1 Thursday, 19 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir. May I remind you of the
7 affirmation you made at the beginning of your evidence which still
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.
10 WITNESS: BOZIDAR FORCA [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examination by Mr. Weiner:
13 Q. Good morning, sir.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. Now, sir, at the end of your report, you list the sources that you
16 used or relied upon to draft this expert report; isn't that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And one of the main sources that you relied upon in your expert
19 report were witness statements; correct?
20 A. Among other things, yes.
21 Q. In fact, you relied upon 21 witness statements in drafting your
23 A. True, 1 through 21.
24 Q. And these witness statements assisted you in determining the
25 facts, didn't they?
1 A. These witness statements assisted me in producing my report. The
2 theory behind this was a fact is always empirical, so if we take a fact to
3 mean just that, then I suppose you could put it that way.
4 Q. And you also used these witness statements in arriving it at your
5 conclusions; isn't that correct, sir?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. And some of these witness statements are the only information you
8 possess in relation to certain facts and conclusions.
9 A. If that's how they are reflected in the report, well, then, that's
10 probably the case. One thing I should say is I also used other sources
11 available to me and this statement was used to confirm what I was already
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.
14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies to my learned friend.
15 I never realised, when looking at the expert report, that the witness
16 invoked 21 different witnesses. I only saw three direct references to
17 witness statements and some other statements that he may have been using
18 but which he did not actually invoke in his report, or in the main body of
19 his report. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, carry on.
21 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
22 Q. These witness statements, sir, were given in Belgrade, Novi Sad,
23 or to ICTY investigators; isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Now, sir, did you use any of the transcripts or any of the
1 testimony from this particular trial in producing this report?
2 A. Yes. The transcript was available to me since the Defence were
3 submitting to me whichever documents they had in their possession. I had
4 the transcript of the testimony of that gentleman who was an operative at
5 the command of the Guards Brigade as well as the testimony of
6 Mr. Vojinovic, the commander of the 80th Brigade, at least as far as I
8 Q. So those are the only two transcripts that you used in drafting
9 this report?
10 A. Yes, or as least I think so.
11 Q. Okay. And you were also present, I believe, for the testimony of
12 Mr. Theunens?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And were you present for the testimony of Mr. Pringle?
15 A. No. I left when Mr. Theunens's testimony finished. The only
16 thing I had from Mr. Pringle was the report.
17 Q. And sir, are you aware that these 21 witness statements have not
18 been introduced as evidence in this court? Are you aware of that?
19 A. I can't say I'm really that aware of it. However, I do know that
20 witness statements are not certified as authentic unless the relevant
21 witness eventually appears, if I may put it that way.
22 Q. Let us move on. In your report, at page 109 in the English, which
23 is paragraph 20 - I think it's about page 101/102 in the B/C/S - do you
24 have that in front of you, sir?
25 A. I do.
1 Q. In your report, in conclusion number 20, you indicate that "the
2 3rd Assault Group was stronger than a reinforced company and the
3 reinforcements were of a higher command level than the company itself."
4 And in parentheses you put "TO detachments." Is that correct, sir?
5 A. That's what it says, sir.
6 Q. Would you agree, sir, that the Petrova Gora TO, the Leva
7 Supoderica TO, and certain members of the Vukovar TO were part of Captain
8 Radic's 3rd Assault Group?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Now, sir, have you followed or did you follow the hearings in
11 Belgrade in relation to the Ovcara incident? Because I know you cited a
12 number of transcripts.
13 A. I didn't follow, but I did have the relevant transcripts.
14 Q. Sir, were you aware that Miroljub Vujevic has given a statement or
15 has testified in Belgrade that he was under Captain Radic's command? Were
16 you aware of that?
17 A. No.
18 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have to refer my
19 colleague back to the transcript of the 23rd of June, 2006; 11.134 that's
20 the page, and the line reference is 12. The Defence was trying to use
21 statements that the witness had not used in his report, and the Presiding
22 Judge said, "What is not important is for you to try to show the witness
23 that there is evidence contrary to what he has invoked." And the Defence
24 is told that all these contradictory statements will be evaluated in due
25 course and that I had no right to ask questions of that nature.
1 Therefore, Your Honours, I believe my learned friend should be
2 aware of that, and the only thing he can ask questions about are things
3 that we used in the report. I think this was a very important ruling for
4 our Defence and I think the same ruling should then mutatis mutandis to
5 the OTP as well.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, we're dealing with an expert witness.
7 It's one thing to learn from him the source of any factual basis for his
8 expert report and the conclusions he's reached. But he's not a witness to
9 the facts; he is an independent expert who really has simply accepted from
10 various sources that certain things are the fact. Now, those things will
11 either be established by evidence before us or will not.
12 It's with a witness as to facts, the cross-examination may, and
13 often has in this Court both for Defence and Prosecution, put to the
14 witness: Will you understand the facts to be this? Are you aware that
15 other people, X, Y, Z or whatever, have said it differently? That's
16 because the witness is speaking of his knowledge and recollection to the
17 facts and you are then testing how strong how his satisfaction personally
18 is about those facts or whether he is aware that there are competing
20 But this witness is not in that category. He's not speaking of
21 facts as of his own knowledge; he's merely saying: In my report, I have
22 accepted this to be true, that to be true, that to be true. And you
23 rightly have been exploring some of the sources of those, but it's nothing
24 to do with his credit that some other witnesses may have a different view
25 of the facts.
1 Do you see the distinction between an expert witness and a witness
2 as to the facts?
3 MR. WEINER: I see that, Your Honour, but may I ask him about
4 testimony that the defendant, who he's here on behalf of, has made certain
5 statements which are in conflict with his report? May I confront him with
7 JUDGE PARKER: You may, but you will -- and that is because it's
8 directly evidence of the accused.
9 MR. WEINER: All right. Well, as the Court pleases.
10 JUDGE PARKER: I think that might have shortened something that
11 you were going to do, Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: I would agree, Your Honour. And having a bit of the
13 flu, the quicker I'm out of here, the safer everyone here is.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 MR. WEINER:
16 Q. Sir, Captain Radic testified last week that the Territorial
17 Defence and the Leva Supoderica units which were along his axis were part
18 of his assault group. He testified to that on pages 12.617 to 12.618.
19 Are you aware of this testimony?
20 A. What you can find in my report was written before Mr. Radic took
21 the stand. As for the facts at which you seem to have arrived, this may
22 be something that a number of different witnesses spoke about, but it is
23 definitely not something that I knew of when I wrote my report.
24 On the other hand, if you look at my report, specifically page 96,
25 paragraph 127 - that's the Serbian reference - I said how the functioning
1 of the command system in the Guards Brigade worked, above all, in the
2 Motorised Battalion or, if you like, Assault Detachment 1. And that is in
3 relation to the commander of the 1st Motorised Battalion, or JOD 1.
4 If you look at that portion of my report, I think the following
5 may be deduced: The second bullet or dash, if you look at that, I quote:
6 "Vukovar TO units were organised and initially they coordinated
7 with the combat operations of his battalion and JOD until the second half
8 of October, and afterwards, by the 18th of November, 1991, at the latest,
9 they were under his immediate command."
