The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Case No.IT-96-21

  1. 1 Monday, 16th February 1998

    2 (10.00 am)

    3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Morning ladies and

    4 gentlemen. We are back in full force this morning.

    5 Can we have the appearances, please?

    6 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, please, my name is

    7 Niemann and I appear with my colleagues, Mr. Dixon,

    8 Ms. McHenry and Mr. Khan for the Prosecution.

    9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have the

    10 appearances for the Defence?

    11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Good morning, your Honours,

    12 I am Edina Residovic, counsel for Mr. Zejnil Delalic,

    13 together with my colleague, Eugene O'Sullivan,

    14 a professor from Canada. Thank you.

    15 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honour; I am

    16 Olujic, Defence counsel of Mr. Zdravko Mucic, together

    17 with my colleague, Mr. Michael Greaves. Thank you very

    18 much.

    19 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning your Honour, I am

    20 Mr. Karabdic, counsel for Mr. Delic. Mr. Delic is also

    21 represented by my colleague, Mr. Thomas Moran from

    22 Huston, Texas. Thank you.

    23 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, your Honour,

    24 I am John Ackerman and I appear here with Cynthia

    25 McMurrey on behalf of Esad Landzo. Thank you.

  2. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

    2 Mr. Moran, you are still cross-examining.

    3 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour, if you give me

    4 a second while he is coming in, to organise myself.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: May we have the

    6 witness?

    7 (The witness entered court)

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Please remind the

    9 witness that he is still on his oath.

    10 THE REGISTRAR: I remind you, sir, that you

    11 are still under oath.

    12 A. I am so reminded.

    13 DR. GOW (continued)

    14 Cross-examined by MR. MORAN (continued).

    15 Q. Good morning, Dr. Gow. Did you have a good

    16 weekend?

    17 A. I had a pleasant weekend, thank you.

    18 Q. Did you go home or were you here?

    19 A. I went home.

    20 MR. MORAN: I wish I could, I am jealous.

    21 I have got a couple more documents I would

    22 like to let you have with a little help from the usher,

    23 three more documents and we will talk about them in

    24 just a -- let us get them passed out. (Handed).

    25 Professor, if you are looking at the first

  3. 1 one, the document number is S/23900, I am going to

    2 refer you to paragraphs 1 and paragraphs 24 in

    3 a second, so...

    4 Okay, if I could have the exhibit numbers on

    5 these?

    6 THE REGISTRAR: The first one is document

    7 D20/3, the second one D21/3, and the third one, D22/3.

    8 MR. MORAN: Okay. Fine. Thank you very

    9 much.

    10 Professor, the first one in D20/3 which is

    11 the document dated 12 May, I refer you to paragraph 1,

    12 right after the footnote 1. There is a statement by the

    13 Secretary-General:

    14 "Mr. Goulding was in Yugoslavia (a term which

    15 for the purposes of the present report is used to

    16 signify the Republics of the former Socialist Federal

    17 Republic of Yugoslavia)."

    18 Would you not agree with me that that is an

    19 indication that the Secretary-General agrees with your

    20 feeling, that the Socialist Federal Republic of

    21 Yugoslavia had ceased to exist by 12 May?

    22 A. I am not sure that it is my feeling that it

    23 ceased to exist, but certainly my judgement that it

    24 ceased to exist.

    25 Q. Your judgement?

  4. 1 A. Yes. I think that there is little doubt that

    2 for most people that is the case.

    3 Q. And if you look at paragraph 24 you will see

    4 the phrase, "the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia".

    5 Again, would you agree with me that that is an

    6 indication that the Secretary-General agrees with you

    7 that the SFRY had ceased to exist by that date?

    8 A. I think that can be taken as an

    9 acknowledgement that the SFRY had ceased to exist by

    10 that date, although, as we were discussing on Friday,

    11 we had a number of similar cases. That does not

    12 necessarily mean that all the issues are tidied up. It

    13 is the difference between a dead body and the estate

    14 being sorted out for many years afterwards.

    15 Q. I understand that. The next document is

    16 D/21/3...

    17 A. Which is which date?

    18 Q. 27 July.

    19 A. Thank you.

    20 Q. I call your attention to paragraph 19 first.

    21 Again, we are talking about the Federal

    22 Republic of Yugoslavia and here we are talking about

    23 international borders between Serbia and the Republic

    24 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    25 A. I think... I think I follow your drift, and

  5. 1 in general I think you are right, but I think that you

    2 have actually phrased it incorrectly because this

    3 question about the international borders is the

    4 international borders within the protected area of

    5 Croatia in the previous sentence, rather than a direct

    6 reference to Serbia because, of course, in Belgrade's

    7 and the outside world's terms generally the

    8 international border would not be with Yugoslavia but

    9 with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    10 Q. Right. That would indicate again that there

    11 is a new nation floating around out there, the FRY that

    12 has international borders?

    13 A. I take that as recognition of the fact that

    14 the declaration we referred to in the previous document

    15 of 27 April has taken place and that as a matter of

    16 fact the existence of Serbia Montenegro as a common

    17 entity has been accepted.

    18 Q. And now let me --

    19 A. But without prejudice to the legal issues.

    20 Q. Sure. Let me direct your attention to

    21 D/22/3. Now, just so you know what this is and where

    22 this came from, there is a volume that is published by

    23 the United Nations every year called, "Resolutions and

    24 Decisions of the Security Council", and what I did was

    25 copy the front page so you knew where it came from and

  6. 1 then copied various pages in between. It is not,

    2 believe me, a full copy.

    3 A. No, I have no problems with that.

    4 Q. Okay. Let me --

    5 A. Just as a matter of interest, what is it that

    6 is deleted?

    7 Q. It says, "official record", and it is not

    8 deleted, it was highlighted on the original.

    9 A. Such is technology.

    10 Q. Well, just so you know, there is one

    11 depositories library for the United Nations where

    12 I come from and this came from their library.

    13 Let me direct your attention to page 22 in

    14 here. On page 22, down at the bottom, or excuse me, in

    15 the right-hand column, there is a paragraph about

    16 halfway down which says:

    17 "At the same meeting, following consultations

    18 held earlier with members of the Security Council, the

    19 President made the following statement."

    20 Have you found that? I direct your attention

    21 to the following portions of the statement, where the

    22 President of the Security Council, after conversing

    23 with the members of the Council, talked about centres

    24 within the territory of the Former Yugoslavia and

    25 especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina; again, would that not

  7. 1 lend support to your position that by the date of this,

    2 which would be 4 August 1992, that the Security Council

    3 had found that the Socialist Federal Republic of

    4 Yugoslavia had ceased to exist?

    5 A. I think the earlier documents, I mean, the

    6 4th August series of documents that we have seen before

    7 that confirm that by that date the judgement was that

    8 the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia had

    9 ceased to exist as a matter of fact.

    10 Q. And again on page 25, Resolution 771, there

    11 is expressing "grave alarm", that paragraph, again, the

    12 Former Yugoslavia?

    13 A. Again, the form, "Former Yugoslavia",

    14 appears, yes.

    15 Q. So, there is no doubt in your mind as an

    16 expert in the politics of the former Socialist Federal

    17 Republic of Yugoslavia and the areas that grew out --

    18 the states that grew out of it, that the Socialist

    19 Federal Republic ceased to exist as a nation, as

    20 a state, on April 27th 1992, at the latest.

    21 A. That would be my view. As I said, many

    22 times, at the latest. There was a process beginning in

    23 my judgement from 15th May when the Federation ceased to

    24 function. Now, that could -- depending on the analogy

    25 I used earlier could be that that was when it was kind

  8. 1 of -- when the body died, 27th April is when it was

    2 pronounced clinically dead, and after that there was

    3 a post mortem and then, continuing to this day,

    4 testations about the estate, including who gets what in

    5 the assets and what to do with the people. I mean,

    6 some of the issues, if I may be presumptuous, I assume

    7 from this that this relates to the questions of

    8 citizenship?

    9 Q. You are exactly right. We will get to that

    10 in a second.

    11 A. As I said, which was one of the issues left

    12 to be decided, in the declaration you showed me on

    13 Friday.

    14 Q. What, the declaration of April 27th?

    15 A. Yes, which said kind of until these are

    16 finally decided, the SFRY -- the Federal Republic of

    17 Yugoslavia, kind of something like continues to

    18 extend...

    19 Q. Comparable.

    20 A. Yes, this kind of thing, until it is finally

    21 decided.

    22 Q. Sure, but in fact when it comes to

    23 nationality, you have testified in the Tadic trial that

    24 the Republic of -- or the FRY and Republic of Serbia,

    25 never in any sense claimed that it had -- that the

  9. 1 Serbs were living outside the borders of the FRY

    2 were nationals of the FRY, as I recall. Did you not

    3 testify something along those lines?

    4 A. I do not recall precisely what I testified

    5 any more. Maybe if you have some specific reference

    6 I could be clear about what it is that I might have

    7 said.

    8 Q. Okay. You said, one of the areas where

    9 I have a note is, there was a question asked by Judge

    10 McDonald, and she said:

    11 "I am very concerned about how Serb people

    12 consider themselves, what state they consider

    13 themselves belonging to, and various other Republics."

    14 And you responded:

    15 "None of the constitutional provisions, nor

    16 indeed any of the constitutional documents to which we

    17 have made reference so far give any indication of

    18 a responsibility of the Republic of Serbia or the JNA

    19 for Serb people specifically outside the Republic of

    20 Serbia."

    21 A. That was an accurate statement. It could be

    22 amended by the discussion that we just had, reference

    23 to the document on FRY I am not sure how substantially

    24 it would amend the judgement. It is a distinction,

    25 again, between the formal technical position as set

  10. 1 down in some of those documents and of course

    2 recognising in the character of the way the Communist

    3 political -- the Communist politics worked, that a lot

    4 of the time you had to have this kind of mode of

    5 deception to disguise what your actual position was,

    6 but that was the formal position, as per that.

    7 Q. In fact, that is consistent with article 17

    8 of the constitution of the FRY, which we read Friday.

    9 A. I could not recall if it was article 17, but

    10 yes, it is consistent with material contained in that

    11 constitution.

    12 Q. And in fact, if I were to tell you that the

    13 FRY did not pass any kind of citizenship law until

    14 1996, and that that gave FRY nationality to all persons

    15 who were nationals of the SFRY and citizens of Serbia

    16 or Montenegro on 27 April 1992, you would not disagree

    17 with that, would you?

    18 A. I would find it hard to disagree with it in

    19 the absence of alternative material, and I do not

    20 profess to be an expert in these matters, but I would

    21 point out that it was my understanding that there were

    22 steps taken in 1993, and at a later date which might

    23 well have been in 1996, both of which regulated the

    24 issues of passports linked to citizenship and that

    25 perhaps the 1996 law is the one which makes it no

  11. 1 longer possible for people who were not citizens of

    2 Serbia or Montenegro at that time to become so, but in

    3 the interim certainly there were people who were

    4 citizens of other Republics who did, or who were

    5 treated as.

    6 I mean, for example, I think one of the

    7 former cases here, General Dukic, which case was set

    8 aside. General Dukic, as I understand it, was from

    9 Bosnia, as a Serb, but was an FRY citizen in Belgrade,

    10 so there are degrees of ambiguity. Again, part of this

    11 process of sorting out the elements in the period

    12 afterwards.

    13 Q. Okay, by the way, just so that you know the

    14 source of that statement I made, it is the third report

    15 on nationality in relation to the succession of states

    16 from the International Law Commission and it is dated

    17 28 February of last year.

    18 Coming back to the same subject, there is

    19 absolutely no question in your mind, is there, that the

    20 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the

    21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro

    22 are different legal entities?

    23 A. I would be cautious both as a non- -- I would

    24 be cautious in passing a judgement on that question,

    25 first because I am a non-lawyer, and secondly because

  12. 1 it is an outstanding issue as part of the succession

    2 talks, so I would have thought as a matter of fact,

    3 both legal and political, that is not yet confirmed,

    4 but I would say as a political fact that the SFRY and

    5 the FRY are not the same political entity, and that,

    6 because that is the case, is why Belgrade is laying

    7 claim to be the sole legal inheritor of the SFRY.

    8 Q. Okay. Going to another -- by the way, that

    9 has never been accepted by anybody, has it? It has

    10 never been accepted, for instance, by the United

    11 Nations, that the FRY is the sole successor state to

    12 the SFRY?

    13 A. I would hesitate to say it has not been

    14 accepted by anybody. I am not aware of its having been

    15 accepted by anybody. It is certainly not accepted by

    16 the parties to the succession talks, and it is not

    17 accepted in -- it is not accepted to the extent of the

    18 FRY's being admitted to full membership of the United

    19 Nations. One of the documents you had the other day

    20 referred to this, the question that, I think, one of

    21 the documents you showed me the other day? I think it

    22 was on something I have seen and maybe if not maybe it

    23 is something you are going to show to me. I mean it

    24 was one of the documents that I saw on Friday, either

    25 from you or the Prosecutor's Office, making precisely

  13. 1 the point that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could

    2 not automatically be seen as sole legal successor and

    3 inherit the seat of the SFRY, that it would have to

    4 apply for membership.

    5 Q. Actually, that would be Resolution 777 which

    6 is on page 34 of that document in front of you.

    7 A. Fine.

    8 Q. Now, let us switch to a different topic.

    9 You testified when Mr. Ackerman was talking to

    10 you, and my notes say it is something along the lines

    11 that your knowledge of the Konjic area, the specifics

    12 of what went on in the Konjic area were relatively

    13 limited. Is that because, and I am not trying to

    14 denigrate anything that happened there, but that in any

    15 war there are going to be some areas that are

    16 essentially a backwater, where important events as they

    17 effect history and the war itself are not occurring.

    18 Is that what Konjic was?

    19 A. Whether it was a backwater or not, I had not

    20 really considered before. It is conceivable that it

    21 could be interpreted in that way. I am not sure that

    22 I would or would not, without giving it greater

    23 reflection. I think what I would stress is that in

    24 making that comment to Mr. Ackerman I was recognising

    25 that I have a degree of expertise which operates

  14. 1 principally at the strategic operational level, and

    2 what you are talking about in Konjic is, as in any

    3 other specific location, a tactical situation and

    4 therefore I would see my role as matching that which

    5 I know about the overall strategic operational

    6 situation to material which I may be able to use

    7 regarding an area like Konjic.

    8 Q. And in fact one of the things you said to

    9 Mr. Ackerman was, the real basis of your knowledge is,

    10 I think, the exact quote is, "material I looked at

    11 here".

    12 I presume that is material shown to you by

    13 the Office of the Prosecutor?

    14 A. Yes, indeed.

    15 Q. What kinds of things did they show you?

    16 A. The kinds of documents that we have been

    17 discussing in the course of giving testimony, documents

    18 which I think, as I recall from before Christmas,

    19 Mr. Ackerman at some length raised the question of what

    20 were these documents and I think the Prosecutor pointed

    21 out that these were documents which had already been in

    22 evidence and had been used in various ways.

    23 Q. Sure.

    24 A. And I think I seem also to recall that I made

    25 the point that whilst I had been given several bundles

  15. 1 of the documents which had been used I had done my best

    2 to skim through and to try to identify things which,

    3 for the purposes of what I was being asked to testify

    4 to, might be of use. And I can quite readily admit

    5 that I have not exhaustively looked at all those

    6 bundles of documents.

    7 Q. I do not think any expert witness in the

    8 world ever has, and I am proud of you for being honest

    9 enough, for being one of the few experts who will admit

    10 that.

    11 Did they show you some transcripts and

    12 testimony from some generals of the Bosnian army,

    13 Generals Divjak and Pasalic?

    14 A. They did and I think we discussed this with

    15 Mr. Ackerman before Christmas.

    16 Q. Okay. When you were talking to him Friday,

    17 you were talking about chains of command and that it

    18 was not what you would expect in the -- in a regular

    19 armed force. I take it that is because at least the

    20 Bosnian army in the period we are talking about, May

    21 through August, September, October, of 1992, was in the

    22 process of forming and chains of command were pretty

    23 murky at best.

