1 Wednesday, September 27, 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused Sljivancanin and Radic enter court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Moore, we had to interrupt your submission last

6 night because of time. Is there more that you would like to put?

7 MR. MOORE: With regard to the submission, I just wish to reply to

8 that briefly and then my cross-examination should take no more than 30

9 minutes. That's what I'm hoping, but sometimes the witness answers in a

10 long way.

11 May I just deal with the submission? I wish to put --

12 JUDGE PARKER: That's where I was expecting you to start.

13 MR. MOORE: Just dealing with, just dealing with the matters I

14 would like to put to the witness, we submit it goes to his credibility.

15 There are matters that we would suggest indicate that he may have been

16 responsible for the shelling of the town of Gorazde. We would submit that

17 we have a document here, signed by him, indicating that they opened

18 artillery fire at the enemy positions and the town of Gorazde. We would

19 submit that is an issue that goes to his credibility. He can either accept

20 it or deny it and we move on. It is something the Court can evaluate. My

21 learned friend is only partially correct when he submitted yesterday that

22 it was not at my witness that this matter had been clarified by earlier

23 submissions. If my memory serves me correctly, part of the

24 cross-examination and significant cross-examination by my learned friends

25 of Dr. Bosanac, and I think at least one other, was that they had various

1 allegations that they were facing in Serbia, and that was done obviously

2 to impeach their credibility.

3 We would submit it's exactly the same test. It is not a matter

4 that will take any length of time, it may well be the witness does not

5 accept it is him.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic in particular, I think, referred to your

7 objection to cross-examination of the witness Agotic.

8 MR. MOORE: I don't know if it was Mr. Lukic who submitted it.

9 Agotic?

10 JUDGE PARKER: And that was over the nature of certain helicopter

11 flights two years or one year after these events.

12 MR. MOORE: I'm trying to, trying to remember because there have

13 been so many.

14 JUDGE PARKER: May I pass you the transcript and the ruling that

15 was against Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. MOORE: Thank you very much. I imagine Mr. Lukic would

17 remember that.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Well, the problem is, it's somewhat possibly

19 to be seen as on all fours with the present position.

20 MR. MOORE: Of course it does apply. One also has to bear in mind

21 the -- yes, it's not me. I thought it wasn't me. It is Mr. Agotic --

22 so ...

23 JUDGE PARKER: Oh, well you can shed responsibility.

24 MR. MOORE: I must say I was getting extremely worried. I

25 thought, I'm really in trouble here. So I feel much better, personally.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Then as legal counsel you are on top of everything

2 happening in the case, aren't you? Yes.

3 MR. MOORE: But all I would submit -- yes. No, I wouldn't want

4 that. But all I'm submitting is, when one looks at the cross-examination

5 of Dr. Bosanac, there were significant documents brought out alleging the

6 fact that she had breached various matters and was consequently being

7 impeached. And it could have been for no other reason, her credibility.

8 That, I would submit, is the appropriate test.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Were those matters not contemporaneous or

10 approximately so with the events in issue in this case?

11 MR. MOORE: They would have --

12 JUDGE PARKER: And in the same location.

13 MR. MOORE: They would have been, of course; I accept that

14 entirely. But may I equally submit the following. If one looks to -- and

15 I will submit by way of analogy for national jurisdiction -- if a person

16 facing a trial, let us say in 19 -- for acts committed in 1991, and he

17 is -- there is significant material by his own hand to demonstrate that he

18 may well have been responsible for the commission of a criminal act.

19 Subsequently, is the Court seriously suggesting -- and I don't mean that

20 offencively -- that that is not evidence that can be taken into account?

21 It's not a question of me just putting it to him. I have a document,

22 signed by this man, in relation to that matter. So it's not a case of the

23 challenge, per se. It is a question of the document which he is the

24 author of and, therefore, in a position to deal with. And therefore we

25 would submit there is a distinction. That would be my submission.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

2 Mr. Vasic.

3 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I think that

4 the position here is the same that I put forward yesterday with regard to

5 witness Imra Agotic. And when the issue of the participation of a witness

6 was raised, I believe it was Vilim Karlovic in the Storm Operation, storm

7 and lightning. And when the position was also taken that the questioning

8 of that witness with regard to his credibility and the circumstances from

9 subsequent years was not admissible with regard to this case and this

10 indictment.

11 The comparison to what we asked Ms. Vesna Bosanac, we agree with

12 you that she was exclusively questioned with regard to this indictment and

13 the events at that time. I believe that the position of the Court was

14 that this was no way to question the credibility of the witness in this

15 case.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE PARKER: I think you've had your intervention, Mr. Lukic.

18 That's it. Thank you. You are not directly the party calling the witness

19 or cross-examining, you see, but -- we hear you once, but there are

20 limits.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE PARKER: It is the view of the Chamber that the

23 cross-examination, pursuing what apparently is alleged conduct in a

24 different unit, although involving the witness something like two years

25 after the event in a different venue entirely is not something that is

1 going to assist the Tribunal in the resolution of this case.

2 Credibility is advanced as the basis for the cross-examination and

3 credibility, of course, is always in issue in every case involving every

4 witness. We have to consider whether an issue, which has no apparent link

5 with the events we're dealing with is one which is likely to have an

6 effect upon our assessment of the credibility of that witness in this

7 case.

8 As we have ruled in an earlier matter concerning the witness,

9 Agotic, evidence which is so long after the event and so removed

10 physically and -- in terms of the military units involved from the issues

11 in this case. Although it may give rise to the possibility of some

12 improper conduct by the witness is so removed that we are not in a

13 position that we could anticipate that their appreciation of the

14 credibility of the witness, for the purposes of this trial, would be

15 affected in any material way.

16 So for those reasons, Mr. Moore, the cross-examination on that

17 issue should not be pursued.

18 If we could now have the witness.

19 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, I think there is a medical update. It

20 may well be that Your Honour would wish to deal with that. And secondly,

21 as Your Honour knows, there will be some legal argument. After we

22 conclude with the witness of Danilovic, I think there are no other

23 witnesses. So I don't know if Your Honour was thinking of taking a break

24 between the legal arguments and the facts.

25 JUDGE PARKER: We were going to see first when you and Mr. Vasic

1 finished with the witness, and then assess whether we had any time left,

2 Mr. Moore.

3 MR. MOORE: Thank you very much.

4 [The witness entered court]

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.

6 WITNESS: RADE DANILOVIC: [Resumed]

7 [Witness answered through interpreter]

8 JUDGE PARKER: I would remind you that the affirmation you made at

9 the beginning of your evidence still applies.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's clear.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Moore.

12 Cross-Examination by Mr. Moore: [Continued]

13 MR. MOORE: Thank you very much.

14 Q. Mr. Danilovic, I have very few questions for you. So could you

15 just keep your answers short and we can finish the matter quickly.

16 I want to deal with the officers that you served. I want to --

17 you told us about one of your officers that you served with. I would like

18 to deal with Mr. Vukosavljevic in charge of the security organ for the

19 80th. Would it be right to say that you knew him at that time?

20 A. Yes. Absolutely, Mr. Moore.

21 Q. How would you describe Mr. Vukosavljevic as an officer?

22 A. I can say that Mr. Vukosavljevic was a good officer. He was a

23 reserve officer. He had graduated from the school for reserve officers,

24 and even though I'm not acquainted with the details of the work of the

25 security organ, but I think that he was good at performing his duty in

1 accordance with his training as a reserve officer.

2 Q. And would you agree that he is not only an officer but a man of

3 integrity?

4 A. I can say that he, as a person, is honest.

5 Q. You're not suggesting presumably he's dishonest. You're just

6 saying you can say?

7 A. I think I answered your question, Mr. Moore. He was responsible.

8 He was conscientious. I never noticed him doing anything dishonest.

9 During the time we spent together at the time of the 80th Motorised

10 Brigade, that is the time I'm referring to. We didn't know each other

11 before that, nor did we socialise privately, so I don't know him very

12 well.

13 Q. I understand now your reservations. But your dealing with him, as

14 far as you could see he was professional, competent, and did his work

15 well. That would be the analysis, would it not?

16 A. I think he worked well.

17 Q. With regard to Mr. Vezmarovic, he had an extremely responsible job

18 on the night of the 18th and morning of the 19th, that is correct?

19 A. Yes, certainly, Mr. Moore. Since -- the company of the military

20 police that he commanded was charged with providing security for the

21 prisoners of war, so his task was doubtlessly responsible.

22 Q. And as far as you could see, he did that task well and

23 responsibly?

24 A. I believe that he did -- he performed his task at the time

25 responsibly and well.

1 Q. Thank you. May we deal, please, with Miodrag Panic. Now, Miodrag

2 Panic as you are well aware was the Chief of Staff of OG South, isn't that

3 right?

4 A. Yes, Mr. Moore.

5 Q. And did you know Miodrag Panic before he went to Vukovar?

6 A. Yes, certainly. You will have the information that we graduated

7 from military academy together and that we had known each other for at

8 least two years.

9 Q. Sir, when did you graduate?

10 A. Mr. Moore, I graduated from military academy on July 30th, 1972,

11 in Belgrade.

12 Q. So you have known Miodrag Panic since 1972, is that right?

13 A. Yes, sir, Mr. Moore.

14 Q. I can only speak about graduation in an English army, but when

15 you're officer or junior officers in an English army you tend to keep your

16 friendships from people that you have served with from different units.

17 Does that apply -- did that apply to the Yugoslav army?

18 A. Well to be completely frank, I can confirm that it was the case in

19 my army too. We were friends and if we meet each other again, especially

20 on combat duties, we would support each other and cooperate well. That's

21 the truth. There is no escaping from that.

22 Q. Dealing with Miodrag Panic. Clearly you served together in

23 Vukovar. After you or they, the OG South of the guards, left Vukovar, did

24 you serve again together?

25 A. No, Mr. Moore. We did not share any duty. Only I remember we

1 once inspected the combat readiness of the military district in Kragujevac

2 where I was commander for some four and a half years. As far as I

3 remember, that was in 2002 or 2001, around that time. I didn't expect a

4 question like this, so it isn't readily, this information isn't readily

5 accessible in my memory, so I'm not sure about the period. I remember it

6 was in March, though.

7 Q. Thank you. Just would you allow me one moment.

8 When was the last time you saw Miodrag Panic?

9 A. If you will trust me when I give you my word as an officer, we

10 never saw each other again after that.

11 Q. So you've had no dealings with him then in the organisation of the

12 Defence of Mr. Mrksic? He didn't contact you?

13 A. No, Mr. Moore, certainly not.

14 Q. Did you ever make a statement to the lawyers dealing with

15 Mr. Mrksic's Defence about the evidence you would give?

16 A. Well, I think I did. It would have been in December or January,

17 this year, if I'm not mistaken, when I talked to the lawyers about the

18 Defence. I was told at the time that three officers from the Guards

19 Brigade, General Mrksic, Colonel Sljivancanin, and Captain Radic, the --

20 but the concrete questions, they said that this -- they would be about

21 that grave incident at Ovcara.