10 Q. Now, sir, that whole paragraph, 127 --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
12 MR. WEINER: Sorry.
13 Q. That whole paragraph, 127, that comes from the testimony of Major
14 Tesic before the war crimes chamber in Belgrade; isn't that correct?
15 A. Yes. Not only before the war crimes chamber in Belgrade but also
16 the statements that he provided to the Hague investigators.
17 MR. WEINER: Is there an objection, Your Honour?
18 JUDGE PARKER: I want you to finish and the witness to finish.
19 Mr. Borovic.
20 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I've been following what
21 my learned friend has been saying. I found no reference in the transcript
22 to Miroslav Radic saying "my assault group" or "the Leva Supoderica
23 detachment." He did speak about the assault group comprising Vujanovic
24 and Leva Supoderica. But he never said that the 3rd Company was part of
25 that assault group.
1 I followed closely. I didn't mean to interrupt, but this is
2 simply not something that Miroslav Radic stated. He said who was in
3 command of the 3rd Assault Group. The fact that the witness interpreted
4 the note in his own way is one thing and what Radic said is another, and
5 they are not the same thing. Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.
7 MR. WEINER:
8 Q. Now, sir, you told us that paragraph 127 is based on statements of
9 Major Tesic. I've indicated to you that, in this court, there has been
10 testimony from Captain Radic that the assault group "consisted of members
11 of the Territorial Defence along my axis and of members of the Leva
12 Supoderica detachment."
13 Now that you're aware of Captain Radic's testimony before this
14 court, would you now accept that those groups were part of Captain Radic's
15 3rd Assault Group?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, sir, within your report, you've indicated
18 that Kameni Lancuzanin and Miroljub Vujevic received their orders from
19 Tesic; isn't that correct?
20 A. That is correct. I only indicated what had been previously stated
21 by the commander of the 1st Battalion.
22 Q. And you're relying on Major Tesic's statements when you
23 say "commander of the 1st Battalion" to arrive at that decision or arrive
24 at that conclusion; isn't that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, within your report, you've relied upon the statement of Major
2 Tesic, both from his statements to the OTP -- I'm sorry, the Prosecutor's
3 office, as well as his statements to the court in Belgrade, haven't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And, in fact, would you agree that you cited his statements 12
6 times in your report, or you footnoted them 12 times in your report? Or
7 several times, if it's ...
8 A. Yes, several times. I did footnote that several times in my
10 Q. And on page 71, you footnoted -- in the English, you footnoted his
11 report to the ICTY; isn't that correct? That should be about page 64 in
12 the B/C/S. Paragraph 41.
13 A. Is that about footnote 5?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Yes. Yes. In that case, the answer is yes, I did refer to that.
16 Q. Now, do you have that report with you, sir, that statement?
17 A. No.
18 Q. In paragraph 15 of that statement which you've referred to, which
19 is on page 5, Mr. Tesic says the following:
20 "Around mid-October 1991, on orders from OG South, the two Guards
21 Motorised Brigade battalions changed their names to assault detachments,
22 JOD, and their guards companies became assault groups. With this change,
23 the TO of Vukovar was integrated into the assault companies, i.e., TO
24 Vukovar was subordinated to the JNA at a much lower level than before.
25 The TO detachment within the 1st Assault Group was led by Stanko Vujanovic
1 - Taksista. The 3rd Assault Group, commanded by Milorad Radic, also
2 comprised a TO Vukovar detachment led by Miroljub Vujevic which comprised
3 the TO Petrova Gora as well as the Leva Supoderica detachments, numbering
4 between 30 and 40 men, whose commander was Milan Lancuzanin - Kameni.
5 This last group called themselves Seseljevski, or Seselj's men."
6 Were you aware of that statement within the interview?
7 A. Sir, Your Honours, I can distinguish at least three questions
8 there. The first is about footnote 5. Footnote 5 only tells you what the
9 tasks or objectives were in Vukovar, which is something that Tesic said,
10 commander of the Motorised Battalion.
11 Secondly, in order to understand the phenomenon or the process
12 that was Operation Vukovar - and I think the gentleman's question can be
13 viewed in that context - and in connection with what we said yesterday
14 about the command and control system from brigade level down to squad
15 level, and further, in connection with the statements that I used, I think
16 the following is what matters:
17 Firstly, a written order or a decision by the commander of OG
18 South, or rather, first and foremost, the Guards Brigade and later OG
19 South, those that are available to the Chamber as Exhibits 405, 408, 410,
20 430 and 431, these were supplemented in keeping with the working method
21 applied in all joint and operative units. These were supplemented
22 verbally. You can see that if you look at the war log produced by the
23 Guards Brigade, or OG South.
24 Q. Excuse me, sir, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that's not the
25 question I asked you. The question I asked you was: Were you aware of
1 that statement within this interview? That's the question.
2 A. Sir, in my conclusion or rather, in drawing my conclusions, I used
3 the methods enumerated in the introduction; that is to say, if the
4 commander of the 1st Battalion, or JOD 1, says, "I was in direct command,
5 they were under my command," then I take it at face value. "Company
6 commanders and commanders of TO came to get their assignments from me,"
7 sir, this is what I used in drawing my conclusions.
8 Q. Sir, once again, I will ask you the same question: Were you aware
9 of this statement in the interview; yes or no?
10 A. I can't give you a specific answer because I used the elements
11 that I mentioned to you.
12 Q. In this statement, Major Tesic has stated: "The 3rd Assault
13 Group, commanded by Milorad Radic, also comprised a TO Vukovar detachment,
14 led by Miroljub Vujevic, which comprised the TO Petrova Gora as well as
15 the Leva Supoderica detachments."
16 Will you take it at face value, using your phrase, that those
17 units were part of Captain Radic's 3rd assault company -- I'm sorry, 3rd
18 Assault Group?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, if we continue, one more paragraph, a very short paragraph in
21 that same statement, paragraph 19, where Major Tesic says: "I would be
22 lying if I said that the relationship between Captain Miroslav Radic and
23 Kameni or Vujevic was not friendly. I know that Radic's orders were fully
24 complied with."
25 First question, if you could just tell us yes or no: Do you
1 recall that statement in the interview which you've cited in your report?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And, sir, is that not an indication Radic gave them orders and
4 tasks and that they complied with those orders and tasks?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Sir, would you agree that Major Tesic was in a far better position
7 than you to indicate who the persons were within Radic's 3rd Assault
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Sir, we've had testimony from Captain Radic that he would draw up
11 the plans for combat actions and issue the tasks based on those plans to
12 the assault group commanders. And that's at page 12.621. Sir, isn't that
13 consistent with the view that Captain Radic wrote the plans, gave the
14 orders, gave the tasks to those TO brigade -- TO unit commanders?
15 A. Your Honours, once again, I have to go back to my evidence given
16 yesterday concerning the work process from the brigade command level down
17 to the squad commander, that is to say, two levels above and two levels
18 below the company commander. Plans, as documents, are not binding at the
19 level of the company. This is one part of my answer.
20 The second part is they had -- or he had the command of Leva
21 Supoderica and Petrova Gora on his own terms. The commander of JOD 1 or
22 the Motorised Battalion was in command. We can now analyse various
23 documents, orders, decisions, in order to look into the entire process.