    24 A. I think that would be consistent with what

    25 I said before Christmas. It was a degree of -- it was

  16. 1 a degree in which the process of forming an overall

    2 regular armed force was taking place on the part of the

    3 authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that in that

    4 process there was always a degree of improvisation in

    5 some areas, but I think that still does not take away

    6 the point that within areas there would be degrees of

    7 command responsibility. There were structures that

    8 they were relying on, the elements of the Patriotic

    9 League, the nascent elements of the army linked between

    10 Patriotic League and Territorial Defence forces, the

    11 provisions of the old defence system, so there were

    12 elements, but the point I would make is that it was not

    13 a fully coherent regular command chain that you would

    14 see, for example, in the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina

    15 today.

    16 Q. But it surely is not what you would see in

    17 the Dutch army. There are not the same kinds of little

    18 boxes for tables of organisation and things like that.

    19 A. Well, I would make a distinction between the

    20 tables of organisation, because I suspect that people

    21 did have tables of organisation, but for some time,

    22 say, in the period towards the autumn of 1992, the

    23 boxes and the tables of organisation did not correspond

    24 with much of the reality.

    25 Q. They did not.

  17. 1 And in fact, two Bosnian generals who were on

    2 the scene at the appropriate -- at the times we are

    3 talking about, the May through December 1992 period,

    4 were to have looked at documents and looked at various

    5 things and based on their own experience said that they

    6 would be unable to say who commanded what, or -- the

    7 exact extent of the commander's authority, based on

    8 what they had within given and what they saw while they

    9 were there, they probably would be pretty right about

    10 that, would they not, that they could not tell?

    11 A. I would find that -- I would find it hard to

    12 make a firm judgement, without knowing, looking

    13 precisely at the example. I think it is reasonable

    14 that they would have some sense of the degree to which

    15 command authority would run in a particular area. It

    16 is not inconceivable that they might -- kind of the

    17 question raised on Friday -- have self-interest in

    18 presenting things in a certain way as well.

    19 I am quite happy with my own judgement, which

    20 is that there were degrees of authority being exercised

    21 and that there was a formal command authority which was

    22 emerging, and in reference to this particular case,

    23 that from a certain date it can be said that there was

    24 a formal command authority position, but that is...

    25 sorry.

  18. 1 Q. Okay, no, that is fine.

    2 Another thing you talked about, and this was

    3 back before Christmas, was the term, "coordinator", and

    4 if we can remember back that far...

    5 A. It is difficult.

    6 Q. I cannot remember what I had for lunch

    7 yesterday, so I understand where you are at, but you

    8 used an example with the term, "coordinator", comparing

    9 it to a position in the British army in the special

    10 operations executive during the war. Do you recall

    11 that?

    12 A. I do. I recall there was quite some

    13 discussion about the matter.

    14 (10.30 am)

    15 Q. And no army I am familiar with has a title,

    16 "coordinator". You may have various different things

    17 but you tend not to have coordinators. That seems to

    18 me to be kind of an ad hoc position.

    19 A. I think that is the point I was making

    20 precisely before Christmas, that it was not a normal,

    21 regular function, it was something which would only

    22 emerge in specific circumstances, and would be a role

    23 designed to meet those specific circumstances, so yes,

    24 ad hoc -- precisely.

    25 Q. And without knowing the exact circumstances

  19. 1 and the exact duties given to that coordinator, be it

    2 to your colonel in the special operations executive, or

    3 someone in -- pick an army. You would not know exactly

    4 what his duties, powers or authorities would be, would

    5 you? All you know would be the title.

    6 A. I think you would know the title and as I am

    7 sure I must have said in testimony before Christmas,

    8 the important thing is that if the coordinator is to

    9 have a meaningful role, then it has to be somebody who

    10 is able to have full knowledge and authority in

    11 circumstances where otherwise the specifics of the

    12 situation mean that the regular command chain is not

    13 going to operate, or there is not a regular command

    14 chain, it is an unusual, ad hoc situation. It is

    15 somebody who has the ability to be sure that all

    16 sides -- I mean the Hackett case, I mentioned the

    17 private armies, they would all talk to him, he would

    18 know everything that was going on and therefore would

    19 be able to use his personal authority to say, "you do

    20 this, you do not do that", and I think that is the

    21 essence of what I was trying to get across.

    22 The Hackett idea was an image. It is an

    23 analogy, rather like I was saying before about the dead

    24 body and the estate being sorted out afterwards. It is

    25 not to say that there is a precise correlation, but

  20. 1 that within it, if the term means anything, then it

    2 means somebody who has the abilities to deal with all

    3 parties concerned within that same broad site and would

    4 do so on the basis of having full knowledge and

    5 authority with those parties.

    6 MR. MORAN: But you have absolutely no idea --

    7 well, let me back off. If two generals in the Bosnian

    8 army said they had no idea what the powers and

    9 authorities of a coordinator were --

    10 MR. NIEMANN: Well, your Honour, I do not

    11 think we are assisted by these generalisations.

    12 I think if counsel wants to draw Dr. Gow's attention to

    13 what the General said, it would assist everybody if he

    14 could go to precisely the part of the evidence that he

    15 is referring to, and to put that to the witness.

    16 I mean, these generalisation lead us

    17 nowhere. I think it just leads to done confusion and

    18 in my submission, your Honours, it would be much

    19 better, if counsel wants to compare what the Generals

    20 said and wants to put that to Dr. Gow, then I would ask

    21 him to go to the specific part of the transcript and to

    22 read that transcript to the witness.

    23 MR. MORAN: Well, your Honour, I am not

    24 attempting to impeach either General Pasalic, General

    25 Divjak or Dr. Gow with the statements that the other one

  21. 1 had. What I am trying to get at is who was more likely

    2 to know specific powers and specific duties of people.

    3 Two general officers on the scene, or a very learned

    4 professor from the United Kingdom who, basically all he

    5 knows is what he has read. Is that a fair assessment?

    6 MR. NIEMANN: That is not the point, your

    7 Honour. The point is that there is --

    8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Excuse me. Actually,

    9 have you established that none of these witnesses has

    10 been able to tell who a coordinator is within the

    11 structure and the witness himself has not been able to

    12 tell you. I do not know what you are looking for

    13 here.

    14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, you have reached the

    15 point that I was getting to. I do not need to ask any

    16 more questions along that line and if I can --

    17 A. I am quite happy to answer the question.

    18 MR. MORAN: I think that the question has

    19 been answered to the court's satisfaction.

    20 Let me go through my note and see if there is

    21 anything else I would like to ask you.

    22 A. I mean, if I may...

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, unless you still

    24 have any confusion in your mind, let us hear what you

    25 think, what your answer is?

  22. 1 A. I think I have clarity in my mind as far as,

    2 as far as is possible in these circumstances and maybe

    3 if I can assist in sorting out the confusion, I think

    4 you need to be clear first that the term,

    5 "coordinator", had no precedent as far as I am aware

    6 in the Yugoslav military context, but therefore you

    7 could not expect anybody, necessarily, in the Yugoslav

    8 context, a Bosnian context, to have any knowledge of

    9 what, "coordinator", would mean. It would therefore

    10 not surprise me in the slightest to find Generals

    11 Divjak or Pasalic or any others saying, "Well, I have

    12 never come across this term before and I could not tell

    13 you exactly what it contained", I think it is possible

    14 to say that the term does have relevance and as far as

    15 I understand it, the term was adopted at the local

    16 level and being adopted at the local level it presents

    17 some questions, what can it mean, and what I am putting

    18 to you is that what it can mean is something of this

    19 kind, because it is that -- that is the way in which it

    20 would make sense, and I would say no more than that.

    21 Q. It can mean something different, then?

    22 A. I would say that it has to -- if it means

    23 anything, if it has real content in meaning, then it

    24 would have to be based on full knowledge and authority

    25 and my impression is that that is, as I described,

  23. 1 I think, before Christmas, from reading the things that

    2 I have seen, that, for example, Mr. Delalic did have

    3 a degree of personal authority you could get on. He

    4 could talk to the Croats and he could talk to his own

    5 people. It was useful in that way. He had money, he

    6 could do things, and I think in a sense that is where

    7 this derives from.

    8 Q. But you do not know what the job description

    9 was?

    10 A. Well, the job description was, as far as

    11 I recall from seeing things, was to procure arms, to

    12 coordinate between the HVO and the various Territorial

    13 Defence paramilitary Muslim groups, within that

    14 context, to make sure that people were all -- that

    15 lines between them were clear, that supplies as far as

    16 possible were available, and I think all if that is

    17 what you see confirmed when he becomes appointed as the

    18 tactical group commander in the first instance for the

    19 specifically assigned units and then in the quite

    20 unusual measure for all units in the Konjic area.

    21 Q. Again, if two general officers from the

    22 Bosnian army said they looked at the same orders you

    23 looked at and did not know what he commanded, you would

    24 not disagree with them, would you?

    25 A. I cannot disagree with what they say. If

  24. 1 they say they do not know something then presumably

    2 they do not know something, and I am not sure what they

    3 would mean if they were to have said that they did not

    4 know. It does seem to me that if you see a document

    5 saying that all units within a specified territorial --

    6 a specific delineated territory are under one person's

    7 command, and it is an order from the central command in

    8 Sarajevo, then that seems reasonable to suppose that

    9 all units in that sector are under that person's

    10 command. But of course, against that, as I pointed

    11 out, the realities of command authority also were that

    12 sometimes there was an apparent degree of

    13 insubordination within that structure, as I pointed

    14 out. These apparent arguments with Ramic.

    15 Q. Sure. It was -- the lines of authority were

    16 murky or muddled to say the least.

    17 A. I think the lines of authority were fairly

    18 clear. I think in this case one of the individuals was

    19 bucking the system a little bit, but that certainly is

    20 an impression, I cannot be certain about that because

    21 I do not have enough information, just an impression

    22 from the things that I have seen.

    23 Q. Okay.

    24 A. But it is clear from within that that the

    25 authority rested with the commanding officer, and that

  25. 1 the problem was not that he did not have the authority,

    2 but sometimes getting things done.

    3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We are getting a little

    4 confused now.

    5 Now, there are two situations. The situation

    6 when the gentleman was a coordinator, and the situation

    7 when he became a commander. Now, what all the generals

    8 have consistently said was that a coordinator had no

    9 command, as far as they were aware. This is what they

    10 have all said.

    11 A. Yes.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, I do not know

    13 whether that is also what you believe, from your

    14 analysis of the situation.

    15 A. I think -- let me try to be clear about this,

    16 that what I have been saying is that coordinator is

    17 not -- it is not a normal position and it is not

    18 a command function in a normal sense, but to be

    19 a coordinator would require some of the qualities that

    20 would be present in an officer commanding, that is to

    21 say full knowledge of what is going on, and to have the

    22 authority to get things done, but not in the terms of

    23 a formal regularised command structure which has, for

    24 example, the back-up of military law behind it to

    25 penalise those who disobey. I think it is a degree of

  26. 1 personal authority.

    2 My impression is that when Mr. Delalic is made

    3 commander in the area, it is precisely because, de

    4 facto, he has already been providing that role whilst

    5 designated coordinator but the term, "coordinator", is

    6 in part because of the ad hoc nature of the situation,

    7 that it has been improvised and in part because of the

    8 relationship with the HVO, it simply would not have

    9 been acceptable to appoint him and name him as

    10 commander because of the relationship between the

    11 Croats and the Muslims in the area as they were trying

    12 to coordinate joint defence operations. That is the

    13 impression that I have.

    14 MR. MORAN: Doctor, when you say, "personal

    15 authority", but it is not part of the command, the

    16 formal chain of command, would it be fair to say, to

    17 substitute the word, "influence", or something along

    18 that line where someone, rather than having the ability

    19 to court martial people and do whatever military

    20 commanders do, he just does it on his personal

    21 influence?

    22 A. I think --

    23 Q. The kinds of things that --

    24 A. Yes, I think that would be part of what I am

    25 saying, that he does not have -- precisely. He does

  27. 1 not have the ability to court martial people for not

    2 doing things, but he does have the positive ability

    3 through what might be influence, might be money, well

    4 money as a form of influence in that case, but

    5 whatever, to arrange things so that people are doing

    6 those -- carrying out activities which are more or less

    7 consistent, going in the same broad direction, rather

    8 than crossing lines, doing things which would be

    9 counter-productive.

    10 Q. Convince, cajole, negotiate?

    11 A. I would have thought all of those are part of

    12 the everyday life of an officer commanding and would be

    13 part of this role as well. I mean, a lot of it is

    14 based on character and personal authority. That is why

    15 people get to be officers commanding within the formal

    16 structures of an armed force as well because they show

    17 that they can -- they have qualities of leadership,

    18 organisation, even intuition, whatever. Those are the

    19 qualities which are relevant.

    20 Q. But your normal officer commanding, the

    21 commanding officer of the whatever infantry battalion

    22 has formal structures, where you are saying this

    23 coordinator probably did not. It was more of a ...

    24 A. I think I have acknowledged that -- several

    25 times -- that it was not a formal position in the sense

  28. 1 of a regular armed force and part of the command

    2 hierarchy. I mean, it was a formal position in that it

    3 was designated by the presidents -- by the chairman of

    4 the local war presidency, so politically it was

    5 a formal position but it is not one within that command

    6 hierarchy of an armed force.

    7 MR. MORAN: Okay. I pass the witness, your

    8 Honour. Thank you very much.

    9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much.

    10 Cross-examined by MS. RESIDOVIC

    11 Q. May it please the court, thank you.

    12 Good morning, Dr. Gow. My name is Edina

    13 Residovic, and I am Defence counsel for Mr. Zejnil

    14 Delalic. As I happen to be the last among the counsel

    15 to do the cross-examination, there are not many

    16 questions left for me to put to you that you have not

    17 already discussed. You will forgive me if, in the

    18 interests of clarification, I may go back to certain

    19 issues that have already been looked into, but which

    20 may not be quite clear to me as regards your

    21 understanding of them.

    22 A. I will forgive you anything.

    23 Q. Dr. Gow, in the course of the

    24 examination-in-chief, you said that you took

    25 a doctorate on a thesis about Yugoslavia.

  29. 1 A. I am sure I did, if I was asked, but it is

    2 the case anyway.

    3 Q. And on a number of occasions in response to

    4 questions put by the Prosecution, and my colleagues,

    5 you also said that in the last few years and on Friday

    6 you said for at least fifteen years, you have been

    7 focusing your studies on the military and political

    8 conditions in Yugoslavia.

    9 A. Broadly that is true, yes.

    10 Q. And today, again, you stated that it was your

    11 position that the Socialist Federal Republic of

    12 Yugoslavia was the last to cease to exist, that is on

    13 the 27th April 1992, on the day when the Federal

    14 Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed.

    15 Is it true, Dr. Gow, that on that date when

    16 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was proclaimed, the

    17 assembly of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia passed

    18 a constitution in which it indicated its official name,

    19 that is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Was that

    20 not so?

    21 A. Yes.

    22 Q. You are also aware, and in the course of the

    23 cross-examination you were shown a number of documents

    24 to that effect, that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

    25 as of that day, called itself by that new name, that is

  30. 1 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    2 A. Yes, that is the case, although we also saw

    3 some documents which showed that, as was much of the

    4 discussion earlier on, some issues continued. I was

    5 shown documents from Blanko Kostic where he was still

    6 using the language and speaking as though the old

    7 structures still existed but yes, formally that was the

    8 case.

    9 Q. Thank you. You have also stated your opinion

    10 on a number of Security Council resolutions, one of

    11 which was the Resolution of May 15th 1992. It is

    12 Resolution number 752. In that connection I should

    13 like to ask you, since I am certain that you are very

    14 familiar with its contents, could you confirm that by

    15 this Resolution of 15th May it was clearly asserted

    16 that the forces of the Yugoslav People's Army and

    17 elements of the Croatian army should withdraw from the

    18 territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Was

    19 that not so?

    20 A. That was so.

    21 Q. Yes. That was prescribed by point 3 of that

    22 Resolution, whereas point 4 provided also that the

    23 forces that would not withdraw had to be placed under

    24 the control, under the authority, of the government of

    25 Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that correct?