22 I didn't understand that to mean that I would be part of the

23 Defence of General Mrksic, but I was ready to say that, since they are

24 really honourable officers. I don't know whether you know, but only the

25 best officers were appointed to guard units. The best officers of the

1 then JNA. That's what I can say, for sure.

2 Q. Well then can you just assist me, are you saying -- or perhaps a

3 better way of putting it is this. When is the first time you were aware

4 of the allegations of atrocities at Ovcara, which was within the zone of

5 responsibility of your regiment?

6 A. I apologise, Mr. Moore. That was the zone of responsibility of

7 the brigade, is all my remark. I found out about that and -- in former

8 contacts with soldiers and officers of the 80th Motorised Brigade, but it

9 was said that those atrocities had been committed by the TO -- by members

10 of TO Vukovar, without the mention of any particular individuals.

11 I cannot say that they were really those who committed it, but I

12 didn't deal with this issue any further because I had many other tasks, as

13 Chief of Staff of the 80th Motorised Brigade. And this, I didn't want to

14 burden myself with this work, with this issue, because it didn't seem to

15 me that members of the 80th Motorised Brigade were involved.

16 Q. Sir, when did you cease being Chief of Staff of the 80th Motorised

17 Brigade?

18 A. Mr. Moore, I think that I remained in that position officially

19 until June 1992.

20 Q. Well, you told us that you were told by soldiers and officers of

21 the 80th, clearly within your tenure of Chief of Staff of the 80th

22 Motorised Brigade, so I'm asking you when.

23 A. Well, it was after my return from my assignment in the village of

24 Nemci, and later Tovarnik where I inspected the 2nd Motorised Battalion,

25 which then suffered many losses and there were problems with the morale.

1 So upon my return to the command, on those days I heard, and in former

2 conversations with some soldiers and officers, that this incident had

3 happened.

4 Q. So it was when you returned on the 21st?

5 A. Yes. On the 21st or 22nd, around in that time.

6 Q. And what were you hearing was being said?

7 A. As far as I remember, I heard that members of TO Vukovar had

8 massacred the captured members of the ZNG and the MUP of the Republic of

9 Croatia. There were some conjectures about the number of people killed,

10 but I do not remember exactly what the figures were.

11 Q. And it was in relation to the location, it was around Ovcara;

12 within the zone of responsibility, unfortunately, of the 80th Motorised

13 Brigade.

14 A. Well, unfortunately that is the case, Mr. Moore.

15 Q. So what did you ask Colonel Mrksic, when you found out about

16 that?

17 A. I did not entertain any official or unofficial contacts with

18 Mr. Mrksic and I'm sure he can confirm that for you.

19 Q. I don't want to involve ourselves with Mr. Mrksic. I just want to

20 deal with you. I'm not trying to blame. I'm just trying to find out. Do

21 you understand?

22 Here was a situation: You find out that atrocities have been

23 committed by TO Vukovar within the zone of responsibility of the 80th

24 Motorised Brigade. You are the Chief of Staff of the 80th Motorised

25 Brigade. That is a position of significant responsibility. Who did you

1 speak to? What officers did you speak to, to tell them about the

2 information that you had received, either by way of unofficial or informal

3 conversation or by way of document?

4 A. Mr. Moore, since I was involved in this mission, and I've given

5 you detailed account of that, when I returned, at the brigades there was

6 the brigade commander as well as all the other officers. I had heard

7 informally about this regrettable incident, and I simply believed that the

8 brigade commander would be taking all the appropriate steps, because he

9 was the one actually present at the command post.

10 I definitely did not feel that I was the person responsible for

11 taking any measures. That was my take on the situation, at least.

12 Q. I would like you please to look at Exhibit 396. Before it's put

13 on the screen, and it's my fault, I would just ask one or two other

14 questions.

15 Are you saying that you did or you did not speak to any superior

16 officer about this information?

17 A. As far as I remember, I did not. But this was all a long time ago

18 and you can hardly expect me to be entirely positive about it.

19 Q. Can I suggest to you that a person can expect you to be entirely

20 positive about that, unless, of course, you're a person who is aware of a

21 number of atrocities and you forget which ones we're dealing with,

22 Atrocities do not tend to arise in most peoples lives, Mr. Danilovic. Do

23 you understand?

24 So I would suggest you can remember. So can I take it that you

25 did not consult a senior officer?

1 A. Feel free to assume that, Mr. Moore. As for any senior officers,

2 from the level of the 80th Motorised Brigade up, I certainly did not share

3 that with anyone.

4 Q. I would like to then to refer you to the 1988 "Regulations of the

5 Application of the International Laws of War." Paragraph 21, please.

6 Now, I have 19 and 20. I'm going to have to go through it on 19 and 20.

7 What do you have in front of you? What is shown on the screen?

8 A. What I see is measures to prevent violations of the law of war.

9 Q. I just want to check to see what's being shown. We've got them

10 all. So let's just go through it. 19 relates to the responsibility of

11 the parties to a conflict for violations of the laws of war. The parties

12 to a conflict shall be responsible for violations of the laws of war.

13 Regardless of whether the violations occurred following the orders of, or

14 with the knowledge of the governments or supreme commands or whether they

15 resulted from the willful actions of members of their armed forces, other

16 organs and individuals acting as representatives of organs.

17 So just looking at number 19, article 19, you accept that as an

18 officer you were informed, on the 21 or 22nd of atrocities in the Ovcara

19 area by the Vukovar TO. That is correct, is it not?

20 A. Well, Mr. Moore, it is not quite the way you put it. I can only

21 repeat that whenever I talk to soldiers and officers from the command and

22 our subordinate units informally, it was said every time that some of the

23 captured ZNG and MUP members had been killed by the TO men.

24 I did not even know that this was the other group of prisoners who

25 had been brought over from the hospital. I didn't even know that the

1 whole thing was about those people.

2 Q. Forgive me for being a little cynical. But here you are, you come

3 back from a tour to Nemci. You come back and you're informed by officers

4 and soldiers of your brigade that Vukovar TO have murdered people in your

5 zone of responsibility. Are you saying you didn't ask how this happened?

6 Or who they were? Is that what you're actually expecting not only this

7 Court, but the world to believe?

8 A. Well, Mr. Moore, I'm telling it like it was. I'm telling you

9 about what I knew. I can hardly tell you anything other than what I knew.

10 Again, I didn't really ask around, the reason being the people involved

11 were TO men. And they committed this execrable atrocity.

12 Secondly, I was not physically present at the command to be able

13 to know about this directly.

14 Thirdly, I thought the commanders and the assistant commanders

15 were there. They were sufficiently able to take any measures that were

16 necessary, about this or about anything else. That's why I'm telling you

17 what I'm telling you.

18 This is simply how it happened, and there is precious little that

19 I can do to change that.

20 Q. Might I respectfully submit to you and suggest to you, you're

21 talking complete nonsense. That in actual fact you were aware that the

22 Vukovar TO were subordinated to OG South.

23 A. Mr. Moore, it is not my intention to offend you. But you should

24 be an honourable judge too. I'm sorry to have to say this. You have just

25 suggested I'm talking nonsense. Well, we might as well just let that be.

1 But the Vukovar TO Staff was not subordinated to the command of OG South

2 [as interpreted]. This is clearly indicated by a number of documents. If

3 you allow me some time I could track them down for you.

4 We only worked with the TO Staff, but it didn't go any further

5 than that, and that is a fact, Mr. Moore.

6 Q. I'm afraid the fact is that we have had a large amount of evidence

7 and, indeed, it is accepted by your Defence counsel on the other side,

8 that the Vukovar TO were subordinated to OG South. So when you look to

9 your left and you see all the lawyers who are operating on the basis of

10 the instructions of their counsel, of their defendants, they accept the

11 Vukovar TO were subordinated to OG South.

12 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, objection. I think

13 there is an error in the transcript --

14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vasic.

15 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] -- and that is what has caused all of

16 this confusion.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Go ahead.

18 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's about an error in

19 the transcript. The witness said that the Vukovar TO was not subordinated

20 to the command of OG South. That is page 14, lines 25 and then line 1.

21 That's what the witness said, but the transcript suggests that the Vukovar

22 TO were subordinated -- the staff. I'm talking about the TO Staff. So

23 the witness never said anything about OG South. He referred to the

24 command of the 80th Brigade. I think that is what brought about all of

25 this confusion.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Which line do you say is in error?

2 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the page is 14, line 25,

3 and page 15, line 1.

4 JUDGE PARKER: My version of it says the Vukovar TO Staff were

5 not subordinated to OG South. Is that not what the witness said?

6 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] The witness said the TO Staff was not

7 subordinated to the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade. So there is

8 the error.

9 Your Honours, with all due respect, it says subordinated to OG

10 South, whereas the witness said the 80th Motorised Brigade.

11 JUDGE PARKER: So it's the unit to which they were subordinated

12 that is the error?

13 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Precisely.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

15 MR. MOORE: We will attempt to clarify.

16 Q. TO Vukovar, forget about TO Vukovar staff. TO Vukovar, you knew

17 because you'd been there for a long time, were subordinated to OG South.

18 That is something that is accepted by everyone in this Court.

19 A. I'm saying that the Vukovar TO Staff was not subordinated to the

20 command of the 80th Motorised Brigade. I'm sorry. But I can't really

21 tell you about anything else. I'm just not positive. I don't know for

22 sure. But I don't challenge that, Mr. Moore. Mind you, I don't challenge

23 that.

24 Q. You have the staff. You have the units. Do you agree with that,

25 subdivision for the moment, militarily?

1 A. Absolutely, Mr. Moore.

2 Q. Thank you very much. We take away the staff, and I'm saying the

3 TO Vukovar units were subordinated to OG South. That's right, isn't it?

4 A. It would have been logical for the TO units to be subordinated to

5 the Vukovar TO Staff according to our military logic. Now, some of the TO

6 staff units may have been subordinated to the command of OG South, but

7 this is hardly the kind of information that you can expect from me. I

8 simply didn't know. I wasn't privy to that.

9 Q. Oh, I would suggest you most certainly were privy to it. You were

10 a Chief of Staff. This is an entirely -- a very unique position. Chief

11 of Staff is really the eyes and ears of his commander. He is in a

12 position to take up the reins if anything should happen. So this is not

13 some sort of company commander. You were in a very, very specific

14 position. I would suggest you know perfectly well that TO Vukovar was

15 subordinated to OG South. But you just don't want to admit it, same way

16 you didn't want to admit that in actual fact Mr. Mrksic would have been

17 responsible in the line of command if he'd been told by Vojnovic about the

18 atrocities. Exactly the same position. You don't want to admit any guilt

19 at all.

20 A. Mr. Moore, I really want us to stay on respectful terms. I'm

21 telling you that the Vukovar TO Staff was not subordinated to the command

22 of the 80th Motorised Brigade. Likewise, I'm telling you, and I'm sure

23 you can verify that, that the TO Staff units were under the command of the

24 same TO Vukovar staff.