24 This is what I started out with and then the learned gentleman interrupted
25 me. And only if we did that would we be able to make our conclusions
1 based on the entirety of this material.
2 So, to conclude, a plan is not a document which is produced at the
3 level of a company, and in his statement, in the stated detachments, this
4 is what it says. And if one looks at the first order of commander of
5 brigade and various other ones, it emerges that the commander of the
6 battalion, or JOD 1, was in command.
7 Q. Sir, I put it to you that Captain Radic was solely responsible for
8 planning combat operations of that assault group; do you agree?
9 A. Your Honours, planning and activities of the 1st Motorised
10 Battalion, or JOD 1, were in the jurisdiction of the command of JOD 1. In
11 that sense, all commanders who were subordinated to the commander of JOD 1
12 received their tasks. In accordance with these tasks, that is to say, on
13 the basis of what was planned at the level of the command of JOD 1,
14 company commanders, as basic units or assault groups, carried out orders.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In the previous
16 answer, it should be "plans as documents are not mandatory at the level of
17 the company not "not binding at the level of the company."
18 MR. WEINER:
19 Q. Sir, again, Mr. Radic testified last week and I want to put this
20 to you. He stated:
21 "If one wants to control and plan --" I'm sorry, that's at page
22 12.620, beginning lines 14:
23 "If one wants to control and plan any combat activity, be it an
24 attack or a defence, excuse me, one needs to do that thoroughly because
25 the outcome of that operation depends on it. Since I mentioned a moment
1 ago that I was the only officer who had completed the military academy, I
2 didn't want to leave it to chance that anyone should plan combat
3 operations except for myself."
4 Having heard Captain Radic's testimony that he didn't want to
5 leave it for anyone to plan combat operations except for himself, will you
6 accept that he was the person who planned combat operations for that
7 assault group?
8 A. I apologise, would you please specify which assault group? Do you
9 mean the detachments?
10 Q. The 3rd Assault Group, sir.
11 A. Your Honours, once again, I must say that my report was compiled
12 prior to Captain Radic giving evidence here. Based on what the gentleman
13 just stated, I would partially agree with it and I would partially agree
14 with it. This pertains to the evidence given by Mr. Radic. In principle,
15 the commander is responsible for his unit, and it is true that in the 3rd
16 Company, only Captain Radic was a graduate of the military academy.
17 On the other hand, given that I used the statement saying that,
18 since they were along the same axis and since they were in the same
19 sector, the same task was given to the company commanders and said
20 detachments, that cannot be considered as evidence of Captain Radic being
21 competent to plan their activities. Or, as we established yesterday, the
22 person who issues the decision, who issues the order, is the one in
23 command. He also supervises the execution of the orders.
24 Given that the said detachments were in the axis or in the sector
25 of JOD 1, then I, as an expert, could only agree that, possibly in
1 compliance with the decision of the commander of JOD 1, Captain Radic was
2 able to assist, given that he was a highly trained officer.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.
4 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I meant to raise this in redirect,
5 but the context will be lost by then.
6 I read what was put to the witness about the statement of Captain
7 Radic, but it would have been fair if it had been explained to the witness
8 that this pertained to the system of communications, because that is the
9 context. No planning of main operations or tasks is mentioned in that
10 context. No. Only the system of communications was mentioned, because he
11 wanted to protect it for security reasons, and he spoke of codes,
12 encryption, and so on.
13 I don't need to read the entire statement to you now. I
14 apologise. My colleague is suggesting something to me. And then he says
15 that he conveyed the system of communication to his platoons, even along
16 the same axis. He conveyed it to the TO detachment. And the question put
17 to the witness had a completely different meaning.
18 So, in order for me not to continuously jump to my feet and
19 interrupt the process, perhaps the entire context could, in the future, be
20 explained to the witness. Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, you were there doing what you are
22 concerned that Mr. Weiner is doing. You are putting on the words your
23 interpretation of their meaning and the context in which they should be
24 understood. You complain Mr. Weiner is doing that. You differ as to what
25 they should each be.
1 Now, Mr. Weiner is entitled to put the words that were used to the
2 witness. Whether that will affect his opinion in his report is one
3 thing. Just what the effect of the evidence of your client may be on some
4 of the factual assumptions in this report is an entirely different thing
5 again and one which this Chamber will have to determine.
6 So I'd suggest that interventions of that nature are really best
7 left to re-examination, when the time comes.
8 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
9 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, just for the record, I just want to
10 place it in context. If you look at lines 3 through 6 of the --
11 JUDGE PARKER: There's no need to debate that. That's really
12 final address stuff, unless you want to change the sense of your question.
13 MR. WEINER: Not at all. I'm just saying that it wasn't taken out
14 of context.
15 Q. Sir, I put it to you that in relation to the orders that came from
16 the battalion or the brigade as the times to go into action, to coordinate
17 with the rest of the other units, Captain Radic was the person who
18 received those orders and he, in turn, would issue the combat plans or
19 action plans; as well as the orders from the battalion and the brigade,
20 which he received, he would then issue those to the commanders of the
21 assault group. Do you agree?
22 A. No, but I have to explain, or rather, it could be both no and
23 yes. First of all, I have no information that Captain Radic received any
24 kind of orders from the brigade command directly. That means that I have
25 no such information.
1 Second, the plans of combat operations, the plan as a document, is
2 not something that is drafted at the level of a company.
3 Third, orders for operations, as you termed it, or rather, in the
4 course of operations, were given both to Captain Radic and to commanders
5 of the said detachments. If that's what he said, if that's what the
6 commander said, then I believe it.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: "Then that's fine."
8 MR. WEINER:
9 Q. Sir, I'll read it to you. On page 12.621, beginning at line 6:
10 "Since I used to draw up such plans before any action, for reasons
11 of security, I would do that immediately prior, prior to action. I never
12 drew up a plan and set it aside for the next two days or so but I always
13 do it the night before. Since we coordinated, and since the battalion
14 commander would tell us the exact time when we were to go into action at
15 the level of battalion and the brigade, I always issued those orders to
16 those commanders which were part of the assault group immediately prior to
17 going into action, that is the morning ..."
18 Based on that, sir, would you agree that Captain Radic was
19 receiving the orders from the battalion level and he was the one who was
20 issuing them to the assault battalion -- I'm sorry, to the assault group
21 commanders? And he would also issue his plans or tasks to them so they
22 could go into combat action.
23 A. Your Honours, if what Captain Radic referred to as "plan" entailed
24 sketches and drawings of the area, of the terrain, given that this is a
25 settlement and they needed, for example, to take a building or a house,
1 then I understand what he said.
2 And in reply to your two questions, first, you, yourself, said
3 that he only conveyed the particular moment when one needed to go into
4 action. He did not convey his own plan, as you said, not to the other
5 units to which he was not the commander.
6 So these other units, the particular detachments had their orders,
7 and in the text that you read out, it says that Captain Radic only
8 conveyed the particular time when they were to go into action. He didn't
9 convey to everyone his plan.
10 Q. Sir, you're basing your conclusion on the statements of Major
11 Tesic; isn't that correct?
12 A. That he issued orders to company commanders and detachment
13 commanders, yes. As for the statement that you read out about the moment
14 the -- the moment of time they were supposed to go into action, based on
15 what you read out ...
