about the tram was deleted.
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Why, in fact, I ask again: Why didn't you delete
7 the entire paragraph? It makes no sense if we are not sure which
8 incident you are referring to.
9 In the Karadzic statement, F4 refers to an event which allegedly
10 occurred in the Azize Sacirbegovic Street. F4 in our indictment refers
11 to the Ivana Krndelja Street. Is that the same event or isn't it?
12 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we stand by the
13 position that this is the same position. We asked the witness about it.
14 This is Ivana Krndelja Street, which by virtue of its position -- and you
15 can see that in the document. And also from the words of the witness you
16 can see that this was visible from the position at Ozrenska Street. So
17 this is the incident where one bullet actually wounded two persons.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. And is Azize Sacirbegovic Street
19 nearby? Or why does the Karadzic statement refer to this street?
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] The street, if I'm not erring,
21 Azize Sacirbegovic, Azize Sacirbegovic Street, if I understood that
22 correctly, is the street that is now called Azize Sacirbegovic after the
23 name change. The Ivana Krndelja Street that a reference was made to is
24 the same street that is now called Azize Sacirbegovic Street.
25 Azize Sacirbegovic Street, I believe it's the same street but it was
1 renamed. Until the war it was called the Ivana Krndelja Street and then
2 later it -- the name was changed and it was -- it became
3 Azize Sacirbegovic Street.
4 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
5 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would just like
6 to give you that reference. In our exhibit P503, 503, there is a photo
7 document where we can see the F4 incident marked and that street is
8 called Azize Sacirbegovic Street; however, in our case it is referred to
9 as incident F4 on Ivana Krndelja Street.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for the day and will resume
11 tomorrow, Friday, the 4th of July, at 9.30 in this same courtroom, I.
12 But, Mr. Shin, could you tell us how much time you would still
14 MR. SHIN: Your Honour, it's a little bit hard to estimate, but I
15 will review and I certainly expect to finish in the first session, if
16 that assists.
17 JUDGE ORIE: To some extent it does. But the Chamber at this
18 moment is not in a position to criticise you for perhaps taking more time
19 than expected because of the pure chaos that arose.
20 And again, Mr. Lukic, I want to express the great concern the
21 Chamber has with the chaos, sloppiness, and whatever happens in -- at
22 this moment in the Defence case. I leave it to that. We'll adjourn for
23 the day and we'll resume tomorrow morning at 9.30.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.23 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Friday, the 4th day
1 of July, 2014, at 9.30 a.m.