25 As for this other thing that you're trying to get me to say, and

1 that I know nothing about, that the TO Staff was subordinated to OG South,

2 or rather, that units belonging to that staff were subordinated to OG

3 South, I simply do not know and don't expect me to say it. I have to be

4 open about this. I'm somewhat offended by this. Because the way you seem

5 to be approaching this is mistrustfully, as if I were telling you

6 something that was false. And you know, as well as I do, that I have

7 taken an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

8 Q. All right. Let's forget about being soldiers. Let's just be

9 human beings. I'm not saying they can't be the same thing, but let's just

10 try being human beings today.

11 Here you are. You come back and you find out, from your officers

12 and your soldiers, that atrocities, murders, have been killed in the zone

13 of responsibility of your unit.

14 Now, didn't that concern you, as just a human being?

15 A. Mr. Moore, again, there was no official meeting at the command

16 about this. The brigade commander said nothing to me about this. Nor did

17 he instruct me to take any steps or measures about this.

18 Given the fact that word did get around informally among soldiers

19 and officers that this had been done by Vukovar's TO men, and with the

20 competing pressures of great losses and a lot of other problems in the

21 brigade, I simply didn't dedicate myself this problem in the belief that

22 the brigade commander would be taking all the appropriate steps, because

23 during this most regrettable event he was the commanding officer present

24 at the command.

25 You are certainly free to misconstrue the whole thing as being my

1 responsibility. I can only leave you to it, and I believe the Chamber

2 will be judging everybody's responsibility, including mine, that goes

3 without saying.

4 Q. But it's right what you say that Vojnovic never mentioned it to

5 you?

6 A. We simply didn't discuss that, Mr. Moore.

7 Q. No, no, no?

8 A. Mr. Moore.

9 Q. You said Vojnovic never mentioned it to you. That's right, isn't

10 it?

11 A. Mr. Vojnovic did not talk to me about that. He did not discuss

12 that with me.

13 Q. Well then how do you know that Mr. Vojnovic was unaware of what

14 had happened? He mightn't have, mightn't have said anything to you

15 because he didn't know. And therefore, wasn't it beholden on you to check

16 whether in actual fact: Commander, I have heard rumours, more than

17 rumours that there were atrocities in our zone of responsibility. So he

18 mightn't have known. Not a case of him hiding.

19 So what did you actually do about it?

20 A. About this event? I'm not sure that I was clear enough. I didn't

21 do anything, in the belief that the brigade commander was at the command

22 post and I was elsewhere, on a different mission, in the belief, as I

23 said, that the brigade commander would be taking all the relevant steps

24 that needed taking. Did the commander know at the time? Did he not?

25 It's not something that I can say.

1 Q. Did you ask him?

2 A. No, I didn't, Mr. Moore. I didn't.

3 Q. I'm not going to deal with this point much more. I would suggest

4 that you, as a Chief of Staff and in a position of responsibility, had a

5 duty either to ask your commanding officer about it, ask the security

6 organ about it, or put something in place to ensure that enquiries, at the

7 very least, should be made. And I would suggest that you are deliberately

8 evading the truth in this Court because you will not own up to your

9 responsibilities. What do you say to that?

10 A. Mr. Moore, I am simply astonished by what you are putting to me,

11 to be brutally frank. It was my desire to appeal -- to appear in this

12 courtroom and tell you what I know about what happened. Now you're

13 shifting the blame to me. You have every right to. You are, after all, a

14 Prosecutor. But what I can tell you, with sure and certain knowledge, is

15 that none of my officers from the staff command ordered or committed that

16 crime. The commander was at the command post. If there were any steps

17 that needed taking, I believe that he would make sure the steps were

18 taken, or else he would have ordered me to take measures in addition to my

19 regular assignments and tasks at the command of the 80th Motorised

20 Brigade.

21 Q. I would like you to look at paragraph 21, please, of the "Basic

22 Provisions of Prevention of Violations of the International Laws of War."

23 Have you got it in front of you?

24 A. Yes, I do, Mr. Moore.

25 Q. Do you see the title, "Responsibility for the Actions of

1 Subordinates"?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What does this section encompass? What does it mean?

4 A. Can I please have some time to go through it?

5 Q. Of course.

6 A. You are trying to hurry me along here.

7 Q. I am not trying to hurry you along. You can read it.

8 A. Yes, I've read it.

9 Q. Can I just indicate, I am not saying to you that TO Vukovar was

10 subordinated to the 80th Motorised Brigade. Do you understand? I am not

11 suggesting that.

12 A. Well you can't possibly be suggesting that because he was not

13 subordinated and that's clear on the face of the documents that we have

14 seen.

15 Q. I am not suggesting it. What I am suggesting, however, is that TO

16 Vukovar had to be subordinated to someone. That is correct, isn't it? It

17 wasn't the 80th, but they were subordinated to someone.

18 A. All I can do is make assumptions, but I can't tell you who they

19 were subordinated to, I really can't.

20 Q. I will ask you the question one more time. TO Vukovar was

21 subordinated to someone; that is right, isn't it?

22 A. Well, you have to be subordinated to someone, I assume.

23 Q. Exactly. Now let's look at this particular issue. Here you are,

24 Chief of Staff of the 80th Motorised Brigade. We use the word

25 "atrocities." Let's use the word "murders," a large number of murders

1 occurring on your zone of responsibility. I would suggest you would want

2 to know who on earth was the officer, or who on earth was this unit

3 subordinated to. That's just a normal human reaction. Do you agree?

4 A. Well, Mr. Moore, I think I've said a lot of things. If you take

5 my answers, you should be able to glean what the conclusion is about this

6 event.

7 You keep pressing the point. You keep saying that I was supposed

8 to do something about this or about that. Take measures. Take steps.

9 And I can responsibly claim that at a difficult time like that, with the

10 brigade facing so much hardship, so many different problems, I firmly

11 believe that the brigade commander and the brigade's officers, all of the

12 brigade's officers, I'm saying, if indeed this had occurred, because I

13 never took this up with my commander, nor was there a meeting about

14 this.

15 Q. I'm sorry?

16 A. I didn't -- if I may just be allowed to finish my answer. Very

17 well.

18 Q. I'm asking you a specific question. I'm not asking about others.

19 I'm asking about you. Please deal with you and you alone.

20 You're a Chief of Staff. You have murders happening on your zone

21 of responsibility by a military unit who is subordinated to someone. I

22 would suggest it is logical and sensible to ask: Who on earth is this

23 unit subordinated to? Are you saying you did not ask that question of

24 yourself?

25 A. I didn't -- I didn't ask myself. That's how it was. Maybe it's

1 not the answer you want, but the truth of the matter is, I didn't ask

2 myself. And I've given you all the reasons.

3 Q. And TO Vukovar, by name, was operating within the zone of

4 responsibility of OG South. You knew that, didn't you?

5 A. Well, it was also operating within the zone of responsibility of

6 the 80th Brigade. It's all true. No question about it. We would all

7 have been much better off if they had been operating in accordance with

8 the law of war, but we see that acts of madness were committed too.

9 Q. And therefore operating within the zone of OG South meant that

10 Mrksic should have been approached about this issue. Because he is the

11 senior officer to whom these units are subordinated. That is correct,

12 isn't it?

13 A. Mr. Moore, I cannot confirm whether or not the units of TO Vukovar

14 were subordinated to OG South. You are now, again, making me or trying to

15 make me say that. I really don't know that. I would really ask you not

16 to insist on this part, not to press this point.

17 There must be witnesses who can tell you more about that. I do

18 not have any further information about this and I cannot say anything.

19 Q. Tell me. Did you say you're an honest witness? That actually you

20 have come to tell the truth? Is what you've been saying the truth and we

21 should apply the standard, the replies that you have given here, to all of

22 your evidence? Is that what you're saying? This Court can rely on you?

23 A. Well, Mr. Moore, I believe that is absolutely the case. I've told

24 you all I knew about these events from the time when I was Chief of Staff.

25 If you doubt my sincerity, that must -- you must have your reasons. But I

1 can only tell this Chamber that this is really the way it was.

2 If you are claiming the opposite, then, please, show that to me

3 based on a written document. We're talking about a time that was 15 years

4 ago, and remembering everything is very difficult. I believe you will

5 agree.

6 Q. I hope I'll be forgiven the following. It is not a case of

7 doubting your sincerity. It is a case of doubting your honesty.

8 I have no further questions.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Moore. Mr. Vasic.

10 Re-examination by Mr. Vasic:

11 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

12 Q. I will choose a different vocabulary now than my learned friend.

13 Good morning, Mr. Danilovic.

14 A. Good morning.

15 Q. Do reorganise your stuff. I won't interrupt you. I will go back

16 to some questions and answers that you gave to my learned friends

17 yesterday and today in order to clarify some things in the

18 re-examination.

19 Please stick to the same tempo as in the examination-in-chief.

20 Please wait a little while after my question and then start your answer.

21 A. All right.

22 Q. Upon -- rather, to the question of my learned friend, Mr. Lukic,

23 you spoke about your duties as commander of the security element in the

24 detention camp in the night of 18 to 19th of November, and then you said

25 that when the group was taken to Sremska Mitrovica from your camp, that

1 part of the task of the 80th Brigade was accomplished.

2 I would like to know what the second part of the task was, if the

3 transfer of this group was only one part.

4 A. I meant that the first part -- when I said -- I meant that the

5 first part was the transfer of this group of prisoners of war, and the

6 second part would have been the evacuation of those captured around the

7 hospital in Vukovar. That's what I meant.

8 Q. Thank you. Asked by my learned friend, Mr. Lukic, you also spoke

9 about the relations that were in place on the 18th of November, 1991 -- or

10 rather communications to the hangar of the -- between the hangar and the

11 80th Brigade. And you were also asked about the communication between LAD

12 PVO and the command of the 80th Brigade. So let's clarify this.

13 Do you know what the communication was like between the LAD PVO

14 and the command of the 80th Brigade?

15 A. Mr. Vasic, I know for certain that there was radio communication

16 in place between the brigade command and the immediately subordinated

17 units. There was also - there was also a wire link to them. I don't

18 remember every detail, but I know that there was communication between the

19 brigade command at Negoslavci and Ovcara, where the provision of the POW

20 camp was.

21 Q. Can you tell me what kind of communication was in place on the

22 18th of November?

23 A. As far as I remember, it was radio communication. There wasn't

24 enough time to establish a wire link, but I cannot tell you for sure

25 because it was a long time ago, I must tell you frankly.

1 Q. Thank you. I will now refer to the part of the questioning by my

2 learned friend, Mr. Moore. I would first refer to what Mr. Moore showed

3 you and asked you to find in the operations log, entry of order, the entry

4 of the order sent by the command of military district -- the military

5 district, which is under number 450.

6 Could you please take a look at the operations log, which is

7 Exhibit 371. You may remember that yesterday and the day before we

8 discussed a number of orders here that concern the resubordination, the

9 establishment of the -- this town command, et cetera. Do you remember?