16 Q. So I take that as a yes. You're basing your opinion on the
17 statements made by Mr. Tesic; isn't that correct, sir?
18 A. Those statements including.
19 Q. Sir, let's continue on. You utilised what you referred to as a
20 handwritten diary of the 1st Motorised Battalion command?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you know that that handwritten document is not the official or
23 actual diary but it's only the selected entries; isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you have a copy of that with you? Or I could show it on
1 the screen if you don't.
2 A. I haven't got a copy with me, except for what is included in the
3 charts in the report.
4 MR. WEINER: Mr. Registrar, could we please see Exhibit 807,
5 please. Could see the final two pages, pages 10 and 11 which concern
6 November 10th onward, which would be 0010 and 11 in the B/C/S. 2714-0010.
7 Q. Sir, would you agree that -- first, do you have it in front of
8 you, sir?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Would you agree that from November 10th onwards, the
11 words "resubordination, attachment, detachment," are not used anywhere in
12 that diary in relation to the Petrova Gora or Leva Supoderica TO units?
13 Could you look closely at those two pages?
14 A. All I can see is the 10th, 11th and 12th.
15 Q. Could you be shown the next page, please.
16 A. I see it now.
17 Q. Thank you, sir.
18 A. That's true. I have not found such words as "attachment"
19 or "resubordination."
20 Q. And would you also agree with me that nowhere in those last two
21 days are the words stated: "Captain Radic no longer commands the 3rd
22 Assault Group"?
23 A. Yes. That's not there.
24 Q. Sir, I put it to you that those assault groups remained active
25 between November 17th and 21st, 1991; do you agree?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, sir, I'd like to look again or refer you again to Major
3 Tesic's report which you cite within your -- Major Tesic's interview which
4 you cite in your report. On page 9 of that, paragraph 38, he states the
6 "On 19 November, there were members of the local Serbian Vukovar
7 TO in the hospital compound. I arrived at the hospital with a small
8 number of men of the 1st Assault Group led by Sasa Bojkovski. Parts of
9 the 3rd Assault Group of Captain Miroslav Radic came from the flank, from
10 the direction of the bus station."
11 Do you recall reading that portion of the statement when you used
12 it in your report?
13 A. Yes, I do. I can't say I remember it verbatim but, generally
14 speaking, I do recollect that.
15 Q. Since Major Tesic has indicated that the 1st and 3rd Assault
16 Groups arrived at the Vukovar Hospital on November 19th, will you agree
17 that those assault groups were still active on at least November 19th,
19 A. No.
20 Q. But would you agree that Major Tesic was in a far better position
21 than yourself to know the composition of the troops under his command?
22 A. Absolutely.
23 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move to just a very, very brief subject.
24 Could you look at your report; page 74 in the B/C/S and 81 in the
25 English. There's a chart or a table. Do you have it, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. The final part of the chart -- the final line of the chart
3 says: "Decision by OG South commander," and it says -- and that was a
4 decision in writing, and it says, "19 November, 1991, resubordination of
5 the units and evacuation from the hospital." Is that a mistake? Is that
6 just a typographical error? Would you agree that's a typographical error,
7 that it should read the 21st of November?
8 A. No. If I may elaborate.
9 Q. Please do.
10 A. I assume you mean the resubordination of the TO. In the
11 commander's decision dated the 19th of November, there is mention of other
12 units being resubordinated. And I think it was in item 2 - I'm not
13 certain, but it must be somewhere - where there's talk of the hospital
14 evacuation, if I remember correctly. And I don't think I would have
15 included that in my report had I not been able to remember it.
16 Q. Sir, isn't it true that there was no resubordination order issued
17 by Colonel Mrksic on November 19th but rather the order was issued in
18 writing on November 21st, 1991?
19 A. The decision on the evacuation of the Vukovar Hospital is dated
20 the 19th of November, the 19th, the decision.
21 Q. I'm strictly speaking in terms of the second -- the first part of
22 it. The resubordination of units, that was on the 21st, sir; isn't that
24 A. Just tell me which units, which specific units on the 21st.
25 Q. The Leva Supoderica and the Vukovar TO units.
1 A. Well, dear sir, what I'm telling you is, as of the 19th, there's
2 no mention of the Leva Supoderica detachment or the TO, at least as far as
3 I indicated.
4 Q. Sir, no, the issue is, in this chart that you drew, you have two
5 items occurring, two actions occurring, on 19 November 1991, and the
6 method of communication you list is writing: "resubordination of units
7 and evacuation of the Vukovar Hospital." Now, let's set the evacuation of
8 the Vukovar Hospital aside and just deal with resubordination of units.
9 There was no writing in relation to the resubordination of the Leva
10 Supoderica and the Vukovar TO units on November 19th; isn't that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And the resubordination did not occur until November 21st. The
13 order did not occur -- the order was not written until November 21st,
14 which is Exhibit 422, which you cite in your report. You cite it at the
15 end as a source.
16 A. A written document on the resubordination of those units, yes.
17 Q. Thank you. And were you aware that the resubordination was not
18 completed until -- of those units was not completed until November 22nd,
20 A. Dear sir, although I've gone through a lot of different documents,
21 orders, statements, I did not really focus on the period after the 19th
22 specifically. I do know that there are reports. The reports are
23 mentioned in the documents that I used. There is a report about how
24 activities were being carried out throughout the post-conflict period, as
25 I described it. I can hardly be accurate about this. I can hardly say
1 yes to your question. "Yes, there is a report, and yes, it is possible to
2 refer to that report," I can hardly say that.
3 Q. So you're not contesting Colonel Mrksic's order, Exhibit 425,
4 which indicates that the resubordination was completed on November 22nd,
6 A. I'm sorry, it must be a slip of the tongue on your part. I don't
7 believe this could possibly have been an order. A report of a superior
8 commander, at the most.
9 MR. WEINER: May the witness please be shown Exhibit 425, please.
10 Q. Do you have that in front of you, sir?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you see under "Operation Group JUG Units," number 2? Do you
13 see the fourth paragraph, "In the course of 22 November 1991..."?
14 "In the course of 22 November 1991, according to your strictly
15 confidential order, number 115-151, from 20 November 1991, all issues
16 regarding release and subordination of the volunteer units have been
18 A. Can we please show the upper half, because I suppose what you are
19 reading must be in the upper half of the document. But if you could just
20 scroll back down for a minute, please. Up. A little further up, please.
21 And now scroll down, if you can, please.
22 Yes, I've read this again. I'm telling you this is not an order,
23 this is a report. It was only a remark that I made. Because that's what
24 it says in the heading, a regular combat report.
25 Q. And it's signed by Colonel Mile Mrksic, commander of OG South,
1 isn't that correct, or OG JUG?
2 A. That is obvious.
3 Q. And you're not contesting the validity of his statement that the
4 resubordination was not completed until November 22nd, 1991?
5 A. I cannot cast any doubt, nor am I entitled to cast any doubt, on
6 anything signed by the commander of OG South.