  31. 1 A. I think to be correct, both elements are

    2 contained within paragraph 4 which reads:

    3 "Demands also that those units of the

    4 Yugoslav People's Army and elements of the Croatian

    5 army now in Bosnia Herzegovina must either be withdrawn

    6 or be subject to the authority of the government of

    7 Bosnia and Herzegovina."

    8 But, I mean, taken together, the essential

    9 point is that units should be withdrawn or subject to

    10 the authority of the Bosnian government.

    11 Q. Yes. Thank you. And paragraph 5 says that

    12 all irregular forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina have to be

    13 disarmed and disbanded.

    14 A. That is the case.

    15 Q. This document has already been admitted into

    16 evidence, so there is no need for me to tender it.

    17 However, in connection with questions

    18 relating to this case, I should like to ask you whether

    19 you are aware that all the forces of the Yugoslav

    20 People's Army withdrew from the facilities in the town

    21 of Konjic by May 12th 1992.

    22 A. I cannot confirm that I know that, because

    23 I no longer recall. I do recall, without the specific

    24 date, I recall that JNA units withdrew at a relatively

    25 early stage in the armed conflict in Bosnia and

  32. 1 Herzegovina from the Konjic area and that this was

    2 treated as one of the initial big successes of the

    3 local defence courses, because precisely because the

    4 JNA had been, had withdrawn from barracks under

    5 control, and in one of the rare cases had withdrawn and

    6 left behind various forms of equipment and munitions.

    7 Q. In view of the fact that you testified to

    8 having seen many documents given to you by the

    9 Prosecution, then you could have found this statement

    10 in those documents, that is that after May 12th there

    11 were no remaining JNA forces in Konjic, so could you

    12 please confirm that, that this was certainly done

    13 before the deadline given by the main headquarters of

    14 the army of -- main headquarters of the JNA, that is

    15 before the deadline set by them.

    16 A. If the date was 12th May 1991, then that --

    17 then it would not have been the case that it was before

    18 the order which was on 4th May, but it would have been

    19 the case that that was completed before the completion,

    20 that the prescribed completion date on the 19th of May,

    21 so it was after the order, if it was the date. I have

    22 to say that I have looked at some of these documents in

    23 the autumn, and I am perhaps too far away from them to

    24 remember precise dates any more, but as long as nobody

    25 else contests the date, I am happy that that was the

  33. 1 one.

    2 Q. For the benefit of the transcript, Dr. Gow,

    3 I have been told that you said that by 12th or rather

    4 the 19th May 1991; perhaps this was a slip, either on

    5 your part or on the part of the interpreters, but the

    6 correct date is 1992, was it not?

    7 A. I am sorry, yes. It was my mistake. I did

    8 say 1991 just now. I now hear it, now you point out.

    9 Excuse me, I meant 1992. You are quite right.

    10 MS. RESIDOVIC: I apologise to you, Dr. Gow,

    11 since several documents were commented on, D21, D22/3,

    12 so I would like to verify whether these documents have

    13 been admitted into evidence as they were tendered by my

    14 learned friend.

    15 These were documents that Professor Gow

    16 discussed with my colleague Thomas Moran.

    17 MR. NIEMANN: As far as I know, your Honour,

    18 they have not been admitted -- your Honours, I was

    19 going to comment on that. I do not think that they were

    20 tendered. I do not have any objection, but I query

    21 whether Mr. Moran seeks to tender the whole contents of

    22 the documents. There are, in some cases, many pages in

    23 excess of anything that he referred to, and I think,

    24 your Honour, that it is appropriate that only those

    25 parts of the documents to which he took Dr. Gow should

  34. 1 be tendered in evidence, unless Mr. Moran would argue

    2 that the rest of it should be tendered. It seems to me

    3 that the parts that Dr. Gow were taken to should be

    4 admitted. I have no objection to that, but I do, at

    5 this stage, provisionally object to the rest of the

    6 documents.

    7 JUDGE JAN: Mr. Niemann, they are Resolutions

    8 of the Security Council, and they are public

    9 documents. We can take judicial notice of them in any

    10 case.

    11 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours can do that; except

    12 that I do not know to what other part of the documents

    13 they would seek to be used and it seems to me that,

    14 unless Mr. Moran would care to lay a foundation for the

    15 balance of them, then it is appropriate that only those

    16 parts of it which are referred to by Dr. Gow and

    17 referred to him by Mr. Moran should be admitted.

    18 MR. MORAN: Well your Honour, first, I did

    19 forget to tender them and I apologise to the Tribunal

    20 for that, and I will tender them, move them into

    21 evidence, and I would also ask the Trial Chamber to

    22 take judicial notice of them, as public documents of

    23 either the Secretary-General or of the Security Council

    24 which, of course, is the body that created the

    25 Tribunal, and is the superior body to the Tribunal.

  35. 1 MR. NIEMANN: Well, I do not really want to

    2 make a big issue out of this, but it seems to me that

    3 if your Honours are going to take judicial notice then

    4 there is no need to tender them at all.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually what

    6 constitutes international law are these things. This,

    7 I think, constitutes international law. It is

    8 material, in considering what is international law in

    9 this situation, I do not think we really care whether

    10 you tender them or not. Even if we found them ourselves

    11 we could have used them.

    12 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I am not offering

    13 them for the truth of the matter asserted there, I am

    14 just offering them that they are documents of the

    15 United Nations.

    16 JUDGE JAN: They are public documents.

    17 MR. MORAN: That is correct, your Honour, and

    18 that is all that they are being offered for. That is

    19 what the public documents say, not that the statements

    20 of fact made therein are true and correct.

    21 MR. NIEMANN: Well, on that basis I withdraw

    22 any objection I had.

    23 MS. RESIDOVIC: In that case, documents D20,

    24 and the others have been admitted, thank you.

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will formally admit

  36. 1 them. I think they should -- through you, they can

    2 still come.

    3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Very well. Thank you.

    4 Dr. Gow, I apologise once again for this short

    5 break. However, I should like to discuss with you some

    6 other issues. Since you specialise in political and

    7 military issues, beyond the territory of the Former

    8 Yugoslavia as well, I would like to ask you whether you

    9 are aware that in most European countries there is

    10 a prohibition on political organisation and activities

    11 of the political parties of other countries. For

    12 example, in England, the Communist Party of the Soviet

    13 Union, or the Serb Socialist Party, et cetera. Are

    14 you aware of that?

    15 A. I have to say that I think in the United

    16 Kingdom, whilst there would be -- would have previously

    17 been a proscription on membership, not only on

    18 membership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

    19 but possibly within the Communist Party of Great

    20 Britain within the armed forces, in general there is no

    21 proscription on membership of political parties and

    22 I think there would be no political question. I think

    23 the question just has not arisen as to whether it

    24 should be a political party from one country or many

    25 others, in other countries that proscript membership of

  37. 1 a political party in Germany is quite normal and

    2 accepted as part of the civilianisation of the system.

    3 In some other countries it is wholly unacceptable.

    4 I think there is not one single message which you can

    5 give on that question.

    6 Q. Dr. Gow, maybe my question was not clear

    7 enough. According to the constitution and the law of

    8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, even before the war and after the

    9 war there is a proscription on the operation on its

    10 territory of parties of third countries, regardless of

    11 the parties that are free to operate as parties of

    12 their country, so my question is, are you aware that

    13 what I know is true of my country, applies to the

    14 majority of other countries, that a political party of

    15 a third country is not allowed to engage in political

    16 activity or to be organised in a foreign country. That

    17 is something I am asking you to confirm.

    18 A. I hesitate to get bogged down in this, but

    19 I think it would depend on what you mean by, "political

    20 activity". Two things, I think, are the case. One is

    21 that in my own country and most other of the, say, for

    22 example, the EU member states of which I am aware,

    23 political activist members of parties from one country

    24 can go to another country and may make speeches/hold

    25 rallies. It is also the case that they might then

  38. 1 separately also constitute a political party, for

    2 example, within the United Kingdom, which is somehow

    3 connected, a branch of that party, but which is

    4 a different party. Maybe I am struggling to understand

    5 what it is that you want from me.

    6 JUDGE JAN: Perhaps England is a wrong

    7 example. She is probably talking about the continent.

    8 A. As far as I am aware that is also the case

    9 in --

    10 JUDGE JAN: England has a different

    11 tradition altogether.

    12 A. Perhaps my country -- I think I probably

    13 acknowledge that the UK generally is an exception to

    14 many rules but in this case, I think that the same

    15 applies when it comes to all the member states of the

    16 European Union. I would not state that categorically

    17 without looking into it closely, but I think it is in

    18 the nature of the European Union that something like

    19 that is the case.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: But are you aware of

    21 such a constitutional provision in the constitution of

    22 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    23 A. I think that is a separate question. I was

    24 not asked was I aware of that --

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think they are tied

  39. 1 together.

    2 A. I think the question as I --

    3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you are aware of

    4 that, then that question follows.

    5 A. Okay. Then yes, but I thought the question

    6 was, is the rest of Europe the same as Bosnia and

    7 Herzegovina, to which I was answering, "no", basically,

    8 but that is... sorry.

    9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Obviously, the way that the

    10 question was put may have caused some confusion. May

    11 I try once again to establish understanding with what

    12 I am asking and what you are answering, namely, all

    13 that you have said, that someone with certain political

    14 convictions from England or another country may act in

    15 England or another country, I find that clear.

    16 I belong to a party in my state, and I come here in

    17 Holland and I am free to express my political

    18 convictions. But probably, according to the

    19 constitution and law of The Netherlands, I would not be

    20 allowed to form a branch of my party from

    21 Bosnia-Herzegovina here, to engage in political

    22 activity. So these are two different things. One

    23 thing is my human right and freedom to express and

    24 voice my political convictions wherever I wish, but

    25 I am asking, are you aware that this other thing is

  40. 1 prohibited, that is for me to come here and form

    2 a party of Bosnia-Herzegovina and to act and be active

    3 here, and struggle for the aims of that party of

    4 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

    5 (11.00 am)

    6 A. I am not aware that that is the case. I am

    7 not an expert in Netherlands electoral or party

    8 registration law. I would be surprise if it were not

    9 possible to organise a party for those purposes in The

    10 Netherlands, perhaps not for you as a non-citizen to do

    11 it but I am not sure what to say, but...

    12 MS. RESIDOVIC: Though my question is, foreign

    13 citizens in a country would not be allowed to organise

    14 political parties of a foreign country. Can you

    15 confirm that?

    16 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, Dr. Gow, I think,

    17 has assisted as much as he possibly can. I think he

    18 has expressed his reservations and the extent of his

    19 knowledge on this, and I do not think -- I think it is

    20 flogging a dead horse to go any further on this issue.

    21 MS. RESIDOVIC: I thank my learned colleague

    22 Mr. Niemann, but I think that Dr. Gow can answer, whether

    23 he is able to answer or not, any question put to him,

    24 so I would like to ask Mr. Gow to answer my question.

    25 A. I think I have been making clear that I do

  41. 1 not feel particularly qualified to answer these

    2 questions, but as far as I have understanding of them,

    3 I think it is not impossible. What I said before was

    4 that it would not certainly be the case that somebody,

    5 for example, yourself, you could come here and organise

    6 a political party. I do not know whether that would be

    7 the case or not. I would not exclude the possibility.

    8 I know of people in the United Kingdom, where that kind

    9 of thing has happened, so again, it is difficult. My

    10 familiarity is more with the electoral system in the UK

    11 than in The Netherlands, but...

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I just want to know

    13 what counsel is about. Are you suggesting that because

    14 of the constitutional provision in Bosnia-Herzegovina

    15 no political party of a separate country can be

    16 established in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is that your

    17 question?

    18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes. A political party,

    19 shall we say, the De Gaullists of France cannot form

    20 a party in Bosnia-Herzegovina by French people, by

    21 foreign citizens. The citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina

    22 may form such a party.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose, I do not see

    24 the difficulty in answering that question, whether,

    25 according to their constitution...

  42. 1 A. I do not see any difficulty in answering that

    2 question either, as I think I already have done, your

    3 Honour, which is to say that I would agree with that

    4 proposition.

    5 MS. RESIDOVIC: I am satisfied. Thank you.

    6 However, let me ask you something else, which is

    7 probably much closer to your expertise.

    8 You know that in the majority of European

    9 countries there are many foreign citizens and would you

    10 agree that in most of those European countries cultural

    11 organisations of those foreigners is permitted. They

    12 may form clubs, cultural associations, and societies.

    13 You are familiar with that fact, I think, and can

    14 confirm it.

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. May we now go back to your work on questions

    17 related to the Former Yugoslavia and

    18 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    19 During the examination-in-chief and later you

    20 said that the testimony you gave before this Tribunal

    21 was based in the first place on your personal research,

    22 regarding the Former Yugoslavia, on your global

    23 understanding of world conditions in the world in

    24 Europe and in that area. Was that not so?

    25 A. I suppose it must have been. Again, I do not

  43. 1 recall precisely, but I have no problem with that.

    2 Q. Your views and knowledge was also based on

    3 the study of numerous documents, regulations,

    4 scientific scholarly publications, but third parties.

    5 A. That is the case.

    6 Q. However, when you were stating your views

    7 about conditions in Konjic you also said, as you did

    8 a moment ago when asked by my colleague, that your

    9 knowledge of the circumstances in Konjic was not the

    10 result of your prior personal investigations.

    11 A. That is absolutely true. As I have said

    12 several times now in the course of testimony, I am not

    13 a specialist in Konjic, my degree of speciality is to

    14 do with military-political affairs across the

    15 territories of what was the SFRY. Konjic, like any

    16 other locality is only a question as far as I look into

    17 it with relevant material to see how it fits into that

    18 overall context. I am not here, as I understand it,

    19 I am not here as an investigator in the Konjic case.

    20 Q. However, as far as I was able to understand,

    21 so if that is correct, please confirm it, that most of

    22 your information about Konjic came from the material

    23 shown to you by the Prosecution, among which was the

    24 statement of Mr. Delalic. Would it be correct to say

    25 that?

  44. 1 A. I think that would be correct, yes.

    2 I think -- yes. Certainly most of my knowledge of

    3 Konjic is based on those documents, yes.

    4 Q. As far as I can remember in answer to

    5 a question by my learned colleague Mr. Ackerman, you

    6 mentioned one figure, one source regarding the quantity

    7 of armaments, that is a book by a Spanish author, of

    8 whom you did not have the precise data.

    9 However, conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina

    10 were something that you studied at a much broader level

    11 so you had the opportunity to examine the regulations

    12 that preceded the war or that were passed after the

    13 outbreak of the war.

    14 A. I have seen matters pertaining to official

    15 declarations, legislation, if that is what you are

    16 asking, yes. And for the record, the book was by

    17 Shabye Agere. Spelling, no doubt can be provided for

    18 the transcribers at another date.

    19 Q. In view of the fact that in the Tadic case

    20 and probably also preparing yourself for this

    21 testimony, you studied most of the legislation of

    22 Bosnia and Herzegovina. My question is, are you aware

    23 that already in April 1992 the state of Bosnia and

    24 Herzegovina passed a decree with the value of law,

    25 taking over the majority of the legislation of the

  45. 1 former SFRY, establishing that they should be applied

    2 in Bosnia and Herzegovina until special regulations are

    3 adopted for particular areas, and this decree was

    4 published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and

    5 Herzegovina, issue number 2. Are you aware of that

    6 fact?

    7 A. I was not aware, I mean, I could not have

    8 told you that it was issue number 2, but I was aware

    9 that it took place.

    10 Q. Then, Dr. Gow, you surely know that on April

    11 8th 1992 a decree with validity of law was adopted,

    12 whereby the former Territorial Defence was reorganised,

    13 and made independent of the former Yugoslav People's

    14 Army, whereby it became the armed force of the new

    15 state. Are you familiar with that?

    16 A. I am familiar with that. I think that was

    17 pursued as the mobilisation of the Territorial Defence

    18 on 4th April. The dates -- I think the date is

    19 probably right, but I am sure you would not be wrong.

    20 Q. Do you know that by that decree, certain

    21 authorisations in terms of the control and command of

    22 the Territorial Defence were conferred on the Ministry

    23 of Internal Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina which,

    24 for a certain period of time, was, in fact, the supreme

    25 command.