10 A. Yes, absolutely.

11 Q. Then now I will ask you to focus on the following numbers, which I

12 would like you to look up in the operations log. Command of OG South,

13 strictly confidential, 405-1, which is Exhibit 412. This is about the

14 resubordination order.

15 A. Can I take a pen to take notes, because it will be difficult.

16 Q. Yes, of course. Please look at the following order first, the --

17 from the command of OG South, strictly confidential, 405-1, dated 15th of

18 November, 1991, which is Exhibit 412.

19 The second document -- I will now give you the data for a number

20 of documents. So the second document is the order of the command of OG

21 South, strictly confidential, 446-1, dated 20th of November, 1991.

22 Exhibit 425.

23 Then please have a look at the order of the command of the first

24 motorised district, strictly confidential, 2436-1, dated 20th of November,

25 1991, which is Exhibit 7 -- Exhibit 778.

1 Then please make a note of the following, the order of the command

2 of the 80th Motorised Brigade, number 29/2, dated 16th of November, 1991.

3 A. 29, slash what?

4 Q. Slash 2. Strictly confidential, dated 16th of November, which is

5 Exhibit 776. Just a moment.

6 The order of the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade, 34-2,

7 dated 22nd of November, 1991. So I have now made an arbitrary selection

8 of orders that are admitted into evidence.

9 So please take -- have a look at order 15-22. Is any of these

10 orders entered in the operations log and were those orders entered into --

11 in the operations log in November 1991, in Vukovar?

12 A. I can say right away that these orders mostly were not entered in

13 the operations log, which I can verify now.

14 Q. Yes, do check first.

15 A. I don't know for what reason, but, all right, yes, I will check.

16 Mr. Vasic, I wasn't able to find any of these orders in the operations

17 log. I believe I haven't skipped anything. You will have followed it

18 too, but I simply couldn't find it.

19 Q. I think that all of us here in this courtroom, who had a chance to

20 look at the operations log, will agree that these -- the orders under

21 these numbers I gave are not there, but this is an issue of the evaluation

22 of evidence.

23 Let's continue. My colleague asked you about the order of the

24 command of the military district which is Exhibit 415, can I have that on

25 the screen, please.

1 It's an order of the command of the first motorised district dated

2 November 18th, 1991. This was discussed both in the examination-in-chief

3 and in the cross-examination. And it includes an item about atrocities

4 committed by some TO members and the warning to take care that such crimes

5 are not committed.

6 Do you remember Mr. Moore talking to you about that?

7 A. Yes, and he did insist that I give him an answer about this order.

8 Q. The Prosecutor asked you, and you answered that you did not have

9 this order of the 1st Military District in your hands. The Prosecutor

10 also asked you whether you would have -- you would remember if such an

11 order had been sent to the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade,

12 mentioning murders committed by the TO, and you answered that you would

13 remember.

14 Let me ask you. What would have been your answer if Mr. Moore had

15 asked you whether you had the order of the commander of OG South in your

16 hands, which was issued based on the order given by the command of the 1st

17 Military District?

18 A. I believe that there was such an order. I would like to see it,

19 though, because I have difficulty remembering. I really do not remember

20 this order. But I think an order of OG South should have arrived at the

21 brigade command and, based on that, we forwarded orders to immediately

22 subordinate units.

23 Q. But unfortunately we were unable to lay hands on some orders and

24 logs, just as the log of the 1st Guard Brigade, so we have to rely on the

25 memory of our witnesses.

1 Let us continue. Let us get back to the hangar at Ovcara, to the

2 18th of November, 1991, when you were commander of that hangar. And then

3 you discussed with my learned friend whether the prisoners of war kept

4 there were fearful or not. You also said -- you stated your opinion, why

5 they would have been fearful. But I will ask you about something else.

6 While they were entering the hangar, did security have their

7 weapons pointed at them?

8 A. Yes, Mr. Vasic, I believe that Mr. Moore also understood me saying

9 that the barrels of automatic rifles were pointed at -- were pointed at

10 the prisoners of war, to prevent them from trying to escape, or doing

11 anything else stupid. I didn't really comment on that, but that was one

12 of the elements that could have given rise to fear. Let me not go into

13 other things that may have been on their minds at the time.

14 Q. I would like to know, now, were these rifles pointed at them all

15 the time until they were taken to Sremska Mitrovica from the hangar?

16 A. Yes. Weapons were ready to be used all the time, lest they should

17 try to escape or do anything else. That's how it was.

18 Q. Thank you. Can I now see Exhibit 256, photograph 22. Could we

19 please zoom in on the portion where the hangars can be seen.

20 Mr. Danilovic, do you recognise these buildings?

21 A. Yes, that is Ovcara.

22 Q. Can you identify the building in which the POW camp was set up on

23 the 18th of November.

24 A. I think that is the one near the front side.

25 Q. Could the Usher please hand the witness the magic pen, as we call

1 it.

2 Sir, could you please put a number "1" to mark the hangar in which

3 the POWs were held on the 18th of November. Thank you.

4 A. I think that's the one. Although the last time I laid eyes on it

5 was on the 18th of November, 1991, but I think that's the one.

6 Q. Evidence provided by the witnesses seems to corroborate what you

7 are saying. Do you perhaps remember in which part of the hangar the

8 prisoners were held?

9 A. Mr. Vasic, they were at this end of the hangar. Looking from this

10 side, it's an aerial view, the right-hand side.

11 Q. But you're pointing out the left-hand side, the right-hand side is

12 the other side, isn't it? You're saying "right" and you are pointing

13 left, aren't you? Look here, there are two doors. There is one on the

14 right-hand side and one on the left-hand side.

15 A. Yes, you're quite right. It was at this end. I was somewhat

16 confused by the road leading to the hangar. That's what caused me to lose

17 my bearings.

18 Q. You were saying the right thing yet pointing at the wrong thing,

19 weren't you?

20 A. Yes, precisely. This is the part that I meant.

21 Q. Can you please put a number 2 there.

22 A. Fine.

23 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Could we please save this photograph

24 and I move that it be admitted into evidence as marked.

25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

1 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 782, Your Honours.

2 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. We'll no longer be requiring the magic pen. Thank you very much.

4 Can we please have Exhibit 371 pulled up now. That's the operations log

5 of the 80th Motorised Brigade. The entry we need is the one in relation

6 to the 18th of November, 1600 hours. The witness has a hard copy in B/C/S

7 available; therefore, we can pull the English up and, in the English, this

8 is page, page 8.

9 We've got that on our monitors. Thank you.

10 Mr. Danilovic, can we look at the 1600 hours entry. It says:

11 "The first group with around 70 Ustasha was taken by trucks to detention

12 for the night. Another hundred of them were brought over, Lieutenant

13 Colonel Rade Danilovic was appointed commander."

14 Where it says another 100 of them were brought over, was that

15 later on in the course of the night or earlier on?

16 A. I really can't pinpoint the time when this other group arrived,

17 Mr. Vasic. My assumption is this might have occurred in the first part of

18 the night, earlier on. But the prisoners themselves might be better able

19 to tell you, fortunately those survived and they might be able to say. As

20 for me, I really can't pinpoint the exact time for you right now.

21 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Danilovic. However, you are certain that

22 this was during that night, right?

23 A. Yes, that much is certain. There's no question about that. It

24 couldn't have been during the previous day.

25 Q. The way I see this entry in the operations, the way I read it, at

1 one point in time there were about 70 prisoners inside the hangar and it

2 wasn't until later on that the number of prisoners rose to about 180. If

3 you add the two figures up, that would seem to be the result.

4 A. Yes. Thereabouts, Mr. Vasic. 181, possibly 182. Certainly about

5 180 people, roughly speaking, inside the hangar at the time.

6 Q. My learned friend asked you some questions about the military

7 police unit. You told him that the military police company belonging to

8 the 80th Brigade was there guarding the prisoners, but I think the true

9 issue behind that question was a different one. However, my colleague

10 dropped that line of questions. That's on page 59.

11 I'm going to ask you: In addition to this military police company

12 of the 80th Brigade, which was certainly guarding the prisoners and that's

13 beyond dispute so I'm not going into that, was there any other military

14 police unit in the hangar or near the hangar on the evening of the 18th of

15 November?

16 A. Mr. Vasic, for a military police unit to be there for any reason

17 whatsoever, throughout the night, with the exception of the military

18 police company from the 80th Motorised Brigade, it was not necessary and

19 there was none. There was a group of military police officers that came

20 by during the night to ask if there were any problems. They stayed

21 briefly and they were off.

22 As for those who were escorting the POWs I'm certain that some

23 policemen were involved but they only stayed for as long as they needed to

24 take charge of the prisoners and they were off on a different mission.

25 Q. You said there were some policemen there who stayed briefly and

1 were off. Which unit did those people belong to?

2 A. I really can't remember, Mr. Vasic. It's really beyond me to

3 remember whether that was the military police company belonging to the

4 Guards Brigade or a different military police unit, but I really can't --

5 believe me, I can't remember. I can't for the life of me remember, as --

6 try as I might, and I really don't wish to be speculating about something

7 I simply don't know.

8 Q. But that was not the military police unit that belonged to your

9 unit, the military police company belonging to your unit.

10 A. Ours were busy securing a site elsewhere. And they were all the

11 military police that I had, Mr. Vasic.

12 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it might be a convenient

13 time for our first break. It's 10.30.

14 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at five minutes to 11.

15 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

16 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vasic.

18 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Q. Mr. Danilovic, are you ready to continue?

20 A. Yes, I am.

21 Q. Can we please have Exhibit 426. This is something that you were

22 cross-examined on by my learned friend, Mr. Moore. This is a combat

23 report produced by the command of OG South dated the 23rd of November at

24 1800 hours.

25 First of all, sir, when a daily combat report is produced, what

1 does it cover? What time period does it cover?

2 A. Mr. Vasic, it covers the time elapsed between the previous combat

3 report and the new one, which is normally a 24-hour period, unless one is

4 dealing with an interim combat report, which is also sometimes submitted

5 to a superior command if a combat situation so requires.

6 Q. What we see in front of us -- well, you can see for yourself, it's

7 a combat report dated the 23rd of November, 1991, 1800 hours. This is a

8 regular or daily combat report. Which specific period does this one

9 cover, sir, in terms of the time-line specified.

10 A. It covers the period between 1800 hours on the 22nd and 1800 hours

11 on the 23rd of November, 1991.

12 Q. Thank you. Let's leave this report aside for the time being.

13 Could we please have Exhibit 425, now.

14 That is the previous combat report dated the 22nd of November,

15 1991.

16 A. Indeed, it is.

17 Q. Can we please zoom in on the last two paragraphs. Sir, can you

18 look at the last paragraph and tell me: Before this combat report was

19 produced the time being as specified here, were all the documents, all the

20 control and command documents within the zone of the operations group

21 handed over to the 80th Motorised Brigade?