7 Q. I'd like to move on to just a very short matter that you mentioned
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, perhaps this would be a convenient
11 MR. WEINER: It would be a wonderful time. Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: We will break now, and the next session, I'd expect
13 to finish no later than 20 past 12.00, Mr. Weiner.
14 MR. WEINER: I'll finish much sooner than that.
15 JUDGE PARKER: I'm just trying to give you the outer limits,
17 We will resume at 10 minutes past 11.00.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.50 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 11.13 a.m.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
21 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Good morning, sir.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Yesterday, you testified that any form of political activity or
25 politics was strictly forbidden in the command staff's units or military
1 institutions; do you recall that?
2 A. I do. If necessary, I can go back to that exact portion and tell
3 you what exactly it says. It's about any form of party affiliation in the
4 armed forces, first and foremost. And if you want me to read the relevant
5 portion out, I'll be happy to do so.
6 Q. That's not necessary. Unless the Court wants to hear that. No,
7 that's not necessary.
8 I just want to ask you: Are you aware of the background of the
9 Leva Supoderica unit which you mention in your report and you've testified
11 A. I was familiar with this information to the extent that I came
12 across such information in the documents that I indicated I had used.
13 Q. And were you aware that it had been sponsored by the Serbian
14 Radical Party, or Seselj's party?
15 A. Your Honours, I'm not sure whether it was really that, whether
16 they had been sponsored by the Serbian Radical Party. But there is
17 information to indicate that members of the Leva Supoderica unit were
18 close to the Serbian Radical Party.
19 Q. And you're not familiar with the level of training that those
20 particular soldiers had or received?
21 A. Your Honours, I don't understand what level of training we are
22 talking about, how well-trained they were or who they were trained by. If
23 you could try to be slightly more specific in terms of what you mean
24 by "level of training."
25 Q. That's exactly what my question was. These were a group of
1 volunteers which, in your words, were close to the Serbian Radical Party.
2 And when I say "level of training," do you know who they were trained by
3 or what training, if any, they had received?
4 A. Your Honours, it was, after all, a helpful idea to ask this
5 additional question. What were the members of the Leva Supoderica unit
6 like? I arrived at a conclusion, or rather, I quoted a statement by the
7 commander of the 1st Assault Detachment. This is at page 96, paragraph
8 127, of my report, which reads: "For a commander," this is the JOD
9 commander talking, and I quote: "Lancuzanin, Kameni, commander of the
10 Leva Supoderica TO worked well, did good work. He caught 30 or so members
11 of his detachment while stealing, sent them back to Sid and removed them
12 from the area of combat operations." Therefore, as to who trained them or
13 how, this is not really something that I know.
14 Q. Now, in relation to that, we've had testimony of a visit of Seselj
15 to Vukovar. Are you aware of that?
16 A. I did come across this information in the various documents that I
17 received from the Defence. I did come across information to indicate that
18 Seselj was in the area of operations.
19 Q. And there has been testimony that in one of his visits, he
20 addressed some soldiers and officers and made a statement that "no Ustasha
21 should be allowed to leave Vukovar alive." Were you aware of that?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Sir, as an expert in command and control, you realise that there's
24 a danger making a statement like that in front of non-professional
25 soldiers, such as volunteers. Would you agree, sir?
1 A. If a statement was made, then I would agree that this was an
2 unprofessional thing to do.
3 Q. Now, sir, can you tell us what acts should a commander take when a
4 statement like that is made in front of his troops? What acts, if any,
5 should a commander take to make sure that there is no danger as a result
6 of a statement of that kind?
7 A. Your Honours, I think this is speculative. I do not know for a
8 fact that such a statement was made; however, in principle - again, this
9 is a mere assumption and as such very difficult to prove - if such a
10 statement was made and the unit commander knows that all form of party
11 affiliation was strictly forbidden, it would have been the natural thing
12 to do to warn the person making such statements and also to inform his
13 superior command. But this is a mere assumption. I do not know for a
14 fact that this was, indeed, stated.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic.
16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
17 Just briefly, I think this group of questions is not related to the
18 expert's evidence. I believe all we can derive from this line of
19 questioning is a series of hypothetical, speculative answers, and I don't
20 think that will do the Chamber or us any good.
21 JUDGE PARKER: There may be quite a bit of truth in some of that,
22 Mr. Weiner. Carry on.
23 MR. WEINER:
24 Q. I would like to continue with some hypothetical questions. I want
25 you to assume, sir, that a company commander is told by one of his
1 subordinates that crimes have just occurred, prisoners were beaten by some
2 of his subordinates, and that one or more of his subordinates were
3 involved in murders of prisoners. What action must that company commander
5 A. At a purely hypothetical level, I think this hardly calls for any
6 comment. Back in 1988, regulations were passed on the application of the
7 international laws of war in the armed forces. Therefore, the provisions
8 contain specific regulations in relation to the subject matter that you
9 have just raised.
10 Q. Sir, could you please tell us what a Yugoslav or JNA officer
11 should do in that situation?
12 A. The JNA officer - again, this is hypothetical but in keeping with
13 the rules - he would have to inform the relevant bodies about anything
14 like that occurring.
15 Q. And what relevant bodies must he notify?
16 A. Your Honours, I was not a member of the security organ, but there
17 are rules and there are tasks that are peculiar to security organs. One
18 of the principal tasks is counter-intelligence. As far as I know, another
19 among those tasks is possible involvement in investigating such acts as
20 you have described.
21 Q. And, sir, what if the officer fails to take these actions?
22 A. Once again, hypothetically speaking, all I can tell you is that an
23 officer must make these steps; or, once again, hypothetically speaking, if
24 it later transpires that he did not take those steps, then his superior
25 will take action against him.
1 Q. Let's continue. Let's assume the following: That a company
2 commander hears that certain soldiers under his command are trying to
3 seize prisoners, remove prisoners from a facility, and even sends a few
4 soldiers to see what's happening. Assuming these facts, that a company
5 commander hears that there is a serious criminal problem, what action is
6 he required to take to prevent that from happening?
7 A. I think I've answered that question.
8 Q. Could you please answer it again?
9 A. Again, once again, in hypothetical terms, if a commander hears, if
10 I understood you well, that a crime is being committed, a crime of that
11 sort, then a commander will take action to prevent the consequences of it,
12 if the crime is being committed at that time.
13 Q. What are some of the actions that he can take? Can he request
14 military police?
15 A. It is to be assumed that that's a possibility, too, but not
16 directly. He must address his superior who is competent to order that.
17 Q. Can the company commander go to the scene where the crime is
18 occurring himself?
19 A. Yes, if the person taking measures to prevent whatever is taking
20 place allows that.
21 Q. And if he is at the scene and sees his soldiers there, can he
22 order them out of the area?
23 A. Yes. If he believes it necessary, yes.
24 MR. WEINER: Thank you very much, sir.
25 No further questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
2 Mr. Borovic.
3 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Re-examination by Mr. Borovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Forca, when we were conducting the proofing
6 of your testimony, did I inform you that, after your report was filed
7 here, Miroslav Radic gave testimony here before this Chamber?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did I inform you of statements given by company commanders, Zoran
10 Zirojevic, Davor Vuckovic, and Deputy Commander of the 1st Motorised
11 Battalion, Slavko Stijakovic, rather, their evidence?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did we cover together parts of the transcript of their testimonies
14 during the proofing?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. So you know what they testified about.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. In your report submitted to the Court, is it true that you quoted
19 only three statements?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were those statements of Tesic, Panic, and Witness P 014?