  46. 1 A. I am aware of the role of the Interior

    2 Ministry in the defence structures, yes.

    3 Q. I apologise. The translation that I received

    4 was the Interior Ministry, whereas my question was, are

    5 you aware that by this decree, passed on April 8th and

    6 published in Official Gazette number 1, authorising the

    7 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

    8 Bosnia-Herzegovina, so it is either a wrong translation

    9 or we misunderstood one another.

    10 A. I think I was confused in the original

    11 question, both -- I mean, both statements, yes, the

    12 Ministry of Defence was authorised to organise

    13 a command, but there was a role within the structures

    14 for the Interior Ministry, but sorry, if

    15 I misunderstood the first question, then excuse me.

    16 Q. Thank you. We are here, so it is easy for us

    17 to correct any errors that may occur.

    18 Are you aware, Dr. Gow, that on the basis of

    19 this decree, which is actually law of Bosnia and

    20 Herzegovina, the Ministry of Defence, in accordance

    21 with its authorisations, conferred on it by this

    22 decree, passed or adopted instructions, temporary

    23 instructions on the subordination of district and

    24 municipal TO headquarters to the new headquarters of

    25 Territorial Defence of the Republic of

  47. 1 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you aware of that fact?

    2 A. I am aware of that, although going back to

    3 much of the earlier discussion, it is worth pointing

    4 out that this was a formal measure, and as I think

    5 I said in the original evidence it was many months

    6 before any of this began to have complete and real

    7 effect, and in the meantime there was this period of

    8 elements of improvisation, of trying to sort things out

    9 at different levels and using and relying on the old

    10 Territorial Defence practices and structures, so if

    11 there was -- in the absence of direct overall command

    12 from Sarajevo there would be local command and

    13 authority, for example, in this area, with the Konjic

    14 war presidency.

    15 So, broadly yes to the formal proposition,

    16 but bear in mind that the formal legislative position

    17 did not necessarily correspond with what was there in

    18 reality for some months. And of course, was subsequent

    19 to the decision to rename, as the army of Bosnia and

    20 Herzegovina in, as I recall it was later in April or

    21 maybe in May.

    22 Q. Dr. Gow, could we now turn to the legal

    23 foundations for the establishment and structure of the

    24 army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then later we may

    25 go back to the actual situation in Konjic.

  48. 1 In connection with these two documents that

    2 were officially published in the Official Gazette

    3 number 1, and these instructions, you are familiar with

    4 these documents, legal documents of the Republic of

    5 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    6 Do you know, Dr. Gow, that these provisional

    7 instructions, compiled by Dr. Divjak and issued by the

    8 Minister of Defence, Jerko Doko and which has been

    9 admitted into evidence, D122/1, stipulates that all

    10 municipal and district headquarters need to be

    11 subordinated to the republican headquarters of

    12 Territorial Defence and where no such district

    13 headquarters exist, that the municipal staffs should be

    14 directly subordinated to the republican headquarters of

    15 Territorial Defence. Are you aware of that?

    16 A. I am sorry, I am not clear about the question

    17 by the end of it, if you could, would you mind

    18 repeating it?

    19 Q. Dr. Gow, you have already confirmed that you

    20 are familiar with the fact that these documents were

    21 adopted. This document was drawn up by Colonel Divjak

    22 and issued by Defence Minister, Jerko Doko.

    23 A. Yes.

    24 Q. My question is, if you have looked at that

    25 document, do you know that that document requires the

  49. 1 placing under the control of the republican staff all

    2 the municipal and republican staffs of Territorial

    3 Defence and that this document says that in cases when

    4 there are no district staffs, that the municipal staffs

    5 should be directly accountable to the republican

    6 staff. Are you familiar with that fact?

    7 A. Yes I am, now I have understood clearly that,

    8 where a level of command structure is missing, then the

    9 local level should be directly responsible to the

    10 chief, to the general staff, yes. But again, in line

    11 with the provisions of the defence doctrine, if that is

    12 not available then the local authority will make

    13 decisions at its own initiative. That is how I would

    14 interpret the defence system.

    15 Q. So therefore your answer is that you are

    16 familiar with that.

    17 Dr. Gow, will you tell me, please, whether you

    18 know that this same piece of legislation established

    19 also that all patriotic and armed groups and forces

    20 need to be placed under the command of Territorial

    21 Defence staffs by April 15th 1992, and that precisely

    22 for this reason, this date is considered to be the date

    23 marking the establishment of the army?

    24 A. I take that to be the date marking the

    25 formation of the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina

  50. 1 as distinct from the formation, formal formation of the

    2 army of Bosnia and Herzegovina which came slightly

    3 later but, if I understand these things correctly --

    4 but the basic answer, with that minor qualification, is

    5 yes.

    6 Q. So I agree that you do not agree only with

    7 regard to the name, the armed forces of Bosnia and

    8 Herzegovina, with a name that was given subsequently.

    9 Thank you.

    10 Dr. Gow, you are also aware that in the

    11 development of the armed forces of Bosnia and

    12 Herzegovina a prominent place was played by decrees on

    13 defence and the armed forces adopted on May 15th 1992,

    14 and published in the Official Gazette, number 4.

    15 A. Yes. As I recall that would be the point at

    16 which I would say that was the point at which the army

    17 of Bosnia and Herzegovina formally took shape.

    18 Q. So, Dr. Gow, you would agree with me, that the

    19 development of the armed forces which later became the

    20 army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was defined by

    21 legislation passed by the state of Bosnia and

    22 Herzegovina.

    23 A. As a matter of political fact, I understand

    24 it to have been established by legal measures, within

    25 the -- by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

  51. 1 yes.

    2 Q. Let me ask you now, Dr. Gow, are you aware

    3 that in mid-April, or, to be more precise, on

    4 17th April 1992, a Municipal Assembly meeting was held

    5 in Konjic at which the former TO staff was reorganised

    6 as a new TO staff, to bring it in line with the

    7 provisions of these decrees that I referred to early

    8 on.

    9 A. I am aware that some action was taken at that

    10 stage, yes.

    11 Q. So, in actual fact, if that was indeed on the

    12 17th April 1992, the military structure of the

    13 Territorial Defence and the defence forces of Konjic

    14 was brought in line with the instructions issued by the

    15 Minister of National Defence. Is that not so?

    16 A. I would not want to speak too strongly on the

    17 matter in either direction. I think it was the case

    18 that some action was taken. Whether or not it was

    19 brought completely in line and what the implications of

    20 that would be, I think would be something about which

    21 we should exercise care. That is, formally some action

    22 was taken, but it does not mean that the full content

    23 of things being brought into line was achieved.

    24 Q. However, Dr. Gow, you are not aware of the

    25 opposite being true. You do not know that everything

  52. 1 was done, but you also do not know that what I have

    2 suggested was not done.

    3 A. I am not sure what it was now that you

    4 suggested was done, in particular. I mean, I think it

    5 was just that I was being careful about the expression

    6 that you gave, which was, "brought into line with". And

    7 I would just say that that should not be interpreted as

    8 being a full establishment, i.e., not everything could

    9 be brought into line but action was taken regarding the

    10 steps to be taken, so something was done, but not

    11 necessarily all of it.

    12 Q. So, you could normally answer this question

    13 with greater precision, if you had the minutes from

    14 that meeting of the Municipal Assembly in Konjic. Is

    15 that not right?

    16 A. I would imagine that the minutes from the

    17 meeting in Konjic would give evidence of discussion and

    18 decisions taken, but still would not give you

    19 information actually on implementation, and I think

    20 some of the other evidence that we have discussed over

    21 the course of my giving testimony here indicates that

    22 there were areas of -- shall we say blurred areas,

    23 areas in which certain things were not yet clear, in

    24 which practical measures and authority was being worked

    25 out.

  53. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Both of you are

    2 actually speaking out of context, because we do not

    3 know what those minutes of the meeting are.

    4 A. I think I am -- simply to say that

    5 hypothetically, even if we had the minutes right here

    6 in front of us, all they would tell us would be what

    7 went on at the meeting rather than what was implemented

    8 pursuant to the meeting, which I think is the point

    9 that I was making.

    10 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, you are probably

    11 not familiar with many of these documents that Dr. Gow

    12 is referring to, as I am not, but he is expressing many

    13 of his hypothetical views on the basis of things that

    14 he personally did not study, so I am going to try and

    15 be more precise.

    16 Would you think this would be an appropriate

    17 time for a break?

    18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, by the time you

    19 return you might have organised your thoughts clearly

    20 as to where we are going to. So we will break now and

    21 return at 12 noon.

    22 (11.30 pm)

    23 (A short break)

    24 (12.00)

    25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may continue

  54. 1 Ms. Residovic.

    2 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, your Honours.

    3 Dr. Gow, before we continue, when you only wish to say,

    4 "yes", would you please state it so clearly, because

    5 I have noticed that in part of the transcript there

    6 were some nods that were not taken down, so if you

    7 would just please, when you confirm something, you also

    8 say so, by answering, "yes".

    9 A. Gladly. I think that I probably did, but

    10 maybe it was not registered. If there are any such

    11 points you want to take me back to, I am happy to

    12 revisit them.

    13 Q. I will review it and we will see if there are

    14 any unclear points, so we will get back to that if

    15 necessary.

    16 A. On the record I said, "okay", there as well.

    17 I realise that had it did not sound here, so...

    18 Q. Very well. Dr. Gow, we left off when we

    19 talked about the last assembly meeting in Konjic in

    20 April of 1992.

    21 Do you know that in this assembly meeting it

    22 was concluded that all patriotic forces, that is the

    23 organised armed groups, that had to be put in service

    24 of the defence forces of the HVO and the MUP, which was

    25 in accordance with the decisions made by the republican

  55. 1 bodies.

    2 A. I am sorry, I think I will have to ask you to

    3 repeat the question, because I think the translation

    4 may have been a bit muffled, I am getting two versions,

    5 so if you could, please...

    6 Q. Do you know that the Konjic parliament, the

    7 assembly, in this meeting of April 1992, concluded that

    8 all armed forces, all patriotic forces had to be, as of

    9 that moment, be placed under the command of the staff

    10 of the Territorial Defence, that is the -- under the

    11 command of the territorial forces of Konjic?

    12 A. That is clearer and better, although this

    13 time there was no mention of MUP and other forces as

    14 well, which was making me unclear.

    15 Specifically, I cannot say here and now I am

    16 aware of that decision on that date, but it seems to me

    17 perfectly reasonable to say that that would have been

    18 taken and consistent with things that I know.

    19 Q. Certainly Dr. Gow, you are familiar with the

    20 fact that only the SDS armed forces were the ones which

    21 did not place themselves under the control of the legal

    22 defence forces.

    23 A. I am aware that the -- for present purposes

    24 we will call, "pro-SDS", elements did not put

    25 themselves under the command of the official

  56. 1 authorities, and the official armed forces of Bosnia

    2 and Herzegovina. It is also fair to point out that the

    3 HVO, the Croatian forces, only did so at a very formal

    4 level, in an initial attempt, but there was always

    5 a considerable degree of autonomy, and I suspect

    6 a degree of friction in this -- generally and in this

    7 specific area.

    8 Q. As you call this a reasonable decision of the

    9 assembly, and with respect to that, could you confirm,

    10 Dr. Gow, that after that date there are no independent

    11 or private or other uncontrolled groups in the armed

    12 forces?

    13 A. No. I would not confirm that there were no

    14 independent or private or any of these other labels

    15 after that date. From that date, it was clearly the

    16 formal position that there should not be any, but as

    17 I was indicating earlier on, it is one thing to look at

    18 the decision taken, or the minutes of a meeting about

    19 a decision taken, and then to consider the time period

    20 in which the decision itself is implemented, so for

    21 some time to come, as I recall from a case in the

    22 autumn which came out in, I think it was "Dane", one of

    23 the Sarajevo newspapers about cases in which still,

    24 certainly in late 1992, possibly in early 1993, private

    25 armies, Muslim paramilitary groups were being held

  57. 1 responsible for killing Serbs in the kind of north-west

    2 Sarajevo suburbs there, in the edge, I forget the

    3 precise detail, and this was coming out and was being

    4 condemned by the Bosnian government as the detail was

    5 emerging. So I think, I would make a distinction

    6 between the decision taken, and the period it takes

    7 fully to have everything integrated, and under control,

    8 as that, I think, would show.

    9 Q. Dr. Gow, what you know from the paper, "Dane",

    10 is what I know from my personal experience in Sarajevo

    11 at that time, and my own involvement in prosecuting

    12 this. So, I am not excluding your knowledge or

    13 questioning your knowledge about certain incidents in

    14 other areas, but do you know from any precise data that

    15 there were some such groups in Konjic who had not put

    16 themselves under the command of the armed forces of

    17 Konjic?

    18 A. I conclude from that which I have seen that

    19 there was not a precisely defined and clear situation

    20 in Konjic, that it was one which was evolving and one

    21 which, particularly because of the relationship with

    22 the HVO but also regarding elements within what people

    23 would call the Muslim or the Bosnian elements loyal

    24 clearly to the Bosnian government, there were still

    25 elements being sorted out. I do not see why there

  58. 1 would be any problem in accepting that a decision made

    2 one day takes some time to have effect before

    3 everything is coherently arranged.

    4 I gave the example of Sarajevo simply to

    5 indicate one clear case which has emerged to show how,

    6 I think, throughout the country there would be such

    7 examples to be found.

    8 Q. Dr. Gow, I believe that you can agree with me

    9 that in this period, that is early on in the war, April

    10 1992, and let us say, through the summer or fall of

    11 1992, the defence forces of Konjic, that is the forces

    12 who were fighting for the liberation of the town,

    13 included the Territorial Defence, the HVO, and the

    14 MUP.

    15 A. Yes, I can agree that all of those were

    16 present, yes.

    17 Q. Dr. Gow, you do not have any reliable document

    18 on the basis of which it would -- which would show that

    19 apart from these defence forces there were some other

    20 private armed groups in the town of Konjic. Is that

    21 correct?

    22 A. It is my recollection that I saw materials

    23 indicating that there were such groups in the area.

    24 I do not have the specific recollection to mind.

    25 I would be happy to review documents and to indicate

  59. 1 where that was the case, but...

    2 Q. In any event, you have not verified

    3 authenticity of any such document, provided you had

    4 some such document available to you.

    5 A. I have not personally verified any of the

    6 documents, and as I think we have discussed previously,

    7 it was my understanding that these are documents which

    8 are either accepted in other cases or have been entered

    9 into evidence in this case, and at a minimum already

    10 given to the Defence.

    11 Q. Thank you. I would now like to ask you some

    12 questions in a narrow area relating to the events

    13 before the events in Konjic that we are concerned

    14 with.

    15 In the Tadic case you testified on the basis

    16 of studying a number of decisions taken by the SDS in

    17 the 1991, and then later the SDS party in 1991, and in

    18 1992. Is that correct?

    19 A. It is correct that I used a variety of

    20 documents including some SDS documents which related to

    21 the project to create the territory from Bosnia and

    22 Herzegovina, i.e., to form Republika Srpska to be

    23 separated from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    24 MS. RESIDOVIC: I would like to request

    25 assistance to show Dr. Gow a document that has not been

  60. 1 used previously in the proceedings.

    2 Could you please tell me how it is going to

    3 be marked?

    4 THE REGISTRAR: Document D133/1.

    5 MS. RESIDOVIC: Dr. Gow, I presume you are

    6 familiar with this document?

    7 A. I am afraid to admit that I am not certain

    8 that I am. I do not recognise it, I might have seen it

    9 before, I am certainly aware of this decision on this

    10 date to implement it, and I have made reference to that

    11 in previous testimony. I cannot say for sure that

    12 I have not seen it, but it does not -- it is not

    13 immediately familiar to me. But I am very glad to see

    14 it.

    15 Q. Dr. Gow, you can testify before this Trial

    16 Chamber that in the fall of 1992, after 1991, after the

    17 famous address of Radovan Karadzic, the parliament, the

    18 Serb population in Bosnia and Herzegovina was

    19 organised contrary to the constitution of Bosnia and

    20 Herzegovina at that time. Are you familiar with that

    21 fact?

    22 A. I am not sure which fact I am being asked

    23 about, but if I may, I will state a number and hope

    24 that one of them is the one.