22 A. All those documents that were necessary in order to exercise

23 control and command of the units were handed over, and that is what the

24 daily combat report indicates.

25 Q. Can we please have Exhibit 444 now. Mr. Danilovic, this is an

1 order by the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade regulating the

2 establishment of military authorities and the date is the 22nd of

3 November, isn't that what it says?

4 A. Yes. That's what the document shows. No question about that.

5 Q. Can you please look at item 7 and tell me, from the 22nd of

6 November, 1991, the 80th Motorised Brigade continued to be subordinated to

7 OG South?

8 A. The necessary clearing of the battleground will be organised by OG

9 South in cooperation with the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade - so

10 it would appear not - and in cooperation with the TO Staff, which means

11 that at this point in time the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade is no

12 longer subordinated to the command of OG South, nor is the TO Vukovar

13 staff, for that matter. That is not a moot point at all.

14 Q. Thank you very much. We will no longer be requiring this exhibit.

15 I would like to go back to Exhibit 367 now that's the LAD PVO order, or

16 rather the PVO order which is something that my learned friend examined

17 you on.

18 Can we please zoom in on the letterhead. Mr. Danilovic, you

19 explained this to us, but perhaps we could go through this again. It's

20 about what this order means.

21 First of all, what do we see in the upper right hand corner, it

22 says military secret, submit with order attachment number, copy number.

23 A. Well you see this is something I didn't notice yesterday and I

24 think I might have been a little confused by Mr. Moore, because sometimes

25 he can ask unpleasant questions. But he is perfectly within his rights, I

1 understand that.

2 I see what it says here, now. It says: "Submit with order."

3 This is something that is sent to the command of the LAD PVO and it comes

4 from the command of OG South. This is the first copy, copy number 2; copy

5 number 1 stays with OG South, with the command, and copy number 2 goes to

6 the anti-aircraft protection unit in its zone of responsibility, in the

7 zone of responsibility of the subordinate unit.

8 Q. This order for an attack as an ongoing mission, is this sent by

9 the command of OG South to the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade?

10 A. Yes, Mr. Vasic, by all means. This is enshrined in the rules.

11 Everyone knows that the directly superior command is required to submit an

12 order in writing for any mission, for any combat activity, be it attack,

13 or defence. In any case, there must be a combat order, with attachments,

14 depending on what the focus is on. Maybe some attachments, maybe all of

15 them.

16 Q. What about these attachments that are enclosed in a combat order

17 as an ongoing mission, is this also forwarded to the branches and services

18 of the command of a subordinate unit, the 80th Motorised Brigade in this

19 specific case?

20 A. Yes, these attachments are submitted, they normally are,

21 especially if there is sufficient time to carry out a combat mission. If

22 time is short, then only those attachments tend to be submitted that are

23 essential for the implementation of a specific combat mission.

24 Q. I'm talking about ongoing combat assignments, Mr. Danilovic, those

25 that apply throughout, the totality of combat operations. When an order

1 is received from a superior command, OG South, for example, to a command

2 like the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade, and when there are

3 attachments arriving with it in relation to certain branches and services,

4 are these attachments submitted to the chiefs of the respective branches

5 and services within the command of, for example, the 80th Motorised

6 Brigade?

7 A. Absolutely. The PVO chief, since we're talking about the 80th LAD

8 PVO, receives this order from his directly superior command. He's then

9 required to draft a PVO order and submit this order to the commander of

10 the 80th LAD PVO.

11 Q. In order to carry out an order like this, stemming from a number

12 of ongoing assignments issued to the command of a subordinate unit - in

13 our example, the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade - who is it that

14 submits reports to the superior command, in this case the command of OG

15 South?

16 A. It is the brigade command that submits these reports. A joint

17 report for all branches and services involved. This is done by the

18 brigade command. It's not as if there are individual lines of reporting,

19 the PVO chief, the chief of engineers, and so on and so forth. A joint

20 report is produced. Only there is a need for an interim report to be

21 written and sent is anything done differently. Then you have an interim

22 report.

23 Q. If you look at this PVO order, the one that we see in front of us,

24 did these reports go through the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade to

25 the command of OG South?

1 A. The command of the 80th Motorised Brigade submitted a regular

2 daily combat report, with references to PVO-relate the issues within the

3 framework of other missions that were carried out. Therefore a joint

4 report is drawn up as opposed to individual reports being sent.

5 Q. Between the 9th of November, 1991 and the 22nd of November, 1991

6 under whose command was the LAD PVO of the 80th Motorised Brigade?

7 A. I can state with sure and certain knowledge that in its entirety

8 it was throughout under the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade, or

9 rather under the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade, and it was for

10 that purpose that they carried out special tasks. I can't be positive

11 that never at any time any of its batteries were not attached to another

12 unit for a specific mission. I can't state that in no uncertain terms.

13 Any attachments were brief, if any. But the LAD PVO operated under the

14 command of the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade.

15 Q. You say that the LAD PVO operated under the command of the

16 commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade. Was it part of the framework of

17 the general Vukovar area PVO, as some sort of an umbrella institution?

18 A. If you look at this order by OG South, you will see that there are

19 detailed descriptions of missions for all the units within the zone of

20 responsibility of OG South, and I don't think that there is any question

21 about that. If there's anything that strikes you as unusual, I'm at your

22 service, and I will gladly explain everything that I can help you with.

23 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Danilovic.

24 You were shown by my learned friend, Mr. Moore, Exhibit 375 which

25 is the war log of the 80th Motorised Brigade. I'm sure you will remember

1 that yesterday Mr. Moore asked you about various entries to the war log in

2 connection with the LAD PVO division, that's pages 66 through 71 on the

3 unofficial transcript.

4 He went from date to date and asked you to read the entries. It

5 says, "the LAD PVO is working according to the plan of operations of OG

6 South." You explained what that means.

7 At one point he asked you specifically about the 13th of November,

8 and we could please have that pulled up on our screens, that's Exhibit

9 375, and the date is the 13th of November, 1991.

10 A. Is this the operations log or the war log?

11 Q. It's the war log. This is Exhibit 375. It's the entry dated 13th

12 of November, 1800 hours, and Mr. Moore asked you to read out the part

13 about LAD PVO which says that it was under the command of OG South.

14 You explained yesterday that this was a mistake, and that this was

15 entered erroneously.

16 I will not ask you about the 13th, but about the 14th. The

17 following day. The 14th of November, 1800 hours. Please find the entry

18 saying something about LAD PVO.

19 A. Do you mean 1700? Or 1800?

20 Q. It seems to me that it reads 1800, although it is in small script.

21 But it is certainly the 14th of November of 1991.

22 A. What I have here is -- reads 1700 and then 17 hours, 30 minutes.

23 Q. We're talking about the war log. You are looking at the

24 operations log.

25 A. Well, this is certainly the war log. Here, under the 14th of

1 November, it says: So far the regular combat reports received from, and

2 then a list of units follows. LAD PVO, HAD, et cetera.

3 Q. Look at the screen, whether this is the document you are reading.

4 I mean this document, it looks like this.

5 A. This is the war log.

6 Q. Please look at the entry dated 14th of November. This page begins

7 with the entry Negoslavci village, the 14th of November, 1800 hours. And

8 it reads: "The 1st Motorised Battalion is still engaged," et cetera.

9 Do you have that in front of you?

10 A. I really cannot find it.

11 Q. Are you sure you're not looking at the wrong document? Can we

12 please -- can we get the B/C/S version. You are looking at the operations

13 log. Look at the screen. Can you see the entry dated 14th of November?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. I'm interested in the entry about LAD PVO. Can you see it?

16 A. LAD PVO is still on the same positions and is operating under the

17 tasks received from OG South.

18 Q. Is it the same as the entries dated 12th of November, 13th of

19 November, what you read out yesterday to my learned friend, Mr. Moore? So

20 my question is, is this entry, as you have read it out, identical for all

21 dates in this log, except for the 13th of November, 1991, of which you

22 said yesterday that it was a mistake?

23 A. It's almost the same. They're saying that they are operating

24 according to plan, and the operation -- operational task of OG South. I

25 don't know what kind of operations officers kept this log. This is

1 obviously a mistake. I mentioned yesterday that there was no concrete

2 reason.

3 And let me give you one more example. Every day, when the

4 commanders of battalions came for -- to the briefings, the commander of

5 LAD PVO also came and I remember that.

6 And this, if LAD PVO is subordinated to OG South, it would be

7 logical for them to go there for their briefings and they were coming to

8 the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade.

9 MR. MOORE: I'm sorry.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Moore.

11 MR. MOORE: I object to this evidence. It's, again, speculation.

12 Phrases like "it's obvious," "this is obviously a mistake." And I would

13 submit that the witness himself has no personal knowledge at all about

14 this entry.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Moore, that point you have made and sought to

16 make in submission and cross-examination, I would not at this point think

17 we should interfere with Mr. Vasic --

18 MR. MOORE: Certainly.

19 JUDGE PARKER: -- going over once again your ground.

20 Carry on, Mr. Vasic.

21 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Q. Mr. Danilovic have you found the war log? Do you have it in front

23 of you?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Let us now have a look at the entry dated 16th of November, 1991

1 and while we're waiting for this to be put on the screen, let me ask you

2 whether this phrase that you have read out to us is operating according to

3 the plans and the war tasks of OG South. Does that mean that LAD PVO is

4 under the command of OG South? Or does it mean something else

5 altogether?

6 A. Mr. Vasic, this means that LAD PVO carries out tasks according to

7 the orders of the commander of PVO of OG South that we were receiving, and

8 I think that's the way it was. It can't be any -- anything else.

9 Q. And who was in command of the PVO of the 80th Motorised Brigade?

10 A. Well, it's the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade.

11 Q. Now, let's go to Exhibit number 375, the date is 16th of November.

12 Can you read this out to us.

13 A. You mean the time?

14 Q. If you don't have it in front of you, look at the screen. The

15 entry into the war log dated 16th of November, 1800 hours. Please find

16 the item referring to LAD PVO.

17 A. Yes, I found it after NPOAD [as interpreted]. LAD PVO, was

18 engaged in anti-aircraft security from the existing area. The third

19 battery of LAD PVO was attacked at 1400 hours and at 0200 hours. Fire was

20 opened in return in return. No losses.

21 Q. Would you please look, who is submitting this report?

22 A. It is submitted to the commander of the LAD PVO, as did all the

23 commanders of the battalions that were part of the 80th Motorised

24 Brigade.

25 Q. Apart from this statement in the war log, does it say any where

1 who was submitting the report?

2 A. Well, here on the right, you can see that it is Captain First

3 Class Marcek.

4 Q. Thank you. Let me now return to the operations log which is

5 Exhibit 371.

6 So let us, please, have a look at the entry dated 18th of

7 November -- 17th of November. 1800 hours.

8 A. Just a moment.

9 Q. If you have found it, then we can put the English version on the

10 screen. So the 17th of November, 1800 hours, this is now the operations

11 log. I will read it out.