22 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour. Every one of these questions
23 has been leading.
24 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I can agree, but this is beyond
25 dispute. I took this from the screen, these three quotations. It won't
1 make or break the issue, but I'm just drawing the attention of the Trial
2 Chamber to this issue. But I will stop with it here. All right.
3 Q. My question is: From the 10th of November --
4 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Before you answer this question,
5 could we see Exhibit 807, dated the 10th of November, 1991. Could that be
6 put on our screens. This is a note of the 1st Motorised Battalion.
7 Q. This is an entry in the war log. Do you have it on your screen?
8 A. I don't have the 10th. I have it now.
9 Q. All right. After the 10th and 11th -- rather, after the 10th of
10 November, who was in command of the Petrova Gora TO detachment and who was
11 the commander of the Leva Supoderica detachment, and under whose control
12 were they after the 10th of November, 1991, following the fall of Milovo
13 Brdo that you spoke of?
14 A. After the 10th of November, there followed a decision of the
15 commander of OG South. That was on the 14th of November. The decision
16 was sent to detachment commanders and to their subordinate commanders.
17 And from the 14th onwards, they could have been either under the control
18 of the commander of OG South, because that was the decision taken by the
19 commander of OG South, to split JOD 1 and the 1st Motorised Battalion. So
20 they could have been either under his command or under the command of the
21 commander of the 1st Motorised Battalion, given that, in the first order
22 dated the 1st of October, 1991, an order issued by the commander of the
23 Guards Brigade, it was precisely him who was appointed commander of JOD
24 1. And he said himself: "They were under my command, under my control,
25 up until the 18th of November."
1 Q. Thank you. At any point in time - I'm deliberately referring to
2 these dates from the 10th of November to the 18th of November - the
3 Petrova Gora and Leva Supoderica detachments, were they under -- at any
4 time, under the command or any sort of control of Miroslav Radic?
5 A. In my view, no.
6 Q. Thank you. Today, my learned friend asked you about statements
7 that you quoted. My question is: You mentioned quoting documents as
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you use the war log and the operations log? Rather, I'm
11 interested in -- not in hearing whether you quoted them but whether you
12 used them.
13 A. Yes. I was waiting for the transcript to complete.
14 Q. Did you also consult decisions and orders, combat reports, and
15 everything else comprising military documentation?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. If a statement is consistent with military
18 documentation and other documents used by you, did you also quote a part
19 of that statement -- part of that witness statement?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. And if a witness statement is not corroborated by
22 military or other documentation, did you quote such a statement in your
24 A. No.
25 Q. Does this mean that the statements of Major Tesic put to you by my
1 learned friend were not quoted by you precisely for those reasons?
2 Because they were not corroborated --
3 MR. WEINER: I object. This is a cross-examination --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
5 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this is a cross-examination, not a
6 redirect examination.
7 JUDGE PARKER: You are certainly, Mr. Borovic, going beyond what
8 is proper in form for re-examination.
9 MR. BOROVIC: Okay. [Interpretation] All right. Let's leave it
10 for the Trial Chamber to rule on this ultimately.
11 Q. Would you please answer this: My learned friend read out to you a
12 statement on page 12.620, line 14. I'm going to read to you 12.620, line
13 21, where Captain Radic says:
14 "In order to protect data and communication systems, I was the
15 sole person doing that. That means that every night, following the
16 completion of daily activities, I would go to a separate room and draw a
17 system of communications for each squad commander, using codes of
18 different colours and geographical terms, and so on."
19 Does this pertain to tasks and plans, what I just read out, as my
20 learned friend asked you; or does this pertain exclusively to the system
21 of communication between Radic and his platoon and squad commanders?
22 A. It pertains, first and foremost, to communication.
23 Q. All right. Thank you. To my learned friend's question, you said
24 as follows: "Captain Radic received tasks, as did commanders of Petrova
25 Gora and Leva Supoderica TO detachments. If this is what the commander
1 said, then yes, I do believe it."
2 Which commander did you have in mind? Because it wasn't clear
3 from the transcript.
4 A. I meant the commander of JOD 1, that is to say, the 1st Motorised
6 Q. You used footnotes where you quoted statements by Tesic. Since my
7 learned friends have this, I would like to turn now to footnote 54. I
8 read all of these footnotes to the deputy commander of the battalion, and
9 he replied to footnotes 54, 56, 66, 68, 86 and 90.
10 When it comes to positions given in these footnotes in your
11 report, do you still stand by them?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. This is a reference that the Chamber will verify, and,
14 as I said, I covered all of these footnotes with the deputy of Major
16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] We no longer have the war log on our
17 screens - could we please put it back - the entries made by Slavko
18 Stijakovic, and this is Exhibit 807, dated the 10th of -- it won't take me
19 long, Your Honours.
20 Q. Globally speaking - and you had this when you were drawing your
21 report - does it say anywhere, from the 10th of November onwards, do you
22 see in this war log of the 1st Motorised Battalion that Petrova Gora and
23 Leva Supoderica detachments are mentioned anywhere? Are they mentioned
24 anywhere between the 10th and 18th of November?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Would you now please turn to the 10th of November. Does it say
2 there: "Based on the previous plan of attack, the battalion conducted an
3 operation and captured Milovo Brdo, the last important feature in the axis
4 of attack of the battalion"? Is this correct?
5 A. That's what it says here.
6 Q. Based on the topic of your report, is this consistent with your
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour. That's outside of the
10 cross-examination. He's repeating examination-in-chief at this point.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. I don't recall any cross-examination on this
12 point. Have I forgotten it, Mr. Borovic, or ...
13 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to remind my learned
14 friend that he cross-examined the witness precisely about the events from
15 the 10th to the 18th. It was definitely covered in cross-examination. I
16 noted it down. That's why I wanted to check with the witness which parts
17 he used for his report. If you believe that this is irrelevant for
18 redirect, then I can withdraw this question.
19 JUDGE PARKER: At the moment, I've not yet caught up with the
20 connection. It may be there, but I don't see it. Either you explain it
21 more or move on.
22 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] When the witness was examined about
23 JOD 1 and whether members of the 1st Motorised Battalion were within the
24 composition of JOD 1, and when this expert was examined, it was suggested
25 then -- it was suggested to the witness that members of the Petrova Gora
1 and Leva Supoderica detachments, during this period of time referred to in
2 the log, were together with the 3rd Motorised Company of Captain Radic.
3 This is precisely why I asked whether they were mentioned anywhere and
4 whether, between the 10th and 18th, they are recorded as being on the same
5 axis, and whether Captain Radic and his company was, throughout that whole
6 time, in the sector of Milovo Brdo or whether he was someplace else
7 defined as the axis of operation of JOD 1.