    25 I am familiar that in the autumn of 1991

  61. 1 Radovan Karadzic made some statements to the effect

    2 that you suggested. I am aware that in the autumn of

    3 1991 the Serb autonomous regions mentioned here, and

    4 consistent with that statement were declared, so in

    5 either case I think I would agree, but I am not sure

    6 which one it is that you wanted from me. I might also

    7 point out that that decision built on the earlier

    8 measures taken in April 1991, to form associations of

    9 Serb, so-called associations of Serb

    10 municipalities, and this was a further step in that

    11 process.

    12 It was certainly judged by the third element

    13 of whether, do I agree with the fact, I am not sure if

    14 I could give a legal interpretation, but I can

    15 certainly say that it was a judgement of the

    16 constitutional court in Sarajevo that these were

    17 anti-constitutional or illegal measures, so I hope one

    18 of those three facts is the one you wanted.

    19 Q. You actually answered my next question, but

    20 I would still like you to look at the document and

    21 confirm that this was a document which, in fact,

    22 legally confirmed this decision to establish Serb

    23 autonomous regions in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    24 A. I would take a reservation on making the

    25 legal judgement regarding the document, but I would say,

  62. 1 I would confirm that it is a document which confirms

    2 the political decision to create the autonomous regions

    3 in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the five regions

    4 indicated with some of their composition, or the

    5 composition at that stage.

    6 I would also confirm that if you go to

    7 paragraph 2 it makes clear that the intention is for

    8 these autonomous regions to be associated with

    9 Yugoslavia.

    10 Q. In connection, with respect to this document,

    11 Dr. Gow, could you say that it is an incontrovertible

    12 that the town of Konjic is located in the part of

    13 Bosnia and Herzegovina which is called Herzegovina?

    14 A. Again, I think there may a little bit of

    15 a problem in the way the question comes through. Is

    16 Konjic -- if the question is, "is Konjic part of an

    17 area, Herzegovina", then as far as I understand the

    18 answer is, "yes". I am not sure with the reference in

    19 connection to this document, Konjic is not a place

    20 mentioned in this document.

    21 Q. My question is, whether in point 1 of

    22 paragraph 3, which regulates the Serb autonomous

    23 region of Herzegovina, the town of Konjic is included.

    24 A. No, in that case -- if the town of Konjic is

    25 not mentioned in that paragraph, although as I think

  63. 1 I indicated in evidence-in-chief there were other

    2 documents where, on the basis of the number of

    3 representatives in the local municipality it was

    4 designated to be part of the Republika Srpska, or at

    5 least part of it would have been. There are arguments

    6 as to how realistic it was to assume it could be

    7 incorporated, given its demographic composition. Is

    8 that satisfactory?

    9 Q. Yes, it is very satisfactory. I would just

    10 like to ask you further to maybe specify what you had

    11 explained more generally.

    12 In essence, does this decision of the

    13 assembly of the Serb people express a certain

    14 political position by which the town of Konjic was not

    15 supposed to be included in these territories of the

    16 autonomous province, Serb provinces and later

    17 Republika Srpska?

    18 A. I think that what you can say is that this

    19 document does not list Konjic as being one of the

    20 municipalities already part of the declared Serb

    21 autonomous regions. I do not think you can read into

    22 it necessarily anything about intent, and as I said,

    23 there is other material which indicates that it was

    24 considered that it might become part of the Republika

    25 Srpska, again, however unrealistic it might have been

  64. 1 because of the demographic composition. But it was

    2 considered, although I do not think it makes any

    3 particular difference if you are considering the issue

    4 of armed conflict, because the armed conflict

    5 encompasses the whole of the territory of Bosnia and

    6 Herzegovina, whether it is intended to be part of one

    7 part or the other.

    8 MS. RESIDOVIC: I would like to tender this

    9 document now as defence exhibit. Is it accepted?

    10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let us hear the

    11 Prosecution.

    12 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honour, there is no

    13 objection to it, except that it may have already been

    14 tendered in the Prosecution case. We are just

    15 checking, your Honours. Yes. There is no objection,

    16 your Honours.

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Admitted. Yes.

    18 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you.

    19 Dr. Gow, you are probably familiar with the

    20 fact that in March of 1992 the assembly of Serb

    21 people of Konjic municipality adopted a decision on the

    22 Serb territories.

    23 A. I believe so.

    24 Q. Could you then agree with me that the SDS of

    25 Konjic was practically adopting decisions apart from

  65. 1 the SDS assembly at the republican level based on this

    2 document that we have just reviewed.

    3 A. If judgement were to be made purely on the

    4 basis of that document, then you might well draw that

    5 conclusion.

    6 However, as I have indicated, there were

    7 other documents, including the SDS party instructions

    8 on how to organise, on the basis either of a majority

    9 Serb population within a municipality, or on the

    10 basis of the number of representatives in the Municipal

    11 Assembly, and that on the basis of that second

    12 category, Konjic was included within SDS, within the

    13 SDS framework for mobilisation for action.

    14 Therefore, the simple proposition, if you

    15 make the connection with this document, is you cannot

    16 draw that from this document, but if you are aware of

    17 other things, then you would see that there was an

    18 overall SDS -- that the overall SDS programme included

    19 Konjic within the frame of reference for action.

    20 I think I said already when I was giving

    21 evidence-in-chief that whilst I know that there was

    22 a decision to be made on the number of representatives

    23 in the Municipal Assembly I have no idea what number

    24 qualified, I have no idea what the number in Konjic was

    25 or what number would qualify for action.

  66. 1 Q. As far as I can recall your answers during

    2 the examination-in-chief, Dr. Gow, you pointed to some

    3 changes of the political position after the meeting of

    4 Borodan Karadzic after the meeting in June of 1992.

    5 A. I may well have done. I do not recall doing

    6 so, but if the question is asked in specific reference

    7 to the issue we were discussing immediately previously,

    8 then I think the answer is possibly no, because as

    9 I recall, the documents, I am talking about were from

    10 the period prior -- April or earlier.

    11 Q. Thank you.

    12 Dr. Gow, I am one person in this courtroom to

    13 become familiar with the name of John Hackett, and I am

    14 very glad that I did so, because through that testimony

    15 I found out additional facts about this person from

    16 England.

    17 You used John Hackett to present to the Trial

    18 Chamber your own view what a coordinator, what

    19 a function of the coordinator might be. Have I summed

    20 up correctly, what you -- what your intention was?

    21 A. Yes. My intention was to assist in

    22 clarifying what that role might be, what that term

    23 might mean and I used the example of Hackett during the

    24 Second World War. I have to say it is not purely and

    25 simply my own conclusion. I based on discussions with

  67. 1 others, including senior military figures, about --

    2 with whom I discussed the question of, you know, "how

    3 would you understand this, would this be a fair

    4 understanding".

    5 If I might, this might be a point, if your

    6 Honours permit --

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you can explain --

    8 A. Just to point out that in the break, because

    9 questions had been asked about the evidence of Generals

    10 Divjak and Pasalic, I did ask to be given the testimony

    11 just quickly to peruse. I am afraid I did not get to

    12 look at the Divjak but I already noted in the Pasalic

    13 that contrary to some of the views that were expressed,

    14 and I can confirm my own feeling, which is that they

    15 did not say that they accepted the coordinator meant

    16 nothing or that it was not a recognised, or that it was

    17 not something which they would understand, but simply

    18 that, as I had said before, consistent with what I had

    19 said, that it was not a formal recognised position, but

    20 that they could imagine the usefulness or rather

    21 Pasalic said that he could imagine the usefulness of

    22 such a role in a case where lines were unclear where

    23 something was involving, where there was a degree of

    24 improvisation, so I think just to be clear on that

    25 point, while we are talking about the issue of

  68. 1 coordinators.

    2 Q. Thank you Dr. Gow, for having reminded

    3 yourself of what the general said, but as we were here

    4 present I think that the court and the rest of us are

    5 familiar with those facts.

    6 To go back to John Hackett, I wanted to ask

    7 you a few things that may be of use to all of us.

    8 Could you tell me, please, John Hackett was

    9 a respected citizen of England, even before the Second

    10 World War, was he not?

    11 A. I think he was a scholar. It is hard to

    12 judge the degree to which he was respected, but yes.

    13 I mean, he was originally from Australia but he was

    14 a recognised scholar, a person of some respect,

    15 I suppose, yes, although I am not particularly

    16 qualified to judge the degree to which he was respected

    17 at that stage.

    18 Q. And he lived in England before the Second

    19 World War, did he not?

    20 A. Yes. He was a scholar at, I think, Oxford.

    21 Q. And through many years of life there he

    22 surely was very familiar with the conditions in

    23 England, and this probably served as a basis for him to

    24 be proposed to hold such a post.

    25 A. I am not sure that his familiarity with

  69. 1 conditions in England or the UK as a whole are

    2 necessarily of particular relevance to his being given

    3 specific functions whilst serving in the armed forces.

    4 I mean, he was inducted. He was serving in the armed

    5 forces before he was given such a role, it just

    6 happened to be that at a certain point ad hoc, as

    7 Mr. Moran put it this morning, a situation emerged and

    8 in that ad hoc situation he was a person who could

    9 carry out that role.

    10 Q. Yes, but as a participant of the armed forces

    11 of England and someone familiar with those forces, he

    12 had sufficient knowledge of the conditions in the armed

    13 forces of England, because, after all, that is the

    14 basis for, as you said, the possibility of somebody

    15 being appointed to such a function.

    16 A. I think the key things are first that he was

    17 a member of the armed forces, secondly, that whatever

    18 the existing character and structure of the British

    19 armed forces, there was a peculiar development taking

    20 place in the course of the Second World War regarding

    21 what I alluded to in evidence-in-chief as "private

    22 armies", that is the formation of what was later to

    23 become the special forces, and that in that evolving

    24 context where there were degrees of uncertainties where

    25 some individuals had decided that they would like to

  70. 1 form their own small special units where others had

    2 been instructed to form small, special units, his role

    3 as coordinator was to bring all of that together, so

    4 I think the idea of the experience of the British armed

    5 forces is of limited value, because it was the British

    6 armed forces in new circumstances.

    7 Q. Yes. I gathered that, but regardless of his

    8 personal abilities, if he had just come from Australia

    9 and if he had never lived in England, and if he was not

    10 familiar with the armed forces, he would not have had

    11 a chance of being appointed to such an important

    12 position. Is that not so?

    13 A. I am not quite sure, to be honest. In the

    14 situation of the Second World War and where new

    15 developments are taking place and there is a degree of

    16 improvisation, and given what I have said previously

    17 several times about the qualities required of

    18 a coordinator, there is a basic fact that he was

    19 present, but beyond that I think it can be said to be

    20 his qualities of being able fully to know, because of

    21 having the trust, respect, of those involved in the

    22 so-called "private armies", and the ability therefore

    23 to influence them to make suggestions and give

    24 directions on how best to proceed. There is nothing

    25 which necessarily says that he has to have had that

  71. 1 experience previously.

    2 If I may give another example from the Second

    3 World War, one relevant to Bosnia and Herzegovina,

    4 a British conservative MP, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, a close

    5 friend of the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was

    6 chosen Churchill to go to be a special operations

    7 executive liaison officer with Tito and the partisans

    8 simply because he was judged by Churchill to be the

    9 best qualified person to do so, so I do not think the

    10 situation of being in that position and knowledge

    11 beforehand in the circumstances of some of the things

    12 happening in the Second World War necessarily means

    13 some of the things that you said had to be there, that

    14 some of the things you mentioned had to be there for

    15 that situation.

    16 Q. Perhaps, Dr. Gow, we are going outside our

    17 subject matter, certainly that Mr. Churchill, like any

    18 other statesman or civilian body may appoint somebody

    19 to carry out a certain task for him. Of course,

    20 General Maclean did not take over any of the

    21 obligations or responsibilities of Churchill. He just

    22 carried out the tasks assigned to him by Prime Minister

    23 Churchill?

    24 A. In the same way that Hackett carried out

    25 those responsibilities which were due to him, not the

  72. 1 responsibilities of Churchill either.

    2 Q. Dr. Gow, speaking about John Hackett, you said

    3 that he was to have coordinated among the various

    4 armies which emerged in the structure of the English

    5 army, as you have just mentioned.

    6 A. As I understand the question, yes, his role

    7 was to coordinate various small units which were

    8 evolving within the broader context of the British

    9 army.

    10 Q. So his duty was not to coordinate the work of

    11 civilian authorities or certain armies, for instance,

    12 the municipality of London, and certain military

    13 structures or units. That was not his duty.

    14 A. As I understand it that was not one of the

    15 tasks which he carried out, although I imagine had it

    16 been relevant to his situation, then it would have

    17 been, in the nature of something which is per ad hoc

    18 situations that you do those things which are relevant.

    19 Q. The Prosecutor has probably shown you,

    20 Dr. Gow, the appointment, the document appointing Zejnil

    21 Delalic, and authorising him to coordinate between the

    22 war presidency as the civilian body and the defence

    23 forces. Are you familiar with that document of

    24 appointment?

    25 A. I am familiar with the document of

  73. 1 appointment.

    2 Q. So, the task assigned to this coordinator in

    3 Konjic differed from the one assigned to John Hackett.

    4 A. I think it differed in its specific content,

    5 but I think that was clear some time ago when I was

    6 giving evidence-in-chief, and their Honours asked me

    7 some questions about the role of John Hackett. I think

    8 the essential thing always to bear in mind is the

    9 qualities inherent in a coordinator, full knowledge and

    10 authority, and the degree to which those qualities are

    11 put into effect, whatever the tasks in question might

    12 be, and recognising that those are similar qualities to

    13 be found to those found in an officer commanding, but

    14 are pertinent to a non- -- to a specific, or a peculiar

    15 situation in which normal structures do not apply, and

    16 I think the key point is that the comparative reference

    17 to Hackett is to show that in a situation where normal

    18 structures were not relevant, the role of coordinator

    19 was relevant, and I was making the allusion to try to

    20 understand the term "coordinator" in the Konjic

    21 context, to say that it was something which could be

    22 useful in that specific context and it would still

    23 have, when distilled, those same key elements and

    24 I take it from my refreshed reading of the evidence of

    25 General Pasalic that that was probably his judgement as

  74. 1 well.

    2 Q. Dr. Gow, you have no reliable source, nor are

    3 you aware whether there were any groups in Konjic that

    4 called themselves, "the Patriotic League", "the Green

    5 Berets", so you conveyed your thoughts on the basis of

    6 information that such groups did exist in Bosnia and

    7 Herzegovina.

    8 A. No, as I said earlier, it was on the basis of

    9 references to, as I recall, at least two paramilitary

    10 groups operating in the Konjic area, and as I said

    11 earlier, if I am given a chance to revisit the

    12 documents that I have seen, I would be happy to

    13 identify where that was and to confirm it and if I am

    14 mistaken, to withdraw the opinion.

    15 Q. So, you do not recall at this point in time

    16 on the basis of which document you asserted that there

    17 were private armies or paramilitary groups in Konjic,

    18 after the 17th April?

    19 A. That is the case. I cannot point to this

    20 document and say, "that is the one". But, as I say,

    21 I am quite happy to look into this and to produce what

    22 it is that I have seen.

    23 Q. Are you aware that Mr. Zejnil Delalic lived

    24 for twenty years abroad before the war?

    25 A. I am still aware that he spent some time

  75. 1 living outside the SFRY, Bosnia and Herzegovina, prior

    2 to the dissolution and conflict.

    3 Q. You are also aware that he came by chance to

    4 attend the funeral of his brother, just before the war,

    5 and that he stayed on.

    6 A. I am aware that he came to Bosnia at that

    7 stage for a funeral of his brother. That he -- I have

    8 no sense of whether -- of what degree of chance

    9 operated. Perhaps there was. Yes.

    10 Q. You are also aware, Dr. Gow, that Zejnil

    11 Delalic was not a member of political parties.

    12 A. Depending on precisely what you mean by

    13 that. It may well be that he was not a member of, by

    14 some technical definition that you might not offer, of

    15 a political party, but it is clear that he was a member

    16 of the SDA, at least from things that I have seen and

    17 I cannot tell you exactly what they are either, but

    18 I am happy to identify them, again, if it is desirable

    19 that I should do so, that he was a member of an

    20 association formed in Vienna of the SDA party from

    21 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I would take that, other

    22 than in a technical sense as being membership of

    23 a political party, and I would also point out that

    24 prior to his coming to Bosnia and Herzegovina he was

    25 also a member of the organisation called Green Berets.