12 "The commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade has decided. Extended

13 the operations of the third motorised battalion. Break through to the

14 Vuka river and prevent the enemy from withdrawing from the northern part

15 of the town of Vukovar. Through the engagement of the HAD and the LAD

16 PVO, support the breaking up of enemy forces in the northern part of

17 Vukovar, establishing the most favourable conditions for the final

18 liberation of Vukovar."

19 Mr. Danilovic, does this entry include an order referring to the

20 LAD PVO of the 80th Motorised Brigade?

21 A. I apologise, Mr. Vasic. Can you repeat the exact hour and date?

22 I have problems here.

23 Q. 17th of November, 1800 hours. This is the operations log. So the

24 17th of November at 1800 hours. If you cannot find it --

25 A. I found it. This says LAD PVO.

1 Q. So this is an order to LAD PVO?

2 A. The operation, through the engagement of the HAD and LAD PVO,

3 support the breaking up of enemy forces in the northern part of Vukovar.

4 And then it says: "Establishing the most favourable conditions."

5 So it is obvious that the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade

6 gives out an order to the commander of the LAD PVO. So that commander

7 will have been under his command.

8 Q. And what kind of order is he giving out?

9 A. To support the breaking up of enemy forces in the northern part of

10 Vukovar, so to provide artillery support to the units operating in the

11 northern part of the town.

12 Q. Thank you. Would the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade be

13 able to give an order to the commander of the LAD PVO, if that unit had

14 been resubordinated to OG South?

15 A. Mr. Vasic, the practice was, and this is really what it was, that

16 LAD PVO, if they really had been resubordinated to OG South, then the

17 order would have had to come from the command of OG South, and that's

18 really how it was.

19 Q. Thank you, sir. All right. Let's continue. My learned friend,

20 Mr. Moore, asked you a number of questions referring to a hypothetical

21 situation about the reports related to the command -- the town command.

22 If a group of officers or at a certain time units that would have

23 to report to the commander of a certain zone of responsibility.

24 A. Yes, Mr. Vasic. That is mandatory, if a group of officers,

25 individuals come to the zone of responsibility of another unit, they

1 should report to the highest ranking officer there and explain the reasons

2 for their presence.

3 Q. And if it should happen that that officer does not report and the

4 town commander receives information of officers or a unit present in his

5 zone of responsibility, does the town commander have to approach those

6 officers or units and ask them about the reasons for their presence there?

7 A. Yes. Absolutely. The command, in that case, would have to

8 establish contact with those officers or units to find out why they were

9 there and then take appropriate measures. Whether the unit had arrived

10 upon the orders of a superior unit to provide support will have to be

11 found out by the commander of that zone of responsibility.

12 Q. If that unit were to arrive to that territory to carry out a task

13 that had previously been -- of which the commander of the town who had

14 previously been informed, what then?

15 A. The commander of the unit or some officer from the command of,

16 let's say the brigade, would have to receive that unit and, in accordance

17 with the order of the superior command, engage it, or rather employ it for

18 the accomplishment of the mission it was sent there to accomplish.

19 Q. If that task or mission had not been ordered by the superior

20 command, what would the procedure be for the commander of the town?

21 A. It would be the following. If I were in that role, I would remove

22 that unit from the zone of operations of my unit, and I would inform the

23 superior command of that incident.

24 Q. Tell me, Mr. Danilovic, is the town commander in every -- in any

25 case responsible for the officers or the group of officers in that

1 territory? Does he have to inform them of the rules in force there? Is

2 he obliged to do that under the rules in force for a barracks' duty?

3 A. The town commander is responsible for the organisation of all

4 measures and activities as stipulated by the Rules of Service, and if a

5 unit arrived there, upon the orders of a superior command, he has to

6 provide accommodation or deploy it, in accordance with the Rules of

7 Service. I see no other way.

8 Q. Based on what you have said, he is the one who deploys and employs

9 those units, if they were sent there?

10 A. Yes, if they were sent there, upon the orders of a superior

11 command, he will act in accordance with that order, otherwise he will

12 remove them from his zone of responsibility and put an end to it. There

13 is no other way.

14 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Danilovic, does the entry of any unit, even a

15 unit from a superior command, whether announced in advance or not, into

16 the zone of responsibility of the town command relieve the commander from

17 any responsibilities or lessen his powers in that zone, in any way?

18 A. An arrival, announced or not, of such a unit cannot possibly mean

19 that the responsibility of the town commander is, by any way -- is, in any

20 way, relieved or lessened for his zone of responsibility.

21 Q. If the town commander were informed that a group of POWs would be

22 taken to a facility in his zone of responsibility, would he have to

23 prepare security for that group if that were his task, and get acquainted

24 with the situation on the ground and find out when that group is scheduled

25 to arrive there?

1 A. Mr. Vasic, the town commander, if he receives such an order, is

2 obliged to take all preparatory measures in accordance with the Rules of

3 Service, to inform the prison to appoint security and receive those

4 prisoners and put them into prison.

5 If there is -- there aren't enough soldiers for security, he must

6 request reinforcement from the superior command to enable him to carry out

7 his task, that is provide security for the prisoners until their

8 evacuation into the zones, into the designated zones.

9 Q. Thank you. So the rule is, I suppose, that the superior command

10 issues orders to a subordinate -- subordinated unit, bearing in mind the

11 capabilities of that unit. Is that a rule that is in force in the army?

12 A. Mr. Vasic, superior commanders, when issuing orders, assess

13 whether the commander of that subordinated unit is capable of really

14 carrying out that task. And most times tasks assigned are realistic.

15 If they cannot be accomplished, then the unit in question is

16 reinforced with manpower or other means, such as equipment, to enable them

17 to carry out the task.

18 Q. If a town commander receives resubordinated units, the task of

19 which is to provide security, what would the town commander be obliged to

20 do?

21 A. He would have to employ those units in accordance with the order

22 received from the superior command in order to achieve -- or accomplish

23 his mission.

24 Q. If one of the tasks were the guarding of POWs in that territory,

25 whose decision would it be? Which unit should be employed for the

1 guarding of those prisoners?

2 A. The commander of the unit who is assigned such a task will have to

3 assess -- make an assessment and decide what units and what means to use

4 in order to safely carry out that task.

5 Q. Would that town commander, while taking that decision, have the

6 right and the obligation to employ units that were resubordinated to him

7 in that region?

8 A. All subordinated units are at the disposal of the commander, and

9 he can employ them without prior approval of the superior command, but

10 only in accordance with rules of engagement and in accordance with the

11 task to be carried out by that unit.

12 Q. If those units were tasked to provide security in a certain area,

13 could these units be employed for the guarding of war prisoners in the

14 case of need?

15 A. In the case of need, those units would certainly be employed to

16 guard the POWs that arrived.

17 Q. Yesterday my learned friend, Mr. Moore, asked you about a

18 hypothetical situation in which the town commander goes to see his

19 superior commander requesting for help.

20 My question to you is whether that town commander is obliged to

21 employ all the units at his disposal before asking for -- asking the

22 superior commander for help.

23 A. Mr. Vasic, I can tell you what I personally would have done. A

24 capable and resolved commander is obliged to carry out the received task,

25 and in that sense employ all the units subordinated to him; that is, all

1 the units under his command.

2 If, for any reason, he is unable to carry out the task given to

3 him, he is obliged to ask for instructions and help for the carrying out

4 of that task from the superior commander. I'm saying what I would have

5 done.

6 Q. And if the town commander were to turn up at the superior command,

7 without having employed any unit that were at his disposal to carry out

8 the task of providing security in the area, what would the superior

9 commander tell him under the rules of service?

10 A. Under the rules of service, the superior commander would have to

11 give him an order to carry out the task. That's the only option.

12 Q. And with regard to the forces?

13 A. By using all the forces that are under his command that were

14 resubordinated to him, and if that is not enough he should request

15 additional forces from his superior commander. There is no other option.

16 Q. Thank you. And here is my last question. Is it common military

17 practice for an officer to request help from a superior command without

18 having employed all the resources at his disposal in his own units?

19 A. Mr. Vasic, I can tell you from personal experience that such

20 instances are rare. It is mostly incapable commanders who would do so

21 without having used or having employed all units at their disposal. That

22 was a case in the JNA.

23 Q. Was your commander, Mr. Vojnovic, an incapable commander?

24 A. I can say for certain that Lieutenant Colonel Vojnovic was highly

25 capable commander, and that he was among the first officers to enter

1 Vukovar. That was -- that's what my fellow officers and soldiers were

2 telling me while I was -- when I returned from my mission.

3 Q. Thank you. And now the last point. Mr. Moore asked you about --

4 asked you about what you knew about the events at Ovcara, and you

5 explained the situation several times over.

6 Let me only ask you: Bearing in mind what you said yourself,

7 that the command of the 80th Motorised Brigade should have taken measures

8 if there was a reason for measures to be taken, did you believe the

9 stories that you had heard from people? Did you believe them, although

10 these things were never mentioned at the official meetings of the 80th --

11 the command of the 80th Brigade?

12 A. Nobody informed me, from the command or the staff, about that

13 event, so that I took no measures to that effect. And I had -- I had many

14 other things that gave me a headache, such as the identification of dead

15 bodies, the team of pathologists, they were receiving about 400 dead

16 bodies per day, whether it was at the brick factory or elsewhere.

17 What was important to me was the information that the crime had

18 been committed by the TO. But I was not responsible for them. They were

19 not subordinated to me. And I -- at that moment I did not pay attention

20 to that, because I had other things that gave me a headache.

21 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Danilovic. I have no further questions

22 for this witness.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Danilovic, you will be pleased to know that

24 that completes your questioning. We would thank you for your attendance

25 here and the assistance that you have given the Chamber, and you are now

1 free to return to your other interests.

2 Thank you, indeed. The Court officer will show you out.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Parker, I thank you

4 too. And one thing I would like to ask you, you promised the other day

5 that I would be given a chance to greet Mr. Sljivancanin and Mr. Radic,

6 Judge Borovic. I can't see General Mrksic. We only met once, by your

7 leave, Your Honours I can't afford to be adamant but I would really like

8 to exchange greetings with them.

9 They were my fellow soldiers and we went through difficult times

10 together. I am shaken by everything that this trial is about. I am

11 shaken by everything that we, as former JNA officers, had to experience

12 and survive.

13 JUDGE PARKER: It may be possible for you to find an opportunity

14 when we rise to meet them, and you can ask the victims' unit whether that

15 can be arranged.

16 We must now go on to deal with some other matters. You will

17 understand that that precludes us just allowing you a social opportunity

18 here at this moment. So I thank you. If you would go with the Court

19 officer.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

21 [The witness withdrew]

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Vasic, are you in a position, first, to

24 indicate the latest bulletin on your client's health?

25 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we please perhaps

1 discuss this in private session. The news I have is somewhat complicated.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

3 [Private session]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 12484 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 [Open session]

3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now I'm sorry. I interrupted you.