8 We can go and check the entries from the 10th to the 18th and then
9 ask whether it says anywhere else that the 3rd Company of Miroslav Radic
10 moved anywhere else from the sector of Milovo Brdo.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
12 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I have concluded this particular
13 topic, Your Honours. Thank you. Thank you for your understanding, Your
15 Q. Miroslav Radic gave evidence before this Chamber. He explained
16 many things and I will now turn to only part of his evidence concerning
17 the order of Borivoje Tesic, for which he says he received it on the 19th
18 of November via a Motorola.
19 Miroslav Radic also stated that -- I beg your pardon.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
21 MR. WEINER: Again, that was not raised on cross-examination, Your
23 JUDGE PARKER: I thought it was.
24 MR. WEINER: Not with this witness.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I thought you put very specifically that the only
1 written order was two days later.
2 MR. WEINER: No, no. Now they're into going to the hospital
3 pursuant to an order via Motorola, an oral order by Borislav [sic] Tesic
4 on the 19th to go to the hospital. That's outside of ...
5 JUDGE PARKER: I agree a Motorola has been mentioned, but at the
6 moment there's no identification of the order being the hospital order.
7 MR. WEINER: It's the 19th of November.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Except from you.
9 MR. WEINER: As soon as we hear "19th of November via Motorola,"
10 that's what they've been arguing through witness after witness.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Borovic, are we talking to the order to go
12 to the hospital or the order for resubordination, both of which were noted
13 by this witness as being on the 19th of November.
14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I was going
15 to leave it for the end, about the hospital and resubordination. What I
16 wanted to turn to now is the order that Miroslav Radic received via a
17 Motorola from Major Borivoje Tesic. He said that and the Prosecutor
18 claimed that he had not received that order but rather than Captain Sasa
19 Bojkovski received a verbal order. This is why I want to put to the
20 expert witness something he didn't have before; namely, the testimony of
21 the accused about which he was cross-examined by the Prosecution claiming
22 that he did not receive an order from Major Tesic but rather that
23 Bojkovski received. And this has to do with the order of Tesic as to who
24 was securing the hospital from the outside, and that's quite important.
25 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I was just going to say, I haven't
1 raised that with this witness; I've raised it with others.
2 JUDGE PARKER: I do not, at the moment, Mr. Borovic, recall this
3 point being raised in cross-examination by Mr. Weiner of this witness.
4 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the part that was shown
5 the witness by my learned friend to the effect that, outside the hospital,
6 on the 19th of November, he was with Bojkovski on behalf of the 1st
7 Assault Group securing the hospital, and that Radic came from the other
8 side of the hospital. That's what I'm trying to say, what Radic said in
9 relation to that. Page 20 and page 37, my colleagues are telling me.
10 Because that's contrary to what Tesic is saying, exactly the opposite.
11 But if you think I'm now evaluating evidence, no problem. I suppose, I'm
12 sure ...
13 JUDGE PARKER: I'm going to be with you this time, Mr. Borovic,
14 because you've reminded me enough of one passage of cross-examination, so
15 go ahead.
16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 Q. So, if this is what Radic stated, if he said that they were always
18 on the same channel of these Motorolas, the question is: What about the
19 other company commanders? If the Motorolas were on the same channel all
20 the time, would they not have been able to hear Major Borivoje Tesic's
21 order for Captain Radic to go and secure the hospital on the 19th of
23 A. Certainly, yes, as long as the channel was the same.
24 Q. And now more for what my learned friend from the OTP really want
25 to know about.
1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have paragraph 63 of
2 Tesic's statement? Because that's the one that I'm invoking. Can the OTP
3 please track that down.
4 Q. Paragraph 63 reads as follows, and this is Tesic's statement, a
5 statement given by Borivoje Tesic to the OTP:
6 "What I remember as being on the 19th or the 20th of November,
7 1991 (I can't remember the exact date) are the daily briefings in the
8 evening in relation to the combat operations. At the command post of OG
9 South, in Negoslavci, at about 1800 hours, the commander of OG South,
10 Colonel Mile Mrksic, issued a verbal order to resubordinate the Vukovar
11 TO. Mrksic's verbal order was to the effect that the Vukovar TO would now
12 cease to be subordinate to the Guards Brigade but would continue to be
13 subordinate to the 80th Motorised Brigade, as well as the fact that the
14 order would take effect immediately. That same evening, been 8.00 and
15 9.00, I informed my own company commanders and conveyed this order to
17 Mr. Forca, have you heard what I just read out to you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you please comment on that?
20 A. Your Honours, the process of the work of commands is something
21 that we commented upon sufficiently yesterday. I will just briefly repeat
22 what I said yesterday. Whenever there's a written order, a written
23 command or any other sort of order, it must be preceded by a decision.
24 The way this statement has now been read back to me, the statement made by
25 the commander of the 1st Battalion, the portion read back to me by
1 Mr. Borovic, this means that the commander of OG South decided, and later
2 confirmed this in writing, that what was indicated there would be carried
3 out, that is, the resubordination of the TO units.
4 Q. Thank you. Additionally, you said under the command and control
5 of the commander of the 1st Assault Detachment, until the 18th of November
6 - that's what you said - when the need ceased for JOD 1 to continue to
7 exist. There were only the Petrova Gora TO detachment and the Leva
8 Supoderica TO detachment left. If Mrksic gave a verbal order to Major
9 Tesic saying now that he nothing more to do with the Vukovar TO, would
10 that not mean that he, too, after the 18th, ceased to have any sort of
11 control over the Leva Supoderica and Petrova Gora TO detachments?
12 MR. WEINER: Objection.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
14 MR. WEINER: That's a speech, as well as leading, and it's also
15 outside of the cross.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I won't enter into the last part, but there is a
17 lot of leading and it is rather a discursive way of approaching a
18 question, Mr. Borovic.
19 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Between the 18th and the evening of the 19th or possibly the
21 20th - unless the witness cannot remember exactly - who has control over
22 the Leva Supoderica and Petrova Gora TO detachments?
23 A. If there was a verbal communication by the OG commander to the
24 effect that the above-mentioned TO detachments were not under the command
25 of the commander of the 1st Battalion, it would have been possible for
1 them to be under his command; or they were somewhere on the ground, under
2 the command of their own commanders, the commanders of those detachments.
3 Q. Thank you. Which commanders do you have in mind?
4 A. I mean Lancuzanin and Vujevic.
5 Q. Thank you. If, at the point, the commander of the Vukovar TO
6 existed at all, would he not have been in command of those two
8 A. Indeed, he would have.
9 Q. All right. Thank you. Just to wrap this up. My learned friend
10 was asking you questions about some matters that were of a rather legal
11 nature. I won't be going that far. There is no doubt that a crime
12 occurred in the Ovcara area. In your opinion, if this was indeed his area
13 of responsibility, do you think the commander of the 80th Motorised
14 Brigade would have been responsible in any way at all?
15 MR. WEINER: I object, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 MR. WEINER: Is he asking for legal responsibility? Criminal
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, if there is a deficiency there, is
20 that not in the questions that you put?
21 MR. WEINER: I asked for the role of a commander. If he wants to
22 ask for a role of a commander in that position ...