  76. 1 Q. In the course of the examination-in-chief you

    2 referred to what Zejnil Delalic spoke about that in his

    3 statement.

    4 A. Quite possibly, yes.

    5 Q. Are you aware that in that statement made in

    6 Scheveningen, Zejnil Delalic clearly stated that he was

    7 not a member of the SDA, and that he received

    8 a membership card of the Green Berets in the course of

    9 a celebration in 1994. Is that what you read in his

    10 statement?

    11 A. I am aware that that is what he said in his

    12 statement, but also that the actual documents indicate

    13 membership of the Green Berets from an earlier date,

    14 and that the membership of the SDA is a moot point as

    15 to the technical definition of whether you regard being

    16 a member of the SDA Association in Vienna as being

    17 a member of the party. Obviously, he was not a member

    18 of the party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but I think to

    19 be a member of the SDA Association would reasonably be

    20 seen to be a member of the SDA, albeit, or a supporter

    21 of the SDA living abroad, if not a member of the party

    22 then a clear member of the supporter's club.

    23 Q. So, your hypotheses are virtually just your

    24 interpretation of some of the documents shown to you by

    25 the Prosecutor.

  77. 1 A. I am not sure precisely which hypotheses you

    2 make reference to, but I think I would confirm, as

    3 I have done in many cases, that I draw my conclusions

    4 on the basis of the evidence available to me and my

    5 reading of it, which, in this particular case, includes

    6 materials provided by the Office of the Prosecutor.

    7 Q. Even though Zejnil Delalic said in the

    8 statement that you rely on that the Green Berets did

    9 not even exist in Konjic in 1992, and that the

    10 booklets, the cards were only issued in 1994, as is

    11 evident from that interview, so your conclusions can

    12 hardly be said to be based on reliable foundations.

    13 A. Personally I would regard it as being

    14 a reliable inference based on the existence of

    15 a membership card of the Green Berets from, as

    16 I recall, January 1991 or January 1990, certainly

    17 a date prior to his return to Bosnia and Herzegovina

    18 for the funeral of his brother, or the onset of armed

    19 hostilities.

    20 Now, I am sure this is more pertinently

    21 a matter for an investigator to have looked at, but as

    22 far as I have looked at this and I have integrated it

    23 in my overall understanding then I would say that that

    24 does seem to be the case, and whether or not the Green

    25 Berets were specifically formed in Konjic at that stage

  78. 1 I am afraid I cannot say. My comment was on

    2 Mr. Delalic's membership of the Green Berets

    3 organisation.

    4 Q. You assessed Mr. Delalic's influence also from

    5 the fact that he had assisted the defence with his own

    6 personal resources. Is that true?

    7 A. I had drawn the inference from looking at

    8 some of the things he appeared to be doing and from

    9 reading some of the documents, in particular the

    10 documents saying that he would be doing things at his

    11 own expense, that one of the factors in his being able

    12 to play a role was that he had personal finance, and

    13 that he was prepared to put this at the disposal of

    14 the defence of Konjic specifically and I suppose Bosnia

    15 and Herzegovina more broadly.

    16 Q. Are you aware, Dr. Gow, that in Bosnia and

    17 Herzegovina at the beginning of the war, thousands of

    18 citizens contributed funds to assist the Defence.

    19 Women were giving their jewellery, men, whatever they

    20 had, in order to provide the minimum conditions for

    21 defence in view of the sudden circumstances that

    22 arose.

    23 A. I am aware that people in Bosnia and

    24 Herzegovina were making those contributions which they

    25 were able. I think the point I was making is that

  79. 1 Mr. Delalic, as a seemingly wealthy businessman coming

    2 from outside, was in the immediate position of having

    3 reasonably substantial resources available to use,

    4 rather than small amounts to put in to an overall kitty

    5 and that is what gave him -- again, and I say this is

    6 only interpretation of the things that I see, I do not

    7 know this to be the case, but as an expert looking at

    8 the bits that I have seen, my interpretation would be

    9 that he did have specific personal wealth at that stage

    10 and in that particular situation he was prepared to put

    11 it to use for the defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and

    12 did so.

    13 But that is not to say that there were not

    14 other people in other areas who would do the same or

    15 that the people as a whole were not making contribution

    16 and committed to their own defence.

    17 Q. Do you know, Dr. Gow, that more than 10

    18 individuals in Konjic contributed much more and much

    19 more significant resources over a longer period of time

    20 than Mr. Zejnil Delalic did, and that this was nothing

    21 strange compared to people who contributed their

    22 factories, bakeries, petrol stations and so on. It was

    23 not unusual at all.

    24 A. I absolutely recognise that there were many

    25 people who were making contribution. I think I did

  80. 1 that in the previous answer.

    2 I would make the distinction between what you

    3 just put to me in terms of over a longer period, and

    4 the specific relevance of the resources which

    5 Mr. Delalic maybe had available in that specific period

    6 where there was an immediate need, but I would not want

    7 the whole understanding to turn on the question of the

    8 degree to which he used his own finance to play

    9 a role. As I have said, it was clearly the case that

    10 he was able, through his own personality, on the whole,

    11 to be able to influence people, and to play the kind of

    12 role which we discussed.

    13 Q. Dr. Gow, in the course of the

    14 examination-in-chief, you spoke about the development

    15 of the armed forces, and as far as I understood you,

    16 you mentioned that there was the stage of coordinator,

    17 then tactical groups, then the specific role of

    18 tactical groups and finally the formation of cause.

    19 Did I understand well a short review of the things you

    20 discussed?

    21 A. With reference to developments in the Konjic

    22 area, yes. It may well have been that there were

    23 coordinators in the other areas, but use of the term

    24 "coordinator" has been discussed specifically with

    25 reference to Konjic and its surrounding region, but

  81. 1 broadly, the understanding is correct, as I discussed

    2 the process of formation of the army of Bosnia and

    3 Herzegovina.

    4 Q. You spoke about the formation of the tactical

    5 group in May. I think you can agree with me, if I say

    6 that it was formed on 14th May, and that its first

    7 commander was Mustafa Polutak.

    8 A. I think I would agree on that, yes. I always

    9 have difficulty remembering the dates unless I have

    10 been looking at them, but yes.

    11 Q. You know that the headquarters of the

    12 tactical group 1 was in Pasarici, about 60 kilometres

    13 north of Konjic.

    14 A. I believe so, yes.

    15 Q. You know that Zejnil Delalic, as

    16 a coordinator, was nominated on 18th May 1992, do you

    17 not?

    18 A. I think that is the case, yes. That is my

    19 recollection.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think we can stop

    21 now, and reassemble at 2.30 for you to continue with

    22 your cross-examination. The Trial Chamber will now

    23 rise.

    24 (1.00 pm)

    25 (Luncheon adjournment)

  82. 1 (2.30 pm)

    2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Ms. Residovic, you may

    3 continue.

    4 MS. RESIDOVIC: Just to come back to what we

    5 talked about before we left off, before the break you

    6 confirmed that during the examination-in-chief you

    7 pointed out that a stage of development of the BH Army

    8 in the area of Konjic would be followed in such a way

    9 that there would be a coordinator, a tactical group and

    10 later an army corps. Then I asked you something which

    11 you confirmed, that the Tactical Group I was

    12 established on May 14. Is that correct? And that its

    13 commander was Mustafa Polutak.

    14 A. I believe that is what we were saying, yes.

    15 Q. And you know that Zejnil Delalic's

    16 coordinator was appointed on 18th May 1992.

    17 A. Yes, I think that confirms what we were

    18 saying this morning.

    19 Q. And I believe that you can agree very easily

    20 on the date, on the fact that the 18th May is later

    21 than 14th May.

    22 A. I think that -- I do not see any problem in

    23 agree being that, yes.

    24 Q. So that the sequence of phases in the

    25 situation in Konjic would start with the tactical group

  83. 1 and then something was interrupted and then we come to

    2 the next phase.

    3 However, I am not trying to elicit your

    4 comment. I think this is something that can be simply

    5 inferred rather than to which you need to testify

    6 directly.

    7 A. Well, if I may I would just point out that

    8 I did not say that it was a phased sequence. I said

    9 that these were aspects of the evolving situation, and

    10 there would be a difference between a completely phased

    11 situation from one step to another and a state of flux

    12 in which a number of things were happening.

    13 Q. Thank you. I must say that I am not an

    14 expert for military matters but listening to the

    15 generals and officers as well as the experts in this

    16 field such as you, I am learning, so I would just like

    17 you to confirm that my understanding of what you said

    18 is correct, that is that you confirmed before this

    19 Trial Chamber that the tactical groups in all

    20 continental armies are known as temporary formations

    21 with certain tactical tasks, and that they are formed

    22 for a particular time frame until such a task is

    23 executed. Did I understand that correctly?

    24 A. I think that is more or less a correct

    25 understanding. Tactical groups both in the old JNA and

  84. 1 in other places are understood to be ad hoc temporary

    2 formations, usually a small number of units assigned

    3 for one of two types of purpose. One, a very specific

    4 purpose in designated operation and the other in an

    5 area of uncertainty and weakness where the mission is

    6 to do whatever you can.

    7 Q. And if my understanding of what I have heard

    8 about tactical groups is correct, please confirm for

    9 me, is it true that in all armies, tactical groups are

    10 formed as temporary, either operational or manoeuvre

    11 units, whereas in the -- and that can also be done in

    12 the armies that are already established.

    13 A. Tactical groups can certainly be established

    14 where there are already existing armed forces

    15 established and again in that context it is to meet

    16 a specific need where the regular structures are not

    17 compatible with the tasks to be set.

    18 It is for a temporary period, but the period

    19 might not necessarily be defined. It might be defined

    20 by the task and when the task is accomplished then that

    21 period would be at an end, so temporary in the sense

    22 that it is not foreseen that it will be a permanent

    23 element in the structure.

    24 Q. This morning we talked about regulations of

    25 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by which it

  85. 1 regulated its armed forces and the army of Bosnia and

    2 Herzegovina. Since you are familiar with these

    3 regulations you can certainly agree with me that in

    4 none of these regulations that we have mentioned

    5 neither the coordinator nor tactical group were

    6 foreseen as parts of the development of the armed

    7 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    8 A. I can agree that we discussed the documents

    9 this morning, and that because neither of the functions

    10 you make reference to, either that of coordinator or

    11 that to be performed by a tactical group are part of

    12 the regular structure of the armed forces, the position

    13 of tactical groups, as far as I am aware, is not

    14 something which would usually be subject to

    15 legislation. It is something which would be a decision

    16 probably at an operational level, possibly at

    17 a tactical level, depending on a particular situation

    18 in the course of military operations.

    19 Sorry, if I may just make clear the last

    20 point, what I mean is that I would not expect to see it

    21 in legislation because it is not part of the structure,

    22 the normal arrangement for things.

    23 Q. I believe you would agree with me if I said

    24 that the law on the armed forces of Bosnia and

    25 Herzegovina did foresee its own development and the

  86. 1 need of establishing first brigades and then the corps

    2 of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    3 This was set out as a sequence of phases in

    4 the establishment and development of the armed forces

    5 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Is that correct?

    6 A. I would agree that that was the structure

    7 foreseen and the one upon which work was done to

    8 develop it, yes. But that work took time and in the

    9 meantime, there was this continuing state of evolution

    10 in which other things were relevant.

    11 Q. We talked -- in fact you talked about it, you

    12 and I have not touched upon it yet, you said that

    13 Sarajevo was a major problem for the armed forces of

    14 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is the blockade of the

    15 capital was a major problem for the armed forces of

    16 Bosnia and Herzegovina from the very beginning. Is

    17 that correct?

    18 A. As far as I recall what I was saying was that

    19 the -- that in this phase which primarily we have under

    20 discussion between spring and autumn 1992, there was

    21 a specific objective for the armed forces of Bosnia and

    22 Herzegovina to attempt to relieve the encirclement of

    23 Sarajevo and that some of operations, including those

    24 designated for the tactical groups, were geared towards

    25 that objective.

  87. 1 Q. You know that the basic goal and the mission

    2 during this encirclement of Sarajevo in certain parts

    3 of Sarajevo area, part tactical groups were formed and

    4 the formation of a tactical force, of Tactical Group I

    5 was precisely to try to break the siege of the city of

    6 Sarajevo. Is that correct?

    7 A. I refer you to my last answer in which

    8 I think that is what I confirmed.

    9 Q. Dr. Gow, during your testimony in

    10 examination-in-chief, while clarifying this period, you

    11 said that in Konjic there were about 2,000 members of

    12 the Territorial Defence during that period. Do you

    13 recall that?

    14 A. What I recall saying, and I am not sure if

    15 this is exactly the same thing, but what I recall

    16 saying was that there should have been 2,000 members on

    17 the list for the Territorial Defence in the Konjic

    18 area, but a large number of them did not respond to the

    19 call-up.

    20 Q. I would like to remind you of this answer at

    21 page number 9,274 when you said that there were more --

    22 where you stated the number of the members of the

    23 territorial unit, but my question to you is whether

    24 your view, that is your conclusion was based on

    25 documents offered to you by the Prosecution in addition

  88. 1 to the documents found in possession of Mr. Delalic

    2 referring to the establishment of the tactical groups.

    3 A. I am afraid I am unable to answer that

    4 question because it is not clear to me which of the

    5 documents I have seen are those deriving from

    6 Mr. Delalic. I would have to appraise things on the

    7 basis of saying, "these are documents from Delalic and

    8 these are not", before I could be sure to answer that

    9 question.

    10 MS. RESIDOVIC: I would like to request for

    11 assistance to show Dr. Gow the documents, the chart,

    12 which came from the Prosecution, and whether he based

    13 his views also on this particular chart.

    14 Could the document please be marked before we

    15 start?

    16 THE REGISTRAR: Defence Exhibit D134/1.

    17 MS. RESIDOVIC: Have you reviewed this

    18 document when you reviewed the documents given to you

    19 by the Prosecution?

    20 A. Quite possibly. It is not one with which

    21 I am particularly familiar, but I saw a series of

    22 documents which included things like this at different

    23 times. But as I say, not one I am particularly

    24 familiar with. Although I might point out, on looking

    25 at it now, that this document refers to mobilisation

  89. 1 for Tactical Group I which was at a later date than the

    2 information about which I was just making reference,

    3 which is the number -- which was the people in the old

    4 Territorial Defence forces in Konjic prior to the onset

    5 of armed hostilities. So, to be clear, here you are

    6 talking about a phase once you have got to the

    7 formation of tactical groups and mobilisation for them

    8 and what I was saying before and what you asked me

    9 about was pertinent to the Territorial Defence within

    10 Bosnia and Herzegovina prior to the onset of armed

    11 hostilities, let us say, to the independence of Bosnia

    12 and Herzegovina.

    13 So, within that framework, you need to be

    14 clear about what exactly it is we are talking about.

    15 Q. I would in fact like to talk about this given

    16 your comments. You said in this chart where it says,

    17 "Konjic", it is the very number that you referred to

    18 that is being mentioned, so Dr. Gow, my question to you

    19 is, in regard to this mobilisation chart, is this the

    20 chart -- was this chart part of your preparation for

    21 this -- for your testimony and is this one of the

    22 documents on the basis of which you talked about the

    23 tactical groups in the area in question?

    24 A. This is not a document on which I based my

    25 comments reference the fact that there were supposed to

  90. 1 be 2,000 people in the Territorial Defence in Konjic,

    2 thereabouts. It is not a document upon which I have

    3 relied in any particular sense in any course of giving

    4 evidence, but it is part of a bundle of documents which

    5 have been shown to me.

    6 Q. You certainly must have taken into account

    7 this document in addition to other documents when you

    8 gave, when you offered your conclusions about what

    9 a tactical group may be. Is that correct?