5 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 It was my fault for out staying my welcome in private session, so

7 to speak, but there were all these issues to be dealt with. I would now

8 like to ask Mr. Domazet to tell us about the position regarding these

9 remaining witnesses, with all the different circumstances that affect the

10 course of action to be taken. Some of them are real and some of them have

11 been subpoenaed.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Domazet.

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first and foremost, I

14 will try to explain the situation in relation to P-019.

15 My travel over the weekend was approved and I went to Zagreb to

16 speak to this witness in a bid to convince him to appear and testify

17 before this court.

18 As I told you last week, the first time I spoke to that witness

19 was on Wednesday. This was a successful conversation. We hit it off

20 rather well. We talked about a great many things, including his present

21 job. He thought it was a good idea to meet and discuss everything, and he

22 said that either Saturday or Sunday might be the most convenient for him

23 since he spends most work days out in the field on business. That was why

24 I requested authorisation to travel, which I obtained.

25 Just before I set out, I called witness P-019 again to announce my

1 arrival and now the situation was quite different. His condition had

2 obviously changed. He told me he might be in hospital and that it wasn't

3 a good idea for me to travel, because he probably couldn't see me.

4 I told him I had to go, because I'd bought the ticket already and

5 my request had been approved. If he was still in hospital, well that was

6 something that I would have to live with. Upon my arrival in Zagreb, on

7 Sunday morning I arrived outside his house. I saw his name on the bell.

8 I rang. His wife replied. When I asked about him, she said that he was

9 out walking with their children, with their daughters, and that she had no

10 idea when he would be back.

11 She refused to open the door. Therefore, I did not actually meet

12 her. I said that I would drop by again later, which I did. I then took

13 the opportunity to go back to my hotel and phone her, since I didn't want

14 to use the intercom to discuss any details, any passersby would have been

15 able to overhear our conversation.

16 When I phoned her, she told me her husband was still not back from

17 the walk. I talked to her and tried to convince her that it was necessary

18 for me to meet her husband and that she could attend our meeting too, if

19 she wanted to. I said all I wanted to talk to him about was his possible

20 testimony, or to see if he had, in the meantime decided otherwise. She

21 promised this would be possible in the afternoon, and she told me to call

22 back in the afternoon. However, what had happened that morning -- and

23 this is something that I only found out after I returned from Zagreb, and

24 this was shocking to me -- she obviously took down the registration plate

25 number of the car in which I was driven there and I was driven there by

1 the son of one of my late friends from Zagreb, whom I had asked to later

2 take me to the grave, this friend of mine who was his father who happened

3 to be a close friend who died two months ago. So the son just waited in

4 the car for me to have this conversation. He had no idea who I would

5 speak to, or what about. She obviously submitted this phone number to the

6 police, the registration plate, the registration number of the car, and

7 the police sought him out at work and he happens to be one of the

8 directors in the company where he is employed, to interview him and to

9 find out who he had been spending time with the previous weekend. I only

10 found out when I was back from Zagreb. Then this afternoon I called the

11 witness at his flat again. His wife picked up the phone. She said he was

12 asleep, and was not willing to talk to me. She said there was nothing for

13 us to talk about and there must be some sort of hidden agenda involved. I

14 told her again about what my mission was and what I wanted to achieve.

15 I was under the impression at one time that I had managed to

16 convince her, and she said once her husband woke up, he would give me a

17 call. I gave her my hotel room number. I said I would be at the hotel

18 and I said that they could set both the time and place for our

19 appointment.

20 However, when I tried calling back, by using their home number,

21 there was no response at all. No one picked up the phone. To me it now

22 seemed quite obvious that the witness was anxious to avoid meeting me and

23 to avoid this appointment which he had previously agreed to. His wife

24 said that he would be going to the District Court in Zagreb the next

25 Monday, because he had received a summons and that he would explain

1 everything to them.

2 Based on what we received yesterday afternoon, I realised that he

3 did indeed go to the district court in Zagreb yesterday and he did receive

4 a summons. He was officially served his subpoena, which he subsequently

5 signed but there is nothing to indicate his reaction. There is nothing to

6 indicate whether he agreed or refused. None of the boxes were filled. He

7 didn't say whether he would eventually appear before the ICTY or not. A

8 little later there is another letter that we received. There had been

9 phone communication to the effect that he had been hospitalised and that

10 medical documents would be forthcoming.

11 That is about as much as I know in relation to this witness. We

12 are still in the dark as to whether he has accepted to come and testify or

13 whether his is a final refusal. There is also the possibility that he is

14 undergoing treatment. We might be receiving documents to that effect.

15 That is the story of the week I spent in Zagreb and, as you see, I was

16 entirely unable to meet this witness, despite my best efforts. I hardly

17 have anything to add about that.

18 The Mrksic Defence stands by its formal application to have this

19 witness heard in court. He has not ruled it out or that's at least how it

20 appears to be. Given the fact that he is now in hospital he can hardly do

21 anything about it, if the whole story is true. It goes without saying.

22 But the way things happened over the weekend with his wife and

23 him, being obviously very anxious to avoid meeting me, and obviously being

24 in an eager mood to kick up a fuss and create some problems over this man

25 who drove me there, is indication enough of their intentions.

1 As for Jovica Puskar, we have received a certificate from the

2 cardiology department of the military medical academy in Belgrade. There

3 was an emergency and he was admitted and treated. As Mr. Vasic said,

4 given his condition, he's quite obviously unable to travel to The Hague

5 and appear as a witness. We shall be filing a motion in the course of the

6 day containing these documents and we shall be filing an application for

7 this witness to be heard via videolink, especially in view of the fact

8 that this will not be a lengthy witness.

9 Then there is the last witness who has been subpoenaed, witness

10 Gluscevic. The subpoena was served on him. He is now back in Belgrade,

11 but managed to get in touch. After talking to me he agreed to come and

12 testify. Therefore, he did not decide to disobey the subpoena, although,

13 for personal, family and health reasons -- and this is especially

14 something that concerns his wife -- he would prefer to testify via

15 videolink, from Belgrade, and perhaps this could be arranged on the same

16 day that Jovica Puskar testifies, with the Chamber's approval, of course.

17 We must take into account the fact that this is another witness who should

18 address a number of really crucial issues. This notwithstanding, the

19 examination will not be a lengthy one and we believe it will be perfectly

20 possible to do the whole thing in just one day.

21 Witness Gluscevic is not in possession of a passport, regardless

22 of all these measures. He applied for one and he might get one today. He

23 might get one as soon as today. So should the Chamber not agree to have

24 him testify via videolink, there is some chance that we might ensure his

25 arrival, certainly not before Monday. If all the conditions are in place

1 for the trial to continue on Monday and here I am also referring to

2 Mr. Mrksic's presence, then perhaps he might be heard; that is, of course,

3 if the Chamber agrees and approves this motion. Unless the Chamber

4 approves this motion for this witness to be heard via videolink, and then

5 there is also the motion about evidence that we shall be submitting in

6 relation to some exhibits that were not tendered through particular

7 witnesses. This is particularly in relation to some exhibits that were

8 supposed to be introduced through witness P-019.

9 That's all I can say about our remaining witnesses. If any

10 further information is needed, I will be happy to clarify.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Domazet, the motion about this documentary

12 evidence, when is that to be filed?

13 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for this

14 brief consultation with Mr. Vasic. We shall try to do that as soon as

15 possible, tomorrow at the latest, in as far as possible.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Is any other counsel wanting to put any

17 submission? Mr. Borovic.

18 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I would

19 not like to repeat myself or the objections that I raised yesterday in

20 relation to all of this evidence. Those objections remain. The victims

21 and witnesses unit has produced a plan for my witnesses, in terms of their

22 flight tickets, hotel accommodation, their arrival in The Hague, and so on

23 and so forth, as I have informed the Chamber. Out of respect, I would

24 also like to inform the Court that my colleague, Mr. Weiner, kindly asked

25 me to postpone the witness who was due to appear the following Monday, but

1 I would prefer to leave that to the Chamber to rule upon. My position is

2 well known as far as the reason is concerned and it is, after all, a

3 matter of judicial economy.

4 Thank you.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.

6 Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I merely wanted to remind the Chamber

8 of the ruling that was made on Friday. It was said that we would discuss

9 the exclusion of our client's statements and we wrote another motion in

10 reply, and my understanding was the OTP were supposed to respond to that

11 by yesterday, but we received nothing since last Monday. We certainly

12 would like to see a ruling by the Trial Chamber as soon as possible, since

13 Mr. Radic is due to start his testimony. I think it might be material to

14 all of us in the courtroom to know what the Chamber's position is on the

15 use of our client's statements in cross-examination.

16 It was my intention to discuss this orally, but the gentleman

17 wanted to have everything in writing, so that's what we did.

18 What I said yesterday is nothing new, in terms of fresh arguments.

19 It is just further clarification on our part following the OTP response.

20 I believe that you are now fully in the picture, as it were, and that you

21 are now in a position to make your final ruling. And the OTP should be

22 clear about the position, too.

23 The other issue that I was going to raise today was the OTP and

24 their arguments for continuing to oppose the MFI 576, Goran Hadzic

25 interview to be tendered into evidence. I was told that there would be

1 brief oral arguments about this, but he's not around, so I don't know.

2 Thank you.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic, we need, I believe, to deal firstly with

4 the question of Mr. Mrksic's evidence, and then look at what else might

5 need attention, except to say that as soon as we have the written

6 submissions we hope speedily to give you the decision in respect of your

7 client's interviews and it would be the Chamber's plan that you have that

8 decision on Friday, so that it would be available for you to have guidance

9 as evidence is led from Mr. Borovic's client and then yours, in due

10 course.

11 Is there anything, Mr. Moore?

12 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, yes, there is. Whether in actual fact it

13 should be dealt with now --

14 JUDGE PARKER: Only in respect of the question of future evidence

15 of Mr. Mrksic, and the closing of his case.

16 MR. MOORE: With regard to Mr. Mrksic's submissions, we have no

17 submission.

18 I was asked by my learned friend whether we would object if they

19 reserved their position in relation to witnesses because of medical

20 difficulty, and we would have no objection to that, of course.

21 In relation to any other matter, in respect of Mr. Mrksic, I have

22 no submissions.

23 JUDGE PARKER: I don't quite understand what you're saying,

24 there.

25 MR. MOORE: Very simply this. If there are medical problems,

1 which may eventually resolve themselves, and I'm talking about 019. If in

2 actual fact 019 is released from hospital and is able to give evidence, in

3 our submission, even though it is not for us to submit in relation to it,

4 we would have no objection if he was to be called later in the trial, as

5 long as the Court is satisfied that he is giving relevant and appropriate

6 evidence.