23 JUDGE PARKER: I hadn't understood this in any other sense.
24 MR. WEINER: I hope the witness understands it in that sense, Your
1 JUDGE PARKER: I think the witness well understands. Thank you,
2 Mr. Weiner.
3 Carry on, Mr. Borovic.
4 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
5 Q. You were talking about the town command. If, in an area where the
6 town commander exists, and in this case it's Ovcara, would it not be the
7 town commander being the one bearing responsibility for any crime
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What about in the units subordinate to the town commander? Under
11 the assumption that they happen to be in the area when a crime was in the
12 offing, so to speak, there were prisoners being mistreated and, according
13 to some, even killed, would the town commander not have been duty-bound to
14 put a stop to any activity? Would he not have been duty-bound to inform
15 someone, a military authority?
16 A. Yes, insofar as he had the power to put a stop to anything like
17 that going on, he would have been duty-bound. If he did see all these
18 things going on, he was required to stop it. If, indeed, he was unable to
19 stop it, then he should have asked his superior for someone to stop it.
20 Q. What if the commander of the 80th Motorised Brigade said, "I found
21 about the crime at Ovcara only the following day"? Would he still have
22 been required to inform someone to report this crime or take any steps at
24 A. We've gone through that. According to the regulations, and we've
25 read them back several times, the answer is yes.
1 Q. While you were working on your report, did you come across any
2 document at all about the military disciplinary or legal responsibility,
3 or steps, disciplinary steps, being taken about anyone from the 80th
4 Kraljevic Motorised Brigade?
5 A. No. I never came across anything to indicate that.
6 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Forca, thank you very much for
7 your answers.
8 Your Honours, this concludes my re-examination of the witness.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.
11 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I wasn't sure if I should wait for
12 the witness to leave, since we have two brief matters to raise. The first
13 one is the OTP motion and the other thing is ...
14 JUDGE PARKER: May we thank you, Professor, for the evidence that
15 you've given, your report, and for your preparedness to come here and
16 assist in this trial.
17 You will be pleased to know that you may now return to your other
18 occupation. And we would like to thank you for taking the trouble to be
19 with us. The court officer will show you out. Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honours.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Borovic.
23 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
24 My appearance might become tiresome for you, since I'm springing
25 to my feet all the time these days. It is for that reason that I have the
1 following proposal to make: I think it should be Ms. Tapuskovic who will
2 be informing about all these things and who will be tendering 92 bis
3 statements by two witnesses. This is the last I have to say today, and
4 again, I thank you.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic.
6 Ms. Tapuskovic.
7 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
8 Good afternoon to all.
9 A few days ago we noted that we would be doing this now, just in
10 order to round off our witnesses.
11 As you know, we filed a motion for the statements of two witnesses
12 to be tendered under Rule 90 bis (2)(E); that is because of the nature of
13 these statements. The OTP says they would not oppose these statements
14 being admitted and, additionally, that they would not be needing to
15 cross-examine these two witnesses. After that, the Chamber ruled that
16 these statements should be marked for identification until they were
17 certified under Rule 92 bis. The ruling is dated the 28th of September,
18 this current year. After that, the court officer, on the 3rd of October,
19 in Belgrade, obtained the relevant certificates. The declarations were
20 made thereby meeting the last condition under Rule 92 bis.
21 You have had these statements available to you for a long time
22 now, as well as in the e-court system. As for witness Misko Gunjaca -
23 this is 65 ter witness, number 6 in the e-court - the document, or rather,
24 his statement in the original, in B/C/S, bears the following number:
25 2D15-0001. The translation is 2D15-0008.
1 As for 65 ter witness number 7, Zvonimir Zugaj, the number for the
2 B/C/S is 2D15-0013 and the reference for the English is 2D15-0020.
3 Unless the Prosecution have something new to raise - I think we
4 would have had advance notice of that, though - and given the fact that
5 the Radic Defence case is nearing its conclusion, I move that these two 92
6 bis statements be admitted into evidence.
7 JUDGE PARKER: They are each marked for identification at the
8 present time.
9 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, pursuant to your
10 own ruling dated the 28th of September, these were marked for
11 identification until a certificate was obtained under Rule 92 bis (B),
12 indeed, the numbers I've given you, the two numbers. But we don't have
13 the MFI numbers, if that's what you mean. We just used your own ruling
14 which was delivered to us on the 28th, stating --
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE PARKER: That's right. They will each be admitted, then.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. The 92 bis statement of
18 witness Misko Gunjaca will become Exhibit 813, while the 92 bis statement
19 of Zvonimir Zugaj will become Exhibit 814.
20 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Yesterday, as had been announced, the Radic Defence filed
22 yesterday a motion seeking to admit into evidence documents mentioned on
23 the 65 ter list that was submitted to the Court on the 12th of July. Some
24 of the exhibits from that 65 ter list were admitted in the course of the
25 Defence case, as witnesses were being heard. Witnesses testified about
1 some of these exhibits, especially the last four. We did not include in
2 our new table for admission the last four exhibits from our 65 ter list.
3 As for the remaining documents listed in this table, which you will find
4 attached to our motion, all these are in relation to witnesses who were
5 heard during our case.
6 Yesterday and today, I was told by my friends from the OTP that
7 they would pronounce a position on that motion within the deadline
8 envisaged by the rules. Now, one thing that I'm not sure about is if the
9 Chamber believes additional explanations are needed in relation to that
10 subject, or would the Chamber prefer to wait for the OTP to give their own
11 position within the time envisaged? Of course, we would like to have
12 their position as soon as possible rather than wait for the expiry of
13 their deadline.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] If possible, we would like to
16 have their position today, since what was originally announced was that
17 there would be an oral submission about this on their part.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, are you in a position to deal with
19 these today, the motion filed yesterday.
20 MR. WEINER: Mr. Lunny has been handling that, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lunny.
22 MR. LUNNY: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution is not in a
23 position to, today, counter my friend's position.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. The Chamber has in mind, Mr. Lunny,
25 that instead of the prescribed 14 days, that you should file your response
1 within 7.
2 MR. LUNNY: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Is that within your capacity?
4 MR. LUNNY: Yes, Your Honour, it is. Thank you.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good.
6 We need, Ms. Tapuskovic, to allow time for quite a number of
7 documents there to be looked at, so what we've done is to shorten the time
8 within which the Prosecution must respond to 7 days instead of the 14 days
9 allowed by the Rule.
10 The question, then, of the admission of those documents in your
11 motion will simply wait until the Prosecution responds, and if there is
12 any objection to any of the documents, we will either decide the matter on
13 what has been put before us in the motion and the response or else hear
14 further oral submissions, if they are needed, about any document.
15 Do I take it, then, that subject to that outstanding motion,
16 otherwise, the Defence case for Mr. Radic has now concluded?
17 MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The
18 answer is yes. With the leave of my colleague, I will be the one
19 informing the Trial Chamber that this concludes the Defence case of
20 Mr. Radic. We would like to thank the Trial Chamber for allowing us, or
21 rather, for granting this request to have the deadline for response
22 shortened so that we can know whether additional reply needs to be
23 prepared or not.
24 Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE PARKER: We thank you and your colleagues, Ms. Tapuskovic,
1 for the efficient conduct of the Defence case of Mr. Radic.
2 As previously indicated, we now adjourn until Wednesday, when the
3 Defence case of Mr. Sljivancanin will commence.
4 We adjourn now.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.17 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day of
7 October, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.