    10 A. Not when I offered my conclusions about what

    11 a tactical group might be. In forming comments

    12 regarding the formation of tactical groups in this

    13 area, yes, but not regarding what a tactical group

    14 might be.

    15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Since you are familiar with

    16 Mr. Delalic's statement which also stated things that

    17 are reflected in this chart, I would now like to offer

    18 this document as a defence exhibit on the basis of

    19 Dr. Gow's general statements regarding this particular

    20 area of questioning.

    21 Is the exhibit admitted?

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, what actually is

    23 it supposed to portray? What do you want it to say?

    24 Because it is not an admission that his opinion was

    25 based on this.

  91. 1 MS. RESIDOVIC: We accept a series of

    2 documents from the UN resolutions to some other

    3 documents which have all assisted the witness to form

    4 his opinions. Dr. Gow has seen these documents among

    5 other documents. He also read Mr. Delalic's statement

    6 in which he explained this chart and this all formed

    7 the basis for his understanding of the tactical group

    8 and its role in the region, and so in that context

    9 I would like to offer it as a defence exhibit, since

    10 from here we can glean certain relevant aspects of what

    11 the tactical group was.

    12 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, we object to this

    13 document being tendered, certainly under the present

    14 basis, because it is an enormous leap to go from this

    15 document to an UN Resolution and say that because an UN

    16 Resolution has been admitted into evidence, this

    17 document should be admitted into evidence.

    18 We have no idea of its authorship, and Dr. Gow

    19 in his testimony has said that he has not relied on it

    20 in order to form the opinions that he has expressed.

    21 Now, it seems to us, your Honours, that if

    22 you give a document to a witness and he says, "Well,

    23 I have not relied on that", and then say, "Well, I wish

    24 to tender it", well, that is an inappropriate basis on

    25 which to tender it, so at the moment we object to it.

  92. 1 JUDGE JAN: But this is a document supplied

    2 by you to the Defence.

    3 MR. NIEMANN: It is not a Prosecution

    4 document.

    5 JUDGE JAN: That is what Ms. Residovic said.

    6 It was one of the documents supplied to the Defence.

    7 MR. NIEMANN: I do not know where she bases

    8 it. I have no idea where she gets that from. It may be

    9 a document which the Defence has given to the

    10 Prosecution and Dr. Gow may have seen it but it is not

    11 a Prosecution document.

    12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, I am relying

    13 essentially on what the witness said. He did not rely

    14 on this document in forming his opinion. It is not

    15 admitted. I accept the interpretation did not bring

    16 that out clearly, but that was what I heard him say.

    17 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, may I please --

    18 is this a definitive decision or can we argue it a bit

    19 further?

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not know what else

    21 you would argue. If you are relying on the fact that

    22 it was what he relied upon for his opinion, and he said

    23 no, he did not rely on this for his opinion, I do not

    24 know what your argument then is.

    25 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, my

  93. 1 understanding of the witness was, and I would like your

    2 assistance, the witness did not rely on this document

    3 when clarifying the general term of tactical groups,

    4 but if I understood you correctly, and Dr. Gow, please

    5 correct me if I am wrong, you also took it into

    6 account, this document, when you offered your general

    7 opinions about the area and in the given period of

    8 time, and since Mr. Delalic offered us the same -- the

    9 very same comments when -- that you referred to, so my

    10 understanding was that this document must have been

    11 part of the documents that you based your opinions on.

    12 Is that correct?

    13 A. I believe that what I said in the first

    14 instance was that I was not immediately familiar, or

    15 especially familiar with this document. It was not one

    16 which immediately I recognised. I later said -- was

    17 the first part of what I said registered?

    18 Q. But later you recognised it.

    19 A. I want to be clear that if the first part --

    20 the microphone was not on when I spoke first. It came

    21 on when I was speaking. I want to check that the first

    22 part of what I said was registered, or should I begin

    23 again?

    24 Okay. Thank you.

    25 That the document was not one particularly

  94. 1 familiar to me, that I had seen documents of which this

    2 might have been one which have some of the same broad

    3 type of information, that I did not rely on the

    4 document, either in forming my opinions about what

    5 a tactical group might be, or, I think I was trying to

    6 make clear, particularly in forming my views on the

    7 tactical group in this area. In response to your

    8 question I said that there is no way that I could,

    9 I think what I was trying to convey was that there was

    10 no way in which I could use it to form an opinion on

    11 what a tactical group might be, but that if, and I have

    12 to say "if", because I could not confirm for sure that

    13 it was one of these documents, I just assume that if

    14 these are the documents which are going around which

    15 I am being shown it was part of that set of documents,

    16 then in a small sense presumably I would have reviewed

    17 it, but going back to the original answer it was not

    18 something which I primarily relied on in forming my

    19 views, so I do not know where that leaves things.

    20 Q. Dr. Gow, can you please, looking at this

    21 document, tell me whether this is a document which in

    22 contents relates to questions of mobilisation for

    23 Tactical Group 1, that is my first question, and that

    24 the document refers to the mobilisation for Tactical

    25 Group I. Is that not so?

  95. 1 A. I can, and that is so. I think I already

    2 said that, yes.

    3 Q. Is it correct to say, Dr. Gow, that from this

    4 table which is indicative of the mobilisation for

    5 Tactical Group I that we can clearly see that from the

    6 Konjic area, 300 soldiers are being mobilised for

    7 Tactical Group I.

    8 A. The way this scheme appears that would seem

    9 to be the case.

    10 Q. This scheme also shows how many soldiers are

    11 being mobilised for the tactical group from other

    12 municipalities for the area of operations of Tactical

    13 Group I.

    14 A. It would appear to show that as well,

    15 although I am not clear when you talk about

    16 mobilisation for the tactical group what you infer the

    17 document to show. It could be that these are people

    18 specifically being mobilised into units which exist

    19 already, because within the idea of tactical --

    20 a tactical group you would be using existing units

    21 which would be assigned to a tactical group commander

    22 for a particular task. Now, there may be an element of

    23 strengthening those units by adding. It is not clear

    24 to me what this document represents, is what I am

    25 saying.

  96. 1 Q. Will you please look at the Konjic area for

    2 Tactical Group I? It is indicated that 300 soldiers

    3 should come under Tactical Group 1, and that 300 out of

    4 the 2,000 remain under the authority of the municipal

    5 staff of Konjic. You find this in the remark of the IV

    6 Corps which says that the body of the forces remains in

    7 the municipal staffs and are fully responsible to the

    8 main staff of the army, and partly to the war

    9 presidencies of those municipalities.

    10 A. That may be, yes.

    11 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, in view of the

    12 fact that the document is relevant in content for the

    13 questions we are discussing, and also due to the fact

    14 that Dr. Gow has among others reviewed this document,

    15 and from the standpoint of the relevance of this

    16 document that we should know which are the troops

    17 subordinated to Tactical Group 1, I would ask that this

    18 exhibit be admitted into evidence, as a defence

    19 exhibit.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose you can, but

    21 not on the ground that Dr. Gow has reviewed it, because

    22 he has done nothing of the sort. May I be following

    23 you in interpreting it as you went along? It does not

    24 originate from him.

    25 JUDGE JAN: ... and you have to cross it also

  97. 1 before you can get in the evidence. Who prepared this

    2 document and when was it prepared? It bears some sort

    3 of a seal on the original, but whose document is it?

    4 You already asked him to comment on it. Is it proven?

    5 MS. RESIDOVIC: It is a document --

    6 JUDGE JAN: You have to show provenance.

    7 You have to show us, from where does the document come,

    8 who prepared it and when was it prepared?

    9 MS. RESIDOVIC: It is an official document of

    10 the IV Corps of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As

    11 far as I am able to recognise the signature, it is

    12 signed by Brigadier Mustafa Polutak --

    13 MR. NIEMANN: I object if --

    14 JUDGE JAN: The IV Corps was formed some

    15 time in November, so this document must have been

    16 prepared in November 1992. You are talking about the

    17 composition of the November 1992. What corps? If

    18 I remember correctly was formed some time in November

    19 1992. This document comes from that corps, it must

    20 have been prepared after November 1992. It shows the

    21 composition then, not on the day it appeared, when we

    22 are talking about.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually you do not

    24 give evidence of --

    25 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, may I answer?

  98. 1 On the basis of the Defence investigation, on the basis

    2 of the official request of the Defence in 1996,

    3 addressed to the IV Corps, which has inherited all the

    4 units from the area in which the tactical group

    5 operated. The Defence received this document

    6 officially, as a structure of the IV Corps and in 1996

    7 this document, together with official explanations, was

    8 given to the Prosecution, and during the interview with

    9 Mr. Delalic on 23rd August in Scheveningen was used by

    10 the Prosecutor during that interview. Therefore, the

    11 document was drafted in 1996, according to the

    12 documentation of the IV Corps, but it relates to the

    13 situation in 1992.

    14 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honour, might I...

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually the problem is

    16 how does this witness tender it. You could not tender

    17 it through him, from all you have even said.

    18 MS. RESIDOVIC: On the basis of the fact that

    19 this witness has analysed all the documents, including

    20 the interview in Scheveningen in which Delalic

    21 commented on this document in the presence of the

    22 Prosecutor, and that this was one of a series of

    23 documents that he reviewed in forming an opinion, and

    24 I am tendering it because of its relevance for the

    25 question we are discussing.

  99. 1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: -- opinion. He said

    2 that he did not do so.

    3 MS. RESIDOVIC: If you will not admit it, the

    4 only thing I can do is to continue with my

    5 cross-examination of Dr. Gow.

    6 JUDGE JAN: You can prove it is part of your

    7 defence document later on telling us from which source

    8 it comes and you can prove it, not that we are going to

    9 throw it out like this. You can prove it. It will be

    10 open to you when your defence case starts to prove this

    11 document from the records of the IV Corps. -- to speak

    12 about the authenticity of this document.

    13 MS. RESIDOVIC: I am very glad that we have

    14 come back to the question of authenticity because it

    15 seems to me that there was a period of time when much

    16 of the evidence was admitted on the basis of relevance,

    17 but I abide by your decision, and if the Defence is in

    18 that situation, it will prove this document, but

    19 I certainly hope that my client will not need that.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually it is not lost

    21 to you. You can always tender it through your own

    22 witness. It would be easy.

    23 MS. RESIDOVIC: I understand that, your

    24 Honours. I am hoping that we will not need any

    25 witnesses of our own.

  100. 1 Dr. Gow, I should now like to ask you to try

    2 and bring to a close this conversation, and to ask you,

    3 would you agree with me that the municipal staffs of

    4 Territorial Defence and the corps later on, also formed

    5 tactical groups for the execution of certain occasional

    6 tactical combat tasks?

    7 A. I am not sure what you have in mind in posing

    8 that particular question. I can provide two answers

    9 relevant to how I understand something, but I am not

    10 sure what it is to understand.

    11 The first is, as we have discussed several

    12 times, tactical groups were formed and at one stage the

    13 unusual step was taken of transforming a tactical group

    14 from the conventional understanding of

    15 specifically-assigned units for specific tasks to being

    16 all units for a particular area, and the way I read

    17 this in terms of the formation of the army of Bosnia

    18 and Herzegovina is that --

    19 Q. I apologise, but I think that you did not

    20 understand my question well. I know what you said in

    21 that connection during the examination-in-chief. I do

    22 apologise, but my question is, are you aware that the

    23 municipal staffs, later on brigades and corps, also

    24 according to your knowledge, did form tactical groups

    25 for certain specific combat assignments. Are you aware

  101. 1 of that or not?

    2 A. Well, coming to the second part of what I was

    3 going to say, I said there were two interpretations

    4 I could put. The second would be --

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Excuse me, please, why

    6 do you not take the questions as they are asked? Are

    7 you aware of the fact that local forces formed tactical

    8 groups?

    9 A. Your Honour, I was merely indicating that

    10 that is what I was proceeding to do, which is to say

    11 that it would be perfectly normal, again, for tactical

    12 units specifically to be formed for specific tactical

    13 purposes, and that I am aware that at later stages,

    14 both tactical groups and operational groups were

    15 formed.

    16 JUDGE JAN: Tactical groups and operational

    17 groups are the same, are they not? Most generally.

    18 Whenever a task is given to a particular group, it

    19 operates to achieve that objective.

    20 A. If I may, your Honour --

    21 JUDGE JAN: Generally.

    22 A. If I may, your Honour, within general

    23 military thinking, it is possible to conceive of

    24 action, an activity at a strategic level, or even at

    25 a grand strategic level, or at a strategic level, at

  102. 1 the operational level and at the tactical level. The

    2 three levels connote the degree to which you are

    3 working to a specific localised objective. When we are

    4 talking about tactical groups, we are talking about

    5 small groups, perhaps in this case comprising up to

    6 five components, possibly up to brigade size, and if

    7 you are talking at an operational level then you are

    8 talking about a much larger-scale operation over

    9 a wider spread of territory and involving a much larger

    10 number of units, so I think, I mean, what I am making

    11 the distinction of saying is that yes, both are

    12 designed to meet specific needs, but the level at which

    13 you are discussing things is different. So the

    14 tactical level would be specifically more or less

    15 local, an operational group would have a much broader

    16 range of operations. I hope that is clear. I am not

    17 sure... thanks.

    18 MS. RESIDOVIC: I should like to ask you,

    19 Dr. Gow, if you could answer very clearly, my question.

    20 Are you aware that in that period, that is between

    21 April and November 1992, on the basis of your

    22 knowledge, that the municipal staffs and the brigades

    23 and later corps when they were formed, also formed

    24 tactical groups for the execution of specific combat

    25 tasks. Are you aware of that?

  103. 1 A. Concretely I am aware of the formation of the

    2 tactical groups 1 and 2 which we have discussed

    3 previously. I am not aware of any specific formations

    4 of tactical groups which municipal -- at a municipal

    5 level. I would be surprised other than in a very

    6 narrow sense that that would happen, but I would not

    7 exclude the possibility.

    8 Q. You just mentioned Tactical Group II.

    9 Tactical Group II was also formed by the main staff of

    10 the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina with the

    11 same assignment as for Tactical Group I. Is that

    12 correct?

    13 A. That is my understanding.

    14 Q. You know that that tactical group was also

    15 active in the area of Igman, Hadzici, Pazaric and

    16 Trnovo. Are you aware of that?

    17 A. I am.

    18 Q. You also know that the area of Hadzici and

    19 Trnovo was an area which, before the war, and in the

    20 initial stages of the war, belonged to the district

    21 staff of Sarajevo.

    22 A. I cannot say I know, I would have to check,

    23 but I am prepared to accept it.

    24 Q. Later, when the I Corps was formed, this was

    25 an area that came under the responsibility of the

  104. 1 I Corps of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, did it

    2 not?

    3 A. In principle, yes. I would have to check all

    4 the places again, but yes. It is that area.

    5 MS. RESIDOVIC: In view of the previous

    6 question that I put to you I should like the witness to

    7 be shown an Exhibit D125/A/1.

    8 In view of the fact that it is an exhibit

    9 that has already been admitted into evidence, and that

    10 it is an exhibit of the Prosecution, I assume that in

    11 the selection of documents given to you by the OTP you

    12 also were able to review this document.

    13 A. My first rule is always, "assume nothing",

    14 but anyway...

    15 Q. Have you seen this document before, Dr. Gow?

    16 A. I cannot say for sure. I mean, I presume,

    17 again, in the mountain of documents, I may well have

    18 looked at it as I have been going through, but again it

    19 is not one to which I have paid a great deal of

    20 attention or upon which I have sought to rely for

    21 anything.

    22 Q. In view of the fact that this is an exhibit

    23 tendered into evidence, you can see that it is

    24 a document issued on the 25th June 1992 by the army

    25 staff of Konjic, and that it is signed by the commander

  105. 1 of the municipal staff, Esad Ramic. Is that not so?

    2 A. That appears to be the case, yes.

    3 Q. And when you look at the contents you are

    4 able to infer from it that the municipal staff formed

    5 as many as five tactical groups for the conduct of

    6 battle in the direction of the Boras Lake and on the

    7 basis of an order by the republican commander of the

    8 army of the 18th June 1992.

    9 A. I see that the circulation list includes

    10 coordinators, an interesting use of word, of five

    11 tactical groups within this area. I am not entirely

    12 clear to what the document refers, because it is quite

    13 clearly outside the framework of the tactical groups

    14 organised to which we have made reference earlier,

    15 Tactical Group I and Tactical Group II for the specific

    16 operations, although it seems to relate to the same

    17 kinds of operations.

    18 Q. I think that you were clear. This is quite

    19 different because it relates to a previous period, and

    20 in an area east of Konjic towards the mountain of Pren

    21 and the Boracko Lake. This operation is obviously

    22 being conducted by the municipal staff.

    23 My question was simply for you to confirm

    24 that the municipal staff in the conduct of these

    25 operations did form tactical groups itself for specific

  106. 1 tasks, and that is, I think, what we can adduce from

    2 this document.

    3 A. I would be prepared to agree that the

    4 document designates five tactical groups, presumably

    5 under the command of the Konjic army headquarters, in

    6 which the circulation goes to coordinator and the

    7 coordinators of the tactical groups which, in the

    8 context of this and in fact of our earlier discussions

    9 must be taken to mean people who are regarded as having

    10 command responsibility in those situations, but I would

    11 note that the date, 25th June 1992 is also in the

    12 period that Tactical Group I has already been formed

    13 and I think by then Tactical Group II on the larger

    14 scale we have been talking about so it is not an

    15 earlier period. It is within the same period, so

    16 I think we can be clear, yes, the designation is used,

    17 the term, "coordinator", is used for those people

    18 charged with responsibility for them; again, a flexible

    19 situation but it is in the same period.

    20 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you. This document can

    21 be returned to the Registry.

    22 Finally, Dr. Gow, before I thank you, I should

    23 like you to confirm my conclusions from this very

    24 fatiguing testimony for you, I am sure.

    25 You have actually based your opinion on

  107. 1 Konjic on general knowledge of the circumstances, and

    2 the documents given to you by the Office of the

    3 Prosecutor in preparation for this testimony. Is that

    4 so?

    5 A. I think I have said many times, I have based

    6 it -- I bring my general understanding and expertise to

    7 bear and in reviewing documents, I select those which

    8 it seems to me add to the understanding regarding

    9 Konjic, and where that marries with the general

    10 expertise, but I think I said a long time ago at the

    11 beginning of the evidence I skimmed many, many

    12 documents but I could not possibly -- I could not say

    13 I have examined all of them in detail, I just looked

    14 through to try and find things which were useful.

    15 Q. And as my final point, you personally did not

    16 do any kind of research in Konjic, nor did you verify

    17 the authenticity of the documents that you saw.

    18 A. I think I have confirmed that I do not think

    19 I have ever been to Konjic. If I did pass through

    20 sometime, I did not realise that I was doing so, and

    21 that I think I said also that I did not personally

    22 verify documents. I did not see it as my

    23 responsibility to verify documents. I used documents

    24 on the basis either that they have already been

    25 accepted or, as I have said on other occasions, that

  108. 1 they have been evaluated by well-qualified experts on

    2 behalf of member governments for the United Nations.

    3 MS. RESIDOVIC: In any event, I wish to thank

    4 you, Dr. Gow, and if you know any of my friends, please

    5 convey my greetings when you get to London. Thank

    6 you.

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much

    8 Ms. Residovic. Any other questions from... any

    9 re-examination?

    10 Re-examined by MR. NIEMANN

    11 Q. I only have one question, your Honour.

    12 Dr. Gow, Mr. Ackerman, when he was

    13 cross-examining you, asked you a number of questions

    14 and showed you documents in relation to the withdrawal

    15 of the JNA which later became the VJ from Bosnia and

    16 Herzegovina in May of 1992. Notwithstanding those

    17 documents and what you said about this withdrawal, was

    18 there still the continued involvement of the JNA or the

    19 VJ in Bosnia and Herzegovina after May of 1992?

    20 A. There was. I believe that I have already

    21 indicated in testimony that the -- that at that initial

    22 stage JNA continued to be identified as being present

    23 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is personnel from

    24 Serbia and Montenegro who had not yet been withdrawn

    25 for some time afterwards that the whole operation of

  109. 1 the army of the Republika Srpska was, in fact,

    2 a JNA/Belgrade military operation, but by that stage,

    3 as proxies, because of this -- what is described as

    4 Communist approach of deception, so as not to be

    5 identified, the attempt to avoid being identified as

    6 Belgrade being responsible for the operations in

    7 Bosnia-Herzegovina, we made reference to the evidence

    8 from the diary of Bosislav Jovic that that decision was

    9 taken at the end of 1991 specifically with a view to

    10 a situation in which they knew they would be regarded

    11 as an external power, and trying to avoid that

    12 designation, and in addition to that, I think in

    13 evidence at other times in Tadic and in other cases

    14 I have made reference to a number of occasions where

    15 even after the formal division and in spite of this

    16 attempt to maintain the idea that there were two

    17 separate armies, a number of cases in which the VJ

    18 itself did participate, or is known to have

    19 participated, and I think this is on record, for

    20 example, the air operations in 1994 which involved

    21 personnel from Podgorica and Montenegro, the

    22 introduction of special forces from Nis and Ordica in

    23 the course of a number of actions including those at

    24 Gorazde in 1994, the insertion of reinforcement troops,

    25 perhaps as many as 4,000 through the Posafina Corridor

  110. 1 at various stages, so there are a number of instances,

    2 openly-known instances in which the VJ itself was

    3 obliged, covertly but sometimes being disclosed to

    4 contribute, and of course I would go back to the

    5 position I made reference to on Friday, the report of

    6 Ambassador Pardue, the US special representative for

    7 arms control in Bosnia in the Former Yugoslavia

    8 territories, that one of the problems with the army of

    9 the Republika Srpska is that it still has these ties

    10 to Belgrade so they are not dealing all the time with

    11 an army there but with something which is tied to

    12 Belgrade.

    13 MR. NIEMANN: No further questions, your

    14 Honour.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that is the

    16 end of the case of the Prosecution, is it?

    17 MR. NIEMANN: I was going to close the case,

    18 your Honour.

    19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is the end of your

    20 case?

    21 MR. NIEMANN: I was going to close it, yes.

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, thank you very

    23 much Dr. Gow. You have been very helpful, and I am sure

    24 the Defence also have been fairly satisfied with your

    25 answers.

  111. 1 A. I certainly hope so. It took a long time to

    2 get there.

    3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, I said, "fairly".

    4 I did not say "fully".

    5 So, we thank you very much for your

    6 assistance.

    7 (The witness withdrew)

    8 MR. NIEMANN: And, your Honour, that is the

    9 Prosecution case.

    10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Now, I think on the

    11 12th we had an undertaking from the Defence that you

    12 intend to make a submission, and that within three days

    13 of the close of the Prosecution case -- do you still

    14 abide by that promise?

    15 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, we would like to

    16 be able to file by 1 o'clock on Friday, if that would

    17 be okay with the Trial Chamber and in line with that

    18 that adds maybe a half a day to what we had in mind,

    19 but it appears now that we need it.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think the Prosecution

    21 will not grudge you even if you file it on that day.

    22 MR. ACKERMAN: But we will file at 1 o'clock

    23 on Friday, then, that is what we will plan to do.

    24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Olujic?

    25 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, before this

  112. 1 decision is taken, the Defence of the second accused,

    2 Zdravko Mucic would like to appeal to the Trial

    3 Chamber, given the statement by Dr. Gow on Friday and

    4 today. We would like an extension of this deadline,

    5 that is until the end of the month, that is the 28th of

    6 February.

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I see Ms. Residovic

    8 wants to say something.

    9 MS. RESIDOVIC: Yes. Your Honours, but

    10 a completely different issue from the one that we

    11 just -- from the issue that we were just discussing, so

    12 maybe we should wait for your decision on this issue

    13 first and then I will indulge you to hear me out on the

    14 issue that I have to bring up.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I was relying on your

    16 undertaking to be able to file it within the week, and

    17 that is Friday the 20th. I thought that was

    18 sufficient. I did not know, even, that Dr. Gow added

    19 anything to what he would have said, even if he did not

    20 come again it would not have made much of a difference

    21 to your case. Well, I thought that you should be able

    22 to abide by that undertaking.

    23 I hear Mr. Olujic saying something different,

    24 the end of the month. That is a week after. Well,

    25 I do not know. That is a little different from what we

  113. 1 both understood.

    2 MS. RESIDOVIC: The Delalic Defence accepts

    3 the deadline of Friday, 1 pm, but I would like to ask

    4 a question on another issue. This could be my mistake,

    5 maybe not, but in preparation for the cross-examination

    6 of Dr. Gow I have looked through the exhibits proffered

    7 by the Prosecutor, including the Delalic statement from

    8 Scheveningen, the Exhibits 997 and 998 was admitted.

    9 It includes a report on the conditions in Celebici.

    10 This was introduced through Witness D, and this was

    11 admitted to the -- into evidence, but I would like to

    12 state that it is inconceivable that this exhibit should

    13 be attached, or admitted with the Delalic statement, so

    14 I want to ask that it be separated out from this

    15 exhibit. Zejnil Delalic said that he never heard or

    16 saw this person, and given the -- and this report is

    17 part of his statement given in Scheveningen, the

    18 detention unit, and this is how these documents were

    19 presented to us by the Prosecution, and we would like

    20 this particular document to be taken out of this

    21 bundle. He has never seen it. He does not know about

    22 it and this document does not belong with the Exhibits

    23 99/7 and 99/8.

    24 The other thing that I want to bring up is

    25 just a clarification on whether I understood you

  114. 1 correctly, something from the transcript, and that is

    2 that the statements of the co-accused cannot be used

    3 against the other co-accused. If this is correct

    4 I would like you to confirm it. Thank you.

    5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, I suppose there

    6 might be some confusion here, and perhaps you are not

    7 familiar with the procedure of a no-case submission.

    8 That is one other thing.

    9 It appears when you are making a no-case

    10 submission, you are arguing that no prima facie case

    11 has been made against your client for the Trial Chamber

    12 to call him to come and give his own side of the

    13 story.

    14 Now, all the arguments on that basis are

    15 arguments of law.

    16 If you have arguments based on evidence

    17 simply, simplicita, perhaps you are using a different

    18 argument, although nobody stops you arguing that you

    19 are closing your case with that of the Prosecution, if

    20 you want to do so. If you want to take the chance, and

    21 to make a submission both on law and the evidence, you

    22 can do so, and take the chance of either succeeding or

    23 failing on that and no longer going forward to give

    24 evidence, so there are two sides of it. If you are

    25 making a no-case submission, the submission is based

  115. 1 entirely on legal grounds. I think this is our

    2 understanding of a no-case submission.

    3 Now, when you start questioning the weight of

    4 evidence and other matters which are not strictly based

    5 on law, you are going beyond the ambit of a no-case

    6 submission and might not be acceptable.

    7 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I believe that

    8 we had a complete misunderstanding. Obviously I was

    9 not very clear on what I intended to say.

    10 When I say that the Defence may not find it

    11 necessary for me to give evidence, that is based on the

    12 fact that the Delalic Defence is claiming that their

    13 client is innocent, but if this request is not

    14 accepted, we will obviously call witnesses and offer

    15 evidence.

    16 What I am doing here is -- I am doing as

    17 a professional and I am following the -- what my client

    18 is telling me. However, there is -- what I have

    19 addressed here is something else. We say that there

    20 was an error made in the exhibit that were submitted

    21 here in 99/7 and 8. In other words, my client says

    22 that he has never stated things that were -- that

    23 appeared in Exhibit 99/7 and 99/8. This was later

    24 introduced through another witness, and this is an

    25 error that could be a technical error, it is something

  116. 1 that can be corrected, and this is what I was referring

    2 to when I touched on this subject, and the other thing

    3 is, whether I have understood your position correctly,

    4 because we had not received a written decision, so

    5 I need to be perfectly clear about whether you intend

    6 to use the statements of the accused against the other

    7 co-accused provided they do not appear here as

    8 witnesses.

    9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Well, as far as this

    10 Trial Chamber is concerned, I do not know what happens

    11 elsewhere, we do not give hypothetical decisions,

    12 decisions which are likely to come when, in fact, they

    13 might not even come.

    14 Now, according to our law here, what you have

    15 been doing, we have always said that the evidence of an

    16 accused person, the statement of an accused person is

    17 only evidence against himself, not against another

    18 accused person, so that even if it was tendered it has

    19 nothing to do with another accused person, except it

    20 was admitted by that accused person, and then it forms

    21 part of the statement as a whole, in which case it will

    22 apply to the other accused person.

    23 As long as you have the position which no

    24 such statement has been tendered for the purposes for

    25 which it is being -- evidence is being led, you do not

  117. 1 have any fear.

    2 So you do not expect us to give a decision

    3 against somebody who might, in future, object to it.

    4 Now, if there is any attempt to use it

    5 against another accused person, obviously you will

    6 object to it, and even if you do not, as common-law

    7 judges we will do it ourselves, because we know that it

    8 should not be evidence against the other accused

    9 person.

    10 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I have one

    11 scheduling problem I ought to bring to the court's

    12 attention, something probably more for the Registry,

    13 but as I understand the schedule that we are all agreed

    14 on, we are going to file something by 1 o'clock on

    15 Friday. The Prosecutor would then have two weeks,

    16 which would be Friday, March 6th, and we agreed that we

    17 would have a week to respond to that which would make

    18 it like, I think, March 11th -- no, Friday of the next

    19 week, in any case.

    20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: 13th.

    21 MR. MORAN: And the Trial Chamber is

    22 scheduled to meet during that week.

    23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: On the 11th and 12th we

    24 should be meeting.

    25 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour, and the

  118. 1 question I have is that if we have not completed our

    2 response to their -- our reply to their response to our

    3 submission, I do not know what we can do. It might be

    4 to everyone's advantage if we could trade off some days

    5 with another Trial Chamber.

    6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will see what we can

    7 do, whether we can find a way of you shortening your

    8 time, and coming within the period of -- we will find

    9 out something.

    10 MR. MORAN: Well, the problem I see with

    11 that, Judge, is that if they file it on March 6th,

    12 Friday, March 6th, I am not likely to have it until

    13 Monday, March 8th, have it in my hands, or March 9th,

    14 rather.

    15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, that is true.

    16 MR. MORAN: And that is --

    17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It leaves only one

    18 day.

    19 MR. MORAN: That creates a problem, so I just

    20 wanted to point that out to the court and see if we can

    21 in some amicable way solve this problem.

    22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will find a way of

    23 trying to deal with it.

    24 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, of course, your Honour,

    25 if Mr. Niemann files a week early that solves the whole

  119. 1 problem.

    2 MR. NIEMANN: I am very grateful for that

    3 suggestion.

    4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: So, hopefully, we

    5 accept these dates, except, I do not know, Mr. Olujic,

    6 are you falling in line or are you still staying the

    7 odd man out?

    8 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, we requested of

    9 you, if you could meet our needs, given the

    10 consultations that I also had with my client with

    11 regard to the -- Dr. Gow's testimony, so we will abide

    12 by your decisions anyway, because your decision is law

    13 for us.

    14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We are trying to find

    15 that everybody falls in line and facilitates the

    16 argument. It makes life easier for both the

    17 Prosecution and the Defence.

    18 I am trying to turn to the Prosecution for

    19 assistance to see if they can file two days earlier.

    20 Can you? (Pause).

    21 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honour, we have no idea

    22 what we are going to get. We have tried to anticipate

    23 what we are going to get, but for us to sort of say now

    24 yes, we can do it two days earlier is really very

    25 difficult, and all we can say is we could try, but

  120. 1 I think that we would have to find some other means of

    2 perhaps seeing whether Registry can send it over by

    3 courier or something of that nature. We might be able

    4 to accommodate and assist in that way, but at this

    5 stage, we just cannot say.

    6 JUDGE JAN: You have got a very able team!

    7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think, let us remain

    8 in constant consultation.

    9 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour.

    10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: So that whatever

    11 happens, we know how to adjust it. So let us keep the

    12 date as it is, and remain in constant consultation to

    13 be able to arrange it. So thank you very much.

    14 I think we are on our first lap. The Trial Chamber

    15 will now adjourn.

    16 (3.50 pm)

    17 (Hearing adjourned)