7 So that would be our position. We would have no objection and

8 would not oppose that course. So if they were to reserve their position

9 in relation to closing the case, subject to those witnesses, we would have

10 no objection.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

12 MR. MOORE: I hope that's clear.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have to respond to this. We see

15 what difficulty was faced by the Mrksic Defence. We opposed this motion

16 to have witness Puskar heard later, but it is as a matter of principle

17 that we oppose the idea to have witnesses heard once the Mrksic case has

18 been concluded. This only applies to cases where it was possible to have

19 the witnesses brought over during the Mrksic case, so we do not think that

20 witness P-019 or Mr. Gluscevic should be heard once the other Defence

21 cases are already well underway.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber has indicated, in its recent decision

24 given orally, that the Defence of Mr. Mrksic has not been able to persuade

25 it that either witness P-019, nor the potential witness, Mr. Gluscevic,

1 had been demonstrated to be of such importance to the conduct of this case

2 that it was necessary and appropriate in the interests of justice for this

3 Chamber to take whatever steps are open to it to try and ensure the

4 attendance of either of those witnesses. That position remains unchanged.

5 It is apparent, from what has occurred, since the rather late

6 approach it would appear by the Defence of Mr. Mrksic to each of those two

7 witnesses and the late attempts by subpoena to encourage their attendance,

8 that neither witness was a ready, willing and cooperative witness. What

9 Mr. Domazet has put to us today reinforces that with respect to witness

10 P-019. And as he himself has indicated, the appearances are quite clear

11 that the witness is avoiding the representatives of Mr. Mrksic's Defence,

12 and is doing what he can to avoid attendance here.

13 With the witness, Mr. Gluscevic, it may be, from what Mr. Domazet

14 has said, that there could be some change in that person's attitude to

15 cooperating with the Mrksic Defence and attending.

16 There is the third witness, Mr. Puskar, who was approached at an

17 earlier time and from all we know has been a willing and cooperative

18 witness, but who has been undergoing some prolonged health problem, a

19 problem which at the moment continues.

20 Now, these three witnesses differ, in that the evidence which

21 Mr. Puskar might give has been more readily identified and is limited in

22 nature. The evidence which the other two may give, in particular perhaps

23 that of Mr. P-019, appears conjectural and merely an attempt to indicate

24 the sort of matters about which the witness ought to be able to speak,

25 rather than any capacity on the part of the Mrksic Defence to indicate the

1 specific facts about which the witness will testify. That, of course,

2 reflects the fact that neither Mr. Gluscevic nor witness P-019 has been

3 prepared to this point to cooperate with the Mrksic Defence, and make

4 appropriate statements available.

5 Against that background, the Chamber must consider whether now the

6 time has come to bring to an end the Mrksic Defence. We have a concern to

7 ensure that there is a proper opportunity for the presentation of that

8 Defence. We also have a responsibility to ensure, in the interests of the

9 other accused and all concerned and those waiting for trial, that this

10 particular trial proceeds with all expedition that can be properly

11 ensured, consistent with the interests of justice.

12 Having regard to those matters, the Chamber is not persuaded that

13 it should allow further time for attempts to ensure the attendance here of

14 witness P-019, nor Mr. Gluscevic, subject to one matter, which I will

15 mention shortly.

16 I can say, with respect to Mr. Puskar, we do not presently have a

17 motion, and we would take the view that the case for Mr. Mrksic should be

18 brought to an end subject to there being leave given to the Mrksic Defence

19 to bring a submission -- a motion at a later time, should Mr. Puskar's

20 health improve, a motion that would need, then, to seek leave to re-open

21 the Mrksic Defence and would need to demonstrate what it is was important

22 about Mr. Puskar's evidence for that Defence, and to demonstrate, clearly,

23 the health problems that had prevented his earlier attendance.

24 Subject to that, the Chamber feels that it is necessary to say

25 that the Mrksic Defence has had adequate opportunity to secure its

1 witnesses and to secure their attendance here. We take account of and

2 recognise the force of the submissions of the other two accused, that it

3 would not be fair to their cases to allow a body of evidence, such as that

4 which might fall from witness P-019 and also Mr. Gluscevic, to be led at

5 some unforeseeable time in the future during the course of their cases, or

6 even after their case.

7 So with the exception, which I will mention very shortly, in the

8 Chamber's view, the Mrksic Defence should close this week. The one

9 qualification we put on it, given that we are told that Mr. Gluscevic

10 might be cooperative, and that his evidence would be short and less than a

11 day, we would take the view that if the Mrksic Defence is able to secure

12 the attendance of that witness either Friday or Monday of next week, we

13 would be prepared to hear his evidence and would expect his evidence to

14 take half a day, and no more; that is his evidence and cross-examination.

15 When I say "secure attendance" that could include evidence by videolink,

16 if that is able to be arranged. But given the time, that may be even more

17 difficult than securing the personal attendance of the witness.

18 So it boils down to this, Mr. Vasic. If you can get Mr. Gluscevic

19 here to give evidence Friday or Monday morning, or can arrange a videolink

20 for that purpose, we will hear him for half a day. So it will have to be

21 straight to the point. If you are not able to secure his attendance on

22 Friday or Monday, on that basis, that would be the end of any concession

23 we would make in respect of that witness.

24 I think it is Monday afternoon, and not morning, I'm reminded on

25 each side of me. So you have an extra half day to make arrangements.

1 Otherwise, no further action by the Chamber in respect of witnesses P-019

2 and Mr. Gluscevic, and we would take the step that the Defence of

3 Mr. Mrksic should formally close to allow Mr. Borovic to commence his case

4 on Monday, as planned, except that he could be half a day late on Monday,

5 if there proves possible for the witness, Gluscevic, to be here.

6 We hope that half a day isn't too great a disturbance in your

7 arrangements. And it is a matter that leave is granted to the Mrksic

8 Defence in respect of Mr. Puskar, if at some later time it is possible for

9 him to attend and you are able to demonstrate to us that leave should be

10 given to you to reopen your case to hear Mr. Puskar.

11 Now, we've run to the end of the tape. Are there other matters

12 that need to be dealt with? I think it may be necessary to come back

13 after the break, unless they can be dealt with in five minutes.

14 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, can I deal with -- there are two matters.

15 May I deal with one and then Mr. Weiner will be able to deal with the

16 other, because of the seating problems.

17 I would like the Court's guidance, if I may, in relation to a

18 matter that has arisen between my learned friend Mr. Borovic and myself.

19 It is not a problem in the sense that there is any difficulty. It's to do

20 with the handwriting of the document for 002.

21 My learned friend has an expert, clearly would wish that document

22 to be seen, but that would be in Belgrade. There are difficulties, if an

23 expert is to be obtained by the Prosecution for clearly those two experts

24 to liaise.

25 I have suggested to my learned friend, Mr. Borovic, a position

1 that arose in the case of Oric, and I believe I am correct when I say this

2 is what occurred. That the Court ordered, through the registry, that an

3 independent expert be found; that expert to look at the document, to

4 operate on guidelines in relation to Prosecution/Defence, and in that

5 case, then, if there is any handwriting analysis which may become relevant

6 to the issue, that witness can be called.

7 I can just foresee difficulties moving a document either to

8 Belgrade, or Paris, or London. In my submission it would be better if it

9 was just held here and dealt with by one expert. So I would seek the

10 Court's guidance on that.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.

12 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We had an

13 agreement, Mr. Moore and I, to appoint one expert each, one expert for the

14 Defence and another for the Prosecution. That was done by The Hague's

15 bureau in Belgrade. Then a sample of the handwriting would be taken and a

16 joint analysis would be made.

17 I learned from Mr. Moore that there was a problem with an expert

18 who he could not find, and he asked me whether I had anything against him

19 employing an expert from Croatia. I replied, no, of course not. As far

20 as I'm concerned, Ireland is fine also. So as for the Defence counsel, we

21 consider that it is -- that any expert for -- handwriting expert is

22 acceptable to us. So whatever the Chamber decides to do, whether it is

23 one expert appointed by the Court, fine. If there are two experts, one

24 appointed by the Defence, another by the Prosecution, who will analyse the

25 handwriting together, that's acceptable for us too.

1 Only I would think that we should go about this fast, but of

2 course there should be a reason for us to verify a text in this manner.

3 With regard to what the witness says and if there is a contradiction to

4 what a written entry says, that is, then, a valid reason to do so. And in

5 the interest of justice, I believe that this witness, who would be brought

6 in as the last witness, should be asked to explain or clarify that

7 document.

8 We shouldn't proceed not only along three points as the

9 Prosecution has moved, but that we should analyse the entire document, and

10 thus undertake all of these activities.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Well I take it, Mr. Borovic, from what you say,

12 that if one -- one expert could be identified, it would be satisfactory

13 for your Defence purposes for that one expert to do the work instead of

14 two separate ones?

15 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as regards the position

16 of the Defence of Miroslav Radic, that would be satisfactory. And I

17 would, then, make a proposal as to what should be examined. I would have

18 to consult the other parties, but of course without delaying any --

19 delaying the process. So in brief, my answer is "yes".

20 JUDGE PARKER: Does this bear upon either of the other accused? I

21 think not.

22 We would ask Mr. Moore or Mr. Borovic -- oh, Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would only say that, that there is a

24 joint proposal here by Mr. Borovic and Mr. Moore, and I support the course

25 of action to appoint only one expert.

1 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Although Mr. Borovic doesn't seem to

2 agree with me lately, but I agree with his proposal. So I'm for the

3 appointing of one expert who will analyse the handwriting.

4 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure, with goodwill on one hand, Mr. Vasic, you

5 will find it will be restored on both hands, yes.

6 The Chamber would ask Mr. Borovic and Mr. Moore, if necessary in

7 consultation with the other two Defence teams, to see if they can identify

8 an expert, the subject matter and the location for examination, and they

9 might perhaps come with a joint agreed motion, short and simple, and we

10 can take the matter forward from there.

11 MR. MOORE: Could I ask --

12 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Moore --

13 MR. MOORE: I understand, but could I ask the Court perhaps to

14 order -- suggest that the Registry locate an expert. That way, then, it

15 resolves difficulties.

16 JUDGE PARKER: That seems a sensible idea, Mr. Moore. And I can

17 do even better: The two of you are authorised to approach the Registry on

18 behalf of the Chamber, because the Chamber would like to get something

19 presented which everybody is happy with, rather than have to go through

20 each item and debate it.

21 Now, Mr. Lukic, you need to raise something further? Am I right?

22 I'm thinking about adjourning and resuming after the break, you see.

23 Unless you have only got half a minute, there isn't time now.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I will need more than 30 seconds. So

25 if Mr. Moore agrees, we can continue after the break, or we can do so on

1 another day. So it has to do with the interview with Goran Hadzic. In

2 fact I would like to hear the ruling in the Krajisnik case, which is

3 expected in a few minutes, but we can also continue our argument after the

4 break.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 JUDGE PARKER: The matter will be considered briefly on Monday

7 morning -- Monday afternoon, at 2.15. And hopefully it should take no

8 longer than five minutes. I'm getting worried from Mr. Borovic, you see.

9 We will now adjourn until Monday, in the afternoon, at 2.15.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.45 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Monday, the 2nd day of October,

12